The Authenticity of the Elihu Speeches in Job 32-37

By Larry J. Waters

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

A unique perspective on the dilemma and suffering of Job is presented in Job 32–37 by a man named Elihu.[1] These six chapters, covering five separate speeches[2] attributed to this young “wise man,” seem to hold an exceptionally important position in the overall argument of the book, specifically in understanding Job’s struggle with undeserved suffering. If the speeches in these six chapters are not deemed authentic, their contribution to the subject of Job’s suffering and the overall argument of the book is in question.

However, if it can be demonstrated that Elihu’s speeches are genuine and that their place in the Book of Job is integral, then the reader may confidently conclude that the message Elihu offered is applicable to the purpose and argument of the book. It is important to deal with the question of the genuineness of Elihu’s speeches because of (a) the extent of the textual material that is allotted to Elihu (in comparison to the four chapters assigned to Eliphaz, the three to Bildad, and the two to Zophar), (b) the placement of the Elihu speeches in the book, and (c) the reaction the speeches have drawn from critical circles on the question of authenticity.

Opponents of Elihu’s Authenticity

Before the nineteenth century both Jewish and Christian scholars held a number of differing opinions on the Elihu speeches.[3] The negative opinions suggested that Elihu was a figure inspired by Satan,[4] or that he was a false prophet like Balaam.[5] By the end of the eighteenth century the structure and authenticity of the Elihu speeches were still the focus of diverse opinions. Elihu, his speeches, and his importance suffered severely at the hands of critics.[6] In the nineteenth century Stuhlmann, whose evaluation was based on the sudden appearance and subsequent disappearance of Elihu in the book, was the first to suggest that the speeches of Elihu were a later addition.[7] He was followed by Ewald in 1836 and a considerable number of scholars after him.[8] Stuhlmann, however, set the stage for research that culminated with a thorough and influential critical analysis by Nichols in 1911.

Nichols approached the Elihu speeches largely from the standpoint of authenticity. She cited over forty authors from Stuhlmann to Peake, who considered them secondary additions, and twenty-seven others from Jahn to Posselt, who defended the speeches as part of the original work.[9] Even Nichols, who did not accept the Elihu speeches as original to the poem, admitted that “those who have defended Elihu in the critical debate have usually found in his words the positive solution of the problem [of Job’s suffering], which the poem without them fails to give, and a preparation for the Theophany.”[10] In regard to recent investigations “it would be fair to say that the studies of Job 32–37 since Nichols have also been chiefly dominated by this issue of their relationship to the rest of the book.”[11]

Janzen lists four objections to the authenticity of the speeches. ”(1) Elihu is mentioned nowhere else, not even in the epilogue, his long speeches interrupt the continuity between chapters 31 and 38, and he contributes little if anything to the content or dramatic movement of the book; (2) the literary style is diffuse and pretentious, inferior to that of the rest of the book; (3) the linguistic usage differs from that in the rest of the poetry; and (4) the speeches offer an alternative resolution to Job’s problem from that of the (baffling) divine speeches.”[12]

Although Janzen views the speeches of Elihu as taxing on the reader, he states that “the Elihu speeches present no critical problem,” and he sees “no cogent reason to view them as other than integral to the book.”[13] In addition to the objections summarized by Janzen, other scholars maintain an intermediate position by holding to one original author who made an addition to his book in later life.[14] Others do not reject the authenticity of the Elihu speeches but simply maintain either that they are a later addition by an unknown author,[15] or that they are a compilation by a later author, editor, or series of editors.[16]

Once the authenticity or position of the speeches of Elihu was doubted, it seemed only logical that the next critical step was to dissect them,[17] rearrange their position,[18] or reject all or portions of the speeches outright.[19] Form-critical studies often involve a reorganization of the text to conform to a particular subjective and reasonably consistent structural pattern. The result is that insufficient attention is given to the uniqueness of Elihu’s individual speeches and their importance to the theological argument of the book especially in regard to suffering. In fact, the critical approach seems to neglect the positive contributions of stylistic and poetic analysis in marking structural patterns within Elihu’s speeches.[20] For instance Buttenwieser,[21] Pope,[22] Stier,[23] and Nairne[24] hold that the speeches are identical or similar to the views of the three antagonists, adding little or nothing to the argument regarding Job’s suffering. Nichols and Rowley suggest that Elihu offered a solution for suffering that is irrelevant to Job’s relationship with God and that does not address the initial cause for Job’s suffering.[25]

Advocates of Elihu’s Authenticity

A number of scholars defend the speeches of Elihu as an original part of the composition of the Book of Job. Early positive opinions considered Elihu as exalted above Job and his friends, or the representative of the authentic Jewish view of providence,[26] or as an antitype of Christ.[27] Early church historians and the Reformers generally accepted the authenticity of Elihu’s speeches.[28] John Calvin was extremely complimentary toward Elihu for “there are few people in the Bible Calvin admires more.”[29] In reaction to the early nineteenth century opposition, Rosenmüller and Umbreit, as well as other early conservatives like Stickel[30] and Deutsch,[31] were among the first to maintain Elihu’s authenticity.[32] Cornill refers to the Elihu speeches as “the summit and crown of the Book of Job,” and says they provide the only solution to the problem of suffering.33 Godet calls the speeches “an indispensable feature” of the book,[34] and Marshall puts them “on an immeasurably higher plane than the dialogue.”[35] More recent conservative advocates of the authenticity of the Elihu speeches include Young,[36] Harrison,[37] Bullock,[38] Archer,[39] and Zuck.[40] These are joined by other scholars who defend Elihu’s authenticity, viewing his speeches as primary to the Book of Job and to a proper understanding of the problem of suffering.[41] These scholars also include McKay who sees the Elihu speeches as pivotal to the other chapters of the Book of Job, providing a bridge between Job’s conversations and God’s speeches.[42] As noted earlier, both Diewert[43] and Bakon[44] hold to the importance and integrity of the speeches. Beeby argues for authenticity and sees Elihu as a mediator whose main function was prophetic, much like that of Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Jeremiah, and Isaiah.[45] Carstensen also argues that Elihu is important in that he exercised a mediatorial function in his approach to Job (33:23; cf. 33:7, 31–33; 36:2).[46] Johns has made a well-supported investigation, concluding that “Elihu does play significant literary and theological roles” in the Book of Job.[47] Also Hofman demonstrates that in the “present text of Job two artistic features are so clearly and persistently manifested, that there can be no doubt as to their immanency and authenticity.”[48] Miller insists that Elihu “does indeed carry the insights of the book above that of the dialogue.”[49] Interestingly a counselor and an educator both accept the authenticity of the Elihu speeches and find great value in their pastoral significance and guidelines for theological teaching.[50] Steinmann inadvertently makes a case for chapters 32–37 being authentic and an original part of the text by comparing the four numerical sayings in the Book of Job, two of which are found in the Elihu speeches (33:14, 29).[51]

Posselt, Gray, and Staples made independent studies of the language especially in vocabulary, names of God, and Aramaisms in Job.[52] Snaith answers these with his own investigation. His study criticized Gray’s conclusions concerning the five areas Gray suggested are noticeable differences between the Elihu speeches and the rest of the book: (a) unusual prepositions and suffixes, (b) the use of the divine names, (c) first-person pronouns, (d) Aramaisms, and (e) unique expressions.[53] Regarding Aramaisms, which are often a major focus of opposition to the authenticity of Job 32–37, Snaith concludes that the book contains virtually no true Aramaisms. Furthermore he sees no significant degree of variation in prepositions and suffixes, the use of divine names, first-person pronouns, or unique expressions in the Elihu speeches to support the theory of a separate author for those chapters.[54]

Also Gordis is an advocate of the unity of the book.[55] He accepts a single author for the book, although he says the original author wrote the Elihu section “at a later period in his life.”[56] Gordis asserts that the Elihu speeches are similar in style to the dialogue and that the different names of God, the pronouns, the grammatical forms, and other elements in the speeches are not out of proportion with the rest of the book. He agrees with Snaith that they do not contain an excessive number of Aramaisms or rare words.[57] He finds fewer here than in other sections of the book. He also views the citation by Elihu of arguments already expressed by Job’s friends as further support for the authenticity of this section, since the use of quotations is common practice in wisdom literature. Gordis concludes that the Elihu speeches make a significant contribution to the essence of the book,[58] and he provides support for the view that the speeches were composed by the book’s original author.

Several authors also maintain that the Elihu speeches add to the argument of the book in regard to Job’s suffering. Budde, Cornill, and Dubarle see Elihu’s view of suffering as central to the book, pointing out that suffering warns a person of the hidden sin of pride.[59] Posselt suggests that Elihu offers a theological solution to suffering, namely, purification.[60] Snaith says Elihu’s concept of a gracious, compassionate intercessor is a contribution to the problem of suffering.[61] Peters and Dennefeld both recognize Elihu’s observation that Job was guilty of presumptuous speech and lack of humility, while Dubarle and Staples both say Elihu pointed to Job’s wrong attitude, but did not condemn him for any specific acts of evil, as did the three antagonists.[62]

Answers to Objections to the Authenticity of the Eluhu Speeches

Regarding the criticisms that Elihu is mentioned nowhere else in the Book of Job, not even in the epilogue, that his long speeches seem to interrupt the continuity between chapters 31 and 38, and that he seems to have contributed little if anything to the content or dramatic movement of the book, this investigation counters with the following observations.

First, it would seem unlikely that Elihu would be mentioned in the prologue (chaps. 1–2) since Yahweh, Satan, and Job are the major focus of those chapters. Neither the wife nor the three counselors are mentioned until chapter 2.

Second, it would also seem unlikely that a young bystander would interrupt the serious discussions found in the dialogue (chaps. 3–31) between three elderly “wise men” and a prominent Near Eastern sovereign. Elihu was led into the conversation by his frustration with the inadequate answers offered by the three spokesmen to Job’s dilemma and was constrained to speak, as the text suggests, by the Spirit (33:4).

Third, neither the three friends, the wife, Satan, nor Elihu is mentioned in chapters 38–41 since God and Job are the focus.[63]

Fourth, the epilogue is reserved primarily for Job’s response to the speeches of Yahweh and to Yahweh’s response to Job’s repentance. The epilogue also voices a condemnation of the false representation of Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. Elihu’s absence from the condemnation can be explained by Yahweh’s own words, “After the LORD had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, ‘I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has’ ” (42:7, NIV). Yahweh’s anger was not extended to Elihu, and although it is an argument from silence, the implication is that if Elihu had been in full agreement with the three, then he would have been equally condemned. Elihu claimed to give a different message from that of the three and either he did or he did not (32:14). The implication from God’s silence concerning Elihu is that he did. Therefore there is no need for Job to have offered sacrifices on Elihu’s behalf as he did for the three, for Elihu had not misrepresented Yahweh.

Furthermore it was not necessary for Yahweh to praise Elihu,[64] because the speeches of Yahweh, the response of Job, and the correction of the three suggest strongly that Elihu was correct and that his speeches were compatible with those of Yahweh. It is therefore not surprising that God was silent with regard to Elihu. It might also be noted that Job’s wife and Satan are absent from the epilogue. Since the wife’s statement was countered originally and finally by Job’s faith, and since Satan’s accusation was proved invalid by Job’s response in 42:1–6, there seems to be no reason for further mention of either Job’s wife or Satan.

Concerning the second criticism-that the literary style[65] is diffuse and pretentious, inferior[66] to that of the rest of the book-it can be demonstrated that the basis for this criticism sometimes rests in the presuppositions the reader brings to the text. For instance a modern reading of Job 32–33 is that these are the pretentious words of an arrogant young fool.[67] Yet Elihu approached Job and the three antagonists in the manner required by ancient Near Eastern custom. As to the literary style of the Elihu speeches, Budde, Gordis, Snaith, Zuck, and others present adequate explanations. Basically they conclude that a change in authors is not a definitive answer to Elihu’s vocabulary and other literary differences in his speeches. Furthermore, if Elihu is a new character with a youthful personality, different vocabulary would naturally be expected. The wide and varied critical theories mentioned above seem subjective;[68] they are not a convincing argument for a change of authorship nor for the manipulation or mutilation of the existing text.

With regard to the observation that linguistic usage seems to differ greatly from that of the rest of the poetry of the book, recent studies have demonstrated that these differences are not as extensive as previously thought. Diewert, Gordis, Johns, McCabe, Snaith, and others have suggested equally compelling arguments that support strong similarities in form throughout the existing text. In addition, Elihu’s speeches contain interaction with and deductions from the quotations of Job’s statements (33:8–11, 13; 34:5–6, 9; 35:2–3). Elihu used summaries and quotations to refute several of Job’s claims; therefore a new methodology is introduced: quotation, refutation, and defense. This means that much of what Elihu said corresponds to the words of Job in the preceding chapters.[69] Elihu also dealt with the same subjects and addressed the same issues as Job and the three counselors, but he stressed God’s majesty and justice more than any of them. This could explain Elihu’s frequent use of ל.

The charge that the speeches seem “to offer an alternative resolution to Job’s problem from that of the (baffling) divine speeches”[70] begs the question. This statement assumes that there is a wide difference between the resolution offered by Elihu and that offered by Yahweh. Actually several similarities exist between the speeches by Elihu and those by God.[71]

Possibly the most judicious of the arguments in favor of the authenticity of the Elihu speeches is suggested by Carson, who posits that breaking the book up, as “such source theories [suggest], even if right, [does] not solve the theological problem: the book as we have it stands or falls as a literary whole, for that is the only form in which it has come down to us.”[72] This is supported by Michel, who states that “the tradition has never known a book of Job without the Elihu speeches.”[73] Also Smick concludes that “it is just as satisfactory to work with the text as it is” for “there is as much reason to believe that the book, substantially as we have it, was the work of a single literary and theological genius as it is to assume it is the product of numerous hands often with contrary purposes.”[74]

Conclusion

Having demonstrated that the major objections to the Elihu speeches’ authenticity can be positively answered, confidence in his contribution to the argument of the book can be established. Therefore one can assume not only that chapters 32–37 of the Book of Job are structurally, theologically, stylistically, and linguistically an original, genuine part of the text, but also that they play a significant interpretive, explanatory, and theological role in understanding Job’s suffering and his relationship with Yahweh.

Notes

1. The proper name אֱלִיהוּא means “He is my God” or “My God is He.” The latter is adopted by E. W. Bullinger (The Book of Job [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1990], 161). Elihu is similar to the name Elijah, “Yahweh is my God.” Elihu’s name bears witness to ל as the highest God. Elihu’s name may even be “an expression of his theological program”: It is Yahweh who speaks through his speeches. Wisdom says that as it turned out, “the message epitomized in his name became an integral part of Elihu’s message to Job (e.g., 33:12–13; 34:18–19, 23, 31–32; 35:2–11; 36:26; 37:22–24)” (Thurman Wisdom, “The Message of Elihu: Job 32–37, ” Biblical Viewpoint 21 [1987]: 29). Elihu’s identity is also connected with three other names, Barachel, Buz, and Ram. Elihu is therefore the only character in the book with a recorded genealogy, which “may point to his aristocratic heritage” (Robert L. Alden, Job, New American Commentary [Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1993], 316; also see David McKenna, Job [Dallas, TX: Word, 1982], 225).
2. Job 32:6–22; 33:1–33; 34:2–37; 35:2–16; 36:2–37:24. Scholars differ in their opinion on the division of the speeches. For a detailed representation of this five-part division see David Allen Diewert, “The Composition of the Elihu Speeches: A Poetic and Structural Analysis” (Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1991), 576–79.
3. Although a full examination of this question cannot be presented beyond the needs of the topic here, three thorough investigations have been made: 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), 1–36; David Arvid Johns, “The Literary and Theological Function of the Elihu Speeches in the Book of Job” (Ph.D. diss., Saint Louis University, 1983), 1–9; and Diewert, “The Composition of the Elihu Speeches: A Poetic and Structural Analysis,” 1–23). Also see Helen Hawley Nichols, “The Composition of the Elihu Speeches (Job Chaps. 32–37),” American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 27 (January 1911): 97-186.
4. Testament of Job 41:5; 42:2; 43:4–17. See R. P. Spittler, “Testament of Job,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), 1:861–63.
5. Otto Zöckler, “The Book of Job,” in Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, ed. John Peter Lange (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960), 562–63.
6. For example J. G. Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Göttingen: Rosenbusch, 1780–1783), 3:630.
7. Matthias H. Stuhlmann, Hiob, ein religiöses Gedicht aus dem Hebräischen neu übersetzt, geprüft und erläutert (Hamburg: Friedrich Perthes, 1804), 14–24, 40–44.
8. Heinrich Ewald, Commentary on the Book of Job, trans. J. Smith (Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1882).
9. Nichols, “The Composition of the Elihu Speeches (Job Chaps. 32–37),” 99–103. Also see Arthur S. Peake, Job: Introduction, Revised Version with Notes and Index, Century Bible (Edinburgh: Clark and Jack, 1904); Johann Jahn, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (n.p., n.d., cited in Nichols, “The Composition of the Elihu Speeches (Job Chaps. 32–37),” 99; and Wenzel Posselt, “Der Verfasser der Elihu-Reden,” Biblische Studien (Freiburg) 14 (1909): 1-111.
10. Nichols, “The Composition of the Elihu Speeches (Job Chaps. 32–37),” 101.
11. Diewert, “The Composition of the Elihu Speeches: A Poetic and Structural Analysis,” 4. Also see McCabe, “The Significance of the Elihu Speeches in the Context of the Book of Job,” 1–36; Norman C. Habel, “The Role of Elihu in the Design of the Book of Job,” in In the Shelter of Elyon, ed. W. Boyd Barrick and John R. Spencer (Sheffield: JSOT, 1984); and Johns, “The Literary and Theological Function of the Elihu Speeches in the Book of Job,” 7–9.
12. J. Gerald Janzen, Job, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Atlanta: Knox, 1985), 217–18. Cf. Johns, “The Literary and Theological Function of the Elihu Speeches in the Book of Job,” 2. William T. Davidson gives three similar reasons why many commentators reject Job 32–37 as original to the text of Job and he also states that the Elihu speeches confuse rather than clarify the poem (The Wisdom-Literature of the Old Testament [London: Kelly, 1900], 52). Also see John Briggs Curtis, “Why Were the Elihu Speeches Added to the Book of Job?” Proceedings 8 (1988): 93-99; and Robert Gordis, “Elihu the Intruder,” in Biblical and Other Studies, ed. Alexander Altmann (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), 60–78. Zöckler, after citing nine different arguments, which he attempted to refute, finally accepted the Elihu speeches as secondary, describing the linguistic argument as “the most weighty of all” (“The Book of Job,” 272).
13. Janzen, Job, 218.
14. Diewert, “The Composition of the Elihu Speeches: A Poetic and Structural Analysis,” 4. This intermediate position has been recently advocated by Norman H. Snaith (The Book of Job: Its Origin and Purpose, Studies in Biblical Theology [London: SCM, 1968], 72–91) and Gordis (“Elihu the Intruder,” 60–78). Gordis suggests that the original author/poet added Elihu and his insight on moral discipline as one solution to the problem of suffering (The Book of God and Man: A Study of Job [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965], 110–16; cf. idem, The Book of Job [New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1978], 548–53).
15. See comments by Johns, “The Literary and Theological Function of the Elihu Speeches in the Book of Job,” 4–5.
16. Rowley sees the Book of Job as canonical without the Elihu speeches (H. H. Rowley, The Book of Job, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976], 13:206). Nichols says two authors were involved in the Elihu speeches (“The Composition of the Elihu Speeches [Job Chaps. 32–37],” 116–22). Nichols’s inquiry into the “composition” of the Elihu speeches is primarily a source-critical analysis, and in this she stands in the tradition of Julius Wellhausen. According to Diewert, Nichols’s main theory is that the speeches, as they presently exist, are two different works, each constituting reactions to Job and his theology. Nichols’s faith in the testimony of the Septuagint is the basis for her theory (Diewert, “The Composition of the Elihu Speeches: A Poetic and Structural Analysis,” 19). Jastrow and Irwin see four authors at work in the Book of Job (Morris Jastrow, The Book of Job: Its Origin, Growth and Interpretation [Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1920], 77–82); William A. Irwin, “The Elihu Speeches in the Criticism of the Book of Job,” Journal of Religion 17 [January 1937]: 37-47). Samuel Terrien holds that the Elihu section was written by a different author. But unlike those above, Terrien says Elihu is essential to the book and is beneficial as a contribution to an understanding of Job’s suffering; he says it is an “educational and revelatory process.” He also sees Elihu as preparatory to the Yahweh speeches (Job: Poet of Existence [New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1957], 189–90). See also Westermann, The Structure of the Book of Job: A Form-Critical Analysis (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 139.
17. Moses Buttenwieser, The Book of Job (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1922), 77–86, 162–67, 347–57. For instance Buttenwieser reduced the Elihu speeches from 165 to 72 verses, half of which contain Elihu’s self-introduction.
18. David Noel Freedman suggests that Elihu’s speeches were added to “refute or counterbalance a speech or assertion of Job, and to be placed in juxtaposition with it” (“The Elihu Speeches in the Book of Job: A Hypothetical Episode in the Literary History of the Work,” Harvard Theological Review 61 [January 1968]: 52-59). In other words Freedman proposes that the speeches of Elihu were originally intended to be inserted at various points in the earlier dialogue to refute a specific discourse or assertion of Job, but somehow failed to be inserted. Gary W. Martin, who accepts Freedman’s basic thesis, gives a “Table of Proposed Reconstruction of Elihu’s Responses to the Three Cycles of Discourse” and says the speeches need to be rearranged (“Elihu and the Third Cycle in the Book of Job” [Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1972], 108). Pages 248–60 of Martin’s dissertation are filled with various proposals for dissecting and rearranging the first thirty-one chapters of the Book of Job. Most of his efforts focus on placing thirteen “fragments” from chapters 24–27 into chapters 32–37 and seeking to determine the original order of the speeches. Smick points out that Pope holds to a theory that the author deliberately scrambled the material to confuse the picture (Elmer B. Smick, “Job,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988], 4:845; and Marvin Pope, Job, Anchor Bible [Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1973], xxiii-xxx).
19. Some writers simply regard Job 32–37 as insignificant and counterfeit and do not accept them as part of the original text. Examples include Archibald MacLeish, J. B. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1986); Stephen Mitchell, The Book of Job (New York: Harper Perennial, 1992); and Luis Alonso Schökel, “Toward a Dramatic Reading of the Book of Job,” Semeia 7 (1977): 45-61. Schökel eliminates the Elihu section completely.
20. Diewert observes that “inevitably the monologue is reduced to or at least limited to those passages where Elihu seems to be saying something novel, while the majority of the discourse is passed over as a virtual restatement of the position of the friends. There have been very few serious students of these speeches which treat them as a whole and deal with their content evenly throughout, paying attention to the argument in its entirety. Judgments concerning the contribution of ES [Elihu’s Speeches] to the Joban poem can only carry weight when they take into account every element of Elihu’s monologue and the function of each part in the argument as a whole” (Diewert, “The Composition of the Elihu Speeches: A Poetic and Structural Analysis,” 18).
21. Buttenwieser, The Book of Job, 85.
22. Pope, Job, xxvi.
23. Fridolin Stier, Das Buch Ijob hebräisch und deutsch (Munich: Kösel, 1954), 240–41.
24. Alexander Nairne, The Book of Job, Edited with an Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935), xv.
25. See Nichols, “The Composition of the Elihu Speeches (Job Chaps. 32–37),” 108; and Rowley, The Book of Job, 206.
26. Moses Maimonides, Guide to the Perplexed, trans. M. Friedlander (New York: Dover, n.d.), 296. Maimonides lived from a.d. 1135 to 1204. See also Solmon B. Freehof, Book of Job: A Commentary, Jewish Commentary for Bible Readers (New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1958), 205. Freehof states that this was the view of Abraham ibn Ezra. Also see a similar view in Jacob S. Lavinger, “Maimonides’ Exegesis of the Book of Job,” in Creative Biblical Exegesis: Christian and Jewish Hermeneutics through the Centuries, ed. Benjamin Uffenheimer and Henning G. Reventlow, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 59 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1988), 81–88. See also Israel J. Gerber, Job on Trial: A Book for Our Time (Gastonia, NC: E. P. Press, 1982), 104–39; Diewert, “The Composition of the Elihu Speeches: A Poetic and Structural Analysis,” 3; and Shimon Bakon, “The Enigma of Elihu,” Dor le Dor 12 (1984): 221.
27. Diewert simply states this as one view (“The Composition of the Elihu Speeches: A Poetic and Structural Analysis,” 3).
28. Although they accepted his authenticity, they were not always complimentary to Elihu. Gregory, for instance, argued that Elihu was orthodox in his teaching but guilty of pride. Thomas Aquinas believed that Elihu’s knowledge was superior to the opinion of the other friends but that he was moved by “vainglory” so that he misinterpreted Job’s words and did not express the whole truth. Calvin, on the other hand, would not accept this criticism (Susan E. Schreiner, Where Shall Wisdom Be Found? Calvin’s Exegesis of Job from Medieval and Modern Perspectives [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994], 131–34).
29. Ibid., 131. For Calvin, Elihu’s teaching was essentially the same truth declared in God’s whirlwind speeches.
30. Johann Gustav Stickel, Das Buch Hiob rhythmisch gegliedert und übersetzt mit exegetischen und kritischen Bemerkungen (Leipzig: Weidmann’sche Buchhandlung, 1842), 195–219.
31. Cited in Nichols, “The Composition of the Elihu Speeches (Job Chaps. 32–37),” 99.
32. Earnest Rosenmüller, Iobus latine vertit et annotatione perpetua, 765, quoted in Rowley, Job, 13; and Friedrich Carl Umbreit, Das Buch Hiob: Üebersetzung und Auslegung (Heidelberg: Mohr, 1832), xxvi-xxvii.
33. Carl Cornill, Introduction to the Canonical Books of the Old Testament, trans. G. H. Box, Theological Translation Library, vol. 23 (New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1907), 428.
34. F. Godet, “The Book of Job,” in Biblical Studies on the Old Testament (London: Parker, 1875), 217.
35. John T. Marshall, Job and His Comforters: Studies in Theology of the Book of Job (London: Kingsgate, 1905), 6.
36. Edward J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 329–30.
37. R. K. Harrison, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), 1034–35.
38. C. Hassell Bullock, An Introduction to the Old Testament Poetic Books: The Wisdom and Songs of Israel (Chicago: Moody, 1979), 75–77.
39. Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of the Old Testament: Introduction, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 513–14.
40. Zuck offers four answers to the major critical objections stated above. ”(1) Elihu need not have been mentioned earlier in the book since he was a silent onlooker not yet involved in the disputation. And Elihu was not condemned by God in 42:7–8 along with Eliphaz and his two companions probably because Elihu was closer to the truth than were the three. (2) Admittedly Elihu’s style differed from that of the other four debaters. He used ʾe,,l for God more than did the others (his 19 uses of ʾe,,l compare with Job’s 17, Eliphaz’s 8, Bildad’s 6, and Zophar’s 2).. .. Elihu also used a number of Aramaic words more than the three counselors did.. .. These differences, however, simply point to his distinctive character. (3) Elihu’s view of suffering differed from that of the three. They had claimed that Job was suffering because he was sinning (in an attitude of pride) but Elihu said Job was sinning because he was suffering. Elihu pointed out that God can use suffering to benefit people (33:17, 28, 30; 36:16). Elihu put his finger on Job’s wrong attitude of complaining against God (33:13; 34:17) and suggested that Job humble himself before God (33:27; 36:21; 37:24). (4) True, Job did not answer Elihu. But this may be because Elihu silenced him. .. . Elihu’s orations provided a bridge from Job’s insistence for vindication (chap. 31) to God’s speeches. If the Elihu portion is not original, then God responded immediately to Job’s demand, an action which is inconsistent with God. Also the Elihu speeches create an added element of suspense, as the reader awaits God’s answer” (Roy B. Zuck, “Job,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Old Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck [Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1985], 754–55). Zuck points to Dhorme in support of his second point (Édouard Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job [Nashville: Nelson, 1984], ciii). The number of Aramaic words used by Elihu in relation to the three counselors originates from a study done by Samuel Rolles Driver and George Buchanan Gray (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job, International Critical Commentary [Edinburgh: Clark, 1921], xlii-iii, xlvi-vii). These numbers regarding Aramaic words were contested by Snaith, who concludes that the numbers are not convincing enough to warrant two authors.
41. For instance see Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job, liv-lvii; ciii, who treats the Elihu speeches as genuine, but sees a later hand in the writing. This is also the basic stance of Tate, who argues that the normal critical objections are not convincing (Marvin Tate, “The Speeches of Elihu,” Review and Expositor [Fall 1971]: 487-95). Also see Robert L. Alden, who simply assumes the genuineness of the Elihu chapters (Job,23–24, 314–15). Budde, Snaith, and Gordis consider the speeches to be from a later author or period, but argue for their authenticity (Karl Budde, Das Buch Hiob, Handbuch zum Alten Testament [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896]; Snaith, The Book of Job: Its Origin and Purpose, 72–91; and Gordis, The Book of God and Man, 104–16). Snaith carefully compared the alleged differences in vocabulary between the Elihu speeches and the other major sections of the book. He did not find the variations significant and he concluded that it is not necessary to postulate that another author wrote the section (The Book of Job: Its Origin and Purpose, 77). Zuck argues for the authenticity, originality, and placement in the text (“Job,” 140–42), as does Hartley (John E. Hartley, The Book of Job, New International Commentary on the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988], 28–30). Answers to the four objections summarized by Janzen are argued by Hartley, who concludes that “the Elihu speeches are an integral part of the final edition of the work. It is improper to judge them as a clumsy later addition or a sanctification of the heretical ideas that Job has entertained” (ibid., 29). Still, Hartley struggles with the speeches being a part of the original composition and speculates that the author of Job could have added them later to the final edition or that one of his students, possibly a redactor, inserted them where his teacher might have suggested they belonged.
42. John W. McKay, “Elihu: A Proto-Charismatic?” Expository Times 90 (March 1979): 167-71.
43. Diewert, “The Composition of the Elihu Speeches: A Poetic and Structural Analysis,” 1–23.
44. Bakon says Elihu offered a unique contribution to the problem of suffering (“The Enigma of Elihu,” 217–28).
45. H. D. Beeby, “Elihu-Job’s Mediator?” Southeast Asian Journal of Theology 7 (October 1969): 33-54. Beeby mentions five objections to the authenticity of Elihu’s speeches and answers each one satisfactorily (ibid., 48–50). He concludes that “there is a unity throughout the book as we have it now, no matter when the various parts originated or when they were assembled. Second, that within this unity the figure of Elihu plays a necessary part, justifying Job’s earlier faith in an ‘umpire’ and being the instrument of Job’s eventual justification by heralding the ‘theophany.’ Finally, that after an examination of Elihu’s contribution and in the light of the similarities with earlier covenantal formulations, we conclude that Elihu was a man with divine gifts, who can only be described as a covenant mediator, transformed to accord with the Wisdom literature and the book’s dominant question of ‘how the good non-Israelite can stand before Israel’s God’” (ibid., 50). Hans Ehrenberg presents his arguments in the form of a dramatic play and identifies Elihu as an “advocate” (“Elihu the Theologian,” in The Dimensions of Job: A Study and Selected Readings, ed. Nahum N. Glatzer [New York: Schocken, 1969], 99).
46. Roger N. Carstensen, “The Persistence of the ‘Elihu’ Tradition in Later Jewish Writings,” Lexington Theological Quarterly 2 (1967): 41.
47. Johns, The Literary and Theological Function of the Elihu Speeches in the Book of Job, 1, 2–12.
48. The two features Hofman incorporates to answer the critical activity surrounding Job are (a) a very difficult and obscure language and (b) a strong artistic sense of form, structure, and symmetry. The vague language is for the purpose of obscuring the possible misunderstanding of the “heretical potential of the theological implications of his work.” Hofman’s summary includes five statements that support the authenticity and integral nature of the Book of Job. He also gives five guidelines for handling criticism, which include reasons for not rearranging the speeches in order to make them more coherent (Yair Hofman, “Ancient Near Eastern Literary Conventions and the Restoration of the Book of Job,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 103 [1991]: 399-411).
49. Ward S. Miller, “Job: Creator’s Apprentice,” Chicago Studies 26 (1987): 176.
50. Kathleen Rusnak, “The Pastor as Enabler,” Pastoral Psychology 28 (1979): 53-61; and Alfred von Rohr Sauer, “Salvation by Grace: The Heart of Job’s Theology,” Concordia Theological Monthly 37 (1966): 259-70.
51. Andrew E. Steinmann, “The Graded Numerical Sayings in Job,” in Fortunate the Eyes That See, ed. Astrid B. Beck et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 288–97. Two of the four numerical sayings are found in the Elihu speeches. This would tend to argue for agreement with the two other sayings found in different sections of the book, and therefore could be construed as support for one author. The four numerical sayings are (1) Job 5:17–27 (v. 19); (2) and (3) 33:13–30 (vv. 14, 29); and (4) 40:3–5 (v. 5).
52. Posselt, Gray, and Staples all concluded that the Elihu speeches were from a different author (Posselt, “Der Verfasser der Elihu-Reden,” 1–111; Driver and Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job, xli-xlvii; and William E. Staples, The Speeches of Elihu, University of Toronto Studies, Philological Series no. 8 [Toronto: University of Toronto, 1924], 13).
53. Snaith, The Book of Job: Its Origin and Purpose, 75–85.
54. Ibid. Harris provides a convincing study on the language of Job (R. Laird Harris, “The Doctrine of God in the Book of Job,” in Sitting with Job: Selected Studies on the Book of Job, ed. Roy B. Zuck [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992], 158–62).
55. Gordis is considered by many as making the most succinct and beneficial contribution to the Elihu speeches’ authenticity in recent years (“Elihu the Intruder,” 69–72).
56. Ibid., 72.
57. Ibid., 68.
58. Ibid., 74-75. Also see comments on Gordis’s article in Gerber, Job on Trial: A Book for Our Time, 161–62.
59. See Budde, Das Buch Hiob, xlv-xlviii; Cornill, Introduction to the Canonical Books of the Old Testament, 425–31; and André M. Dubarle, Les Sages d’Israël (Paris: du Cerf, 1946), 86–88.
60. Posselt, “Der Verfasser der Elihu-Reden,” 49–50.
61. Snaith says the Septuagint of 33:23 refers to the “death angel” who intercedes on behalf of the sufferer, and that Elihu was teaching the necessity and role of an intercessor (The Book of Job: Its Origin and Purpose, 88–90).
62. See Norbert Peters, Das Buch Job übersetzt und erklärt, Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament (Münster: Aschendorff, 1928), 26; Louis Dennefeld, “Les discours d’Elihu (Job xxxii-xxxvii),” Revue biblique 48 (1939): 163-80; Dubarle, Les Sages d’Israël, 87–88; and Staples, who sees Job’s sin as ignorance of the true reason for his suffering (The Speeches of Elihu, 14–16).
63. Objections to the originality and authenticity of chapters 38–41 essentially follow the same pattern as those suggested for chapters 32–37.
64. Dhorme asks, “If it is Elihu who expounds the author’s thesis, why is it that Job, who is constantly rebuked by Elihu, should receive the praises of the Epilogue” (Dhorme, A Commentary on Job, cviii). However, it should be remembered that Job was rebuked by Yahweh in chapter 38 and that Job expressed initial repentance in chapter 40 and final repentance in 42, which preceded any praises on the part of Yahweh. That is, Job was rebuked, he repented, and then he was praised. It would seem logical to conclude that Elihu had no need to repent because he was not rebuked by the Lord.
65. Janzen admits that “the argument from style is difficult to control” (Janzen, Job, 218). Andersen observes that the author may be deliberately portraying Elihu in a light best suited to his argument (Francis I. Andersen, Job: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1976], 51–52).
66. Nichols is very critical of the composition (“The Composition of the Elihu Speeches [Job Chaps. 32–37],” 97–99). John Briggs Curtis, who is not necessarily complimentary to Elihu, does not accept his speeches as part of the original text of Job; yet he refutes the allegation of artistic inferiority in the Elihu material (“Word Play in the Speeches of Elihu [Job 32–37],” Proceedings 12 [1992]: 23-30).
67. Habel, “The Role of Elihu in the Design of the Book of Job,” 87. Although Habel regards Elihu as an arrogant fool, he states that “Elihu’s speeches are. .. both logical and significant in the sequence of the Joban story.” Donald E. Gowan refers to Elihu as a “buffoon,” and “a brilliant young fool,” but he contends that it was “normal to expect Elihu to come on the scene and give the ultimate answer to the dilemma and problem of suffering” (“Reading Job as a ‘Wisdom Script,’ ” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 55 [1992]: 94-95). Skehan argues that “the long-winded introduction of Elihu is a deliberate and a formal rhetorical device for emphasis” (Patrick William Skehan, “I Will Speak Up! Job 32, ” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 31 [July 1969]: 380-82).
68. Andersen states that “style is also a quality whose assessment can be highly subjective” (Job: An Introduction and Commentary, 51).
69. Freedman, “The Elihu Speeches in the Book of Job,” 51–59.
70. Janzen, Job, 218.
71. For example see (a) 36:25–26; 37:5, 23 and 38:4, 33; (b) 33:8–11; 34:5–6, 9; 35:2–3 and 38:2; 40:2; 41:11; (c) 32:14, 34:10–12; 35:4–8, 36:31 and 41:10b–11; (d) 37:1–13 and 38:26–27; (e) 34:10–12; 36:5; 37:23 and 40:2; (f) 37:6, 9–10, 15–16 and 38:25–30.
72. D. A. Carson, How Long, O Lord? Reflections on Suffering and Evil (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 156.
73. Walter L. Michel, “Job’s Real Friend: Elihu,” Criterion 21 (Spring 1982): 29-32.
74. Smick, “Job,” 846–47.

Reflections on Suffering from the Book of Job

By Larry J. Waters

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

Written by an unknown author, possibly the most ancient literary account in the Bible,[1] the Book of Job is a mixture of divine and human wisdom that addresses a major life issue: Why do righteous people suffer undeservedly?[2] The Book of Job is also a prime example of Hebrew wisdom literature[3] that labors with the concept of theodicy,[4] which is a defense of the integrity of the justice and righteousness of God in light of the evil, injustice, and undeserved suffering in the world. Some writers have suggested that theodicy is the theme of the Book of Job.[5] If this is so, then the emphasis of the book is not totally on the man Job and his suffering, though he and his suffering are certainly central, but also on God Himself and His relationship to His supreme creation.

Job therefore is a book dealing with human suffering,[6] even though the suffering of the innocent[7] does not encompass the author’s entire purpose. It is also more than an ancient play written to portray the absurdities of life, the weaknesses of man, and the prominence of the sovereignty of God.[8] The Book of Job shows that the sufferer can question and doubt,[9] face the hard questions of life with faith, maintain an unbroken relationship with a loving God, and still come to a satisfactory resolution for personal and collective injustice and undeserved suffering. These observations need to be addressed not only within the context of the suffering by the righteous man Job, but also because many believers today suffer and can identify with Job.[10] As Andersen points out, “the problem of suffering, human misery, or the larger sum of evil in all its forms is a problem only for the person who believes in one God who is all-powerful and all loving.”[11] Suffering, then, is the prominent issue that forces a consideration of the deeper questions posed by this concept, especially as it affects the lives of those who have a loving, intimate relationship with the true and living God. All the questions that relate to God, man, and Satan—justice and injustice, sovereignty and freedom, innocence and guilt, good and evil, blessing and cursing—are interwoven within the context of undeserved suffering. The Book of Job and its presentation of undeserved suffering, therefore, serves as a dependable, useful model[12] for the believer of any generation in dealing with the problem of theodicy.

Is God to be held to a strict set of regulations based on human interpretations of His relationship with mankind? How does the Book of Job handle this question and its connection with undeserved suffering, while still demanding faith in an omnipotent, sovereign, and loving God? This study suggests several answers from the Book of Job in an attempt to (a) reveal the false theological method of Satan in regard to human suffering, and his role as the cause or “prime mover” of suffering, (b) show how the three counselors, while presenting some truth, follow a retribution[13] or recompense[14] theology as a method of explaining suffering that is related to Satan’s original attack on Job, (c) briefly present Elihu’s answer to Job’s suffering, (d) suggest God’s estimation of Job’s complaint and suffering, that is, a correction of the three counselors and Job himself, and (e) summarize the various lessons Job learned from his suffering.

Job is truly a wisdom book. The basic concept of wisdom has always been connected with skill and “know-how,”[15] for “wisdom was the art of achieving,” and the “emphasis was on competence.”[16] Wisdom (חָכְמָה/חָכַם) challenges readers to discover the “know-how” presented in the book so that they might achieve competence in dealing with the questions of suffering. From the Book of Job readers can learn how to challenge the false concepts related to suffering and how to maintain a loving and meaningful relationship, in the midst of suffering, with the sovereign God. Only God “understands the way to [wisdom] and he alone knows where it dwells” (Job 28:23, NIV).

Satanic Motivation and Method as a Cause of Suffering

As Alden points out, blaming the devil for suffering is an all-too-common activity of many Christians.[17] The message of Job deals not with “cause and effect”[18] but with coming to the realization that “nothing happens to us that is not ultimately controlled by the knowledge, love, wisdom, and power of our God of all comfort”[19] (2 Cor 1:3). Certainly he is correct; however, this principle also often leads to blaming God for suffering. While Satan is the prime mover behind sin, evil, and suffering, it is also correct to point out that one cannot ignore the connection between Satan’s desires and God’s permitting him to carry out those desires. This friction is clearly demonstrated in the terrible troubles inflicted on Job. Satan was the cause, and Job felt the effect. God, however, was also at work in Job’s suffering. But this does not mean God is unconcerned about what happens to His people. “We must admit that God plays in a higher league than we do. His ways are far above our ways. God is greater in intellect, power, and knowledge than we are. So, His ways are usually past our finding out”[20] (Job 28:23; Isa 55:9). God does inflict suffering directly and indirectly for many different reasons: judgment, discipline, refining, and more, but Satan is behind much of human misery.

The book opens when the Accuser,[21] after traveling throughout the earth, went before the throne of God. Satan challenged Job in three areas: Job’s righteousness, Job’s fear of God, and Job’s separation from sin (Job 1:8–11). Why does Job live righteously, fear God, and separate himself from sin? Satan alleged that Job fears God only because God protects and prospers him.[22] The prosperity issue and its resultant retribution/recompense theology become a major focus in understanding suffering throughout the book (1:9–10; 2:4; 5:19–26; 8:6–7; 11:17–19; 13:15–16; 17:5; 20:21–22; 22:21; 24:1–12; 34:9; 36:11, 16; 42:10). The presentation of this false theology is therefore found in Satan’s statements before the throne of God (chaps. 1–2), Job’s lament (chap. 3), and the three dialogue cycles involving Eliphaz and Job, Bildad and Job, and Zophar and Job (chaps. 4–31). The monologues of Elihu (chaps. 32–37)[23] and the speeches of God (chaps. 38–42) present a correction to this theology.

Ancient Israelites[24] and others of the ancient Near East[25] viewed suffering under the rubric of retribution/recompense theology.[26] This theology is challenged by Job’s own personal struggle with this faulty theology.

If Job accepted Satan’s false theology, as presented in the dialogues, and “repented” under false pretenses, then Satan would have proved his case in the court of heaven. When Satan asked, “Does Job fear God for nothing?” he implied Job served God for “something,” that is, some reward. If Job confessed some nonexistent sin so he could return to his former prosperous and healthy status, then Satan’s premise in 1:9–10 and 2:4 would be substantiated. Also God Himself would be deemed guilty of blessing Job’s deception and falsehood and therefore would be at fault.

Satan’s accusation was directed toward both God’s justice and Job’s righteousness. Satan basically asked the question, Is it love or is it self-serving greed that motivates a person to be righteous, to fear God, and to be separate from sin? Satan wrongly assumed that since God protected and blessed Job, greed was the foundation of his righteousness rather than Job’s personal intimate relationship based on love, trust, and fear of God (1:8–10; 2:3). Traditional wisdom[27] reasoned that since God is in control of the world and because He is just, the only way wise people can maintain faith in Him is to see all blessing as evidence of goodness and righteousness and all suffering as evidence of unrighteousness and sin.[28] Johnson correctly calls this viewpoint “pragmatic religion” and an “insidious heresy.”[29] Belief in God and subsequent service to Him would then be reduced to a prosperity/pragmatic religious formula or system of works.

After the first two chapters, Satan is noticeably absent from the story. His presence was no longer a factor, but his assumptions, accusations, and theology are still evident throughout the dialogue. In the fabric of retribution/recompense theology, expressed by the three friends who interacted with Job, Satan’s purpose was to see God’s highest creation curse Him. Satan’s objective was to turn a righteous man against the just God (1:11).

It is interesting that God’s charge against Satan, “You incited me against him to ruin him without any reason” (2:3b, NIV), is a horrifying, yet enlightening look into the character of Satan. Humanity means no more to the Accuser than a vehicle for cursing God.

The Three Friends’ False Theology of Retribution/Recompense

Job’s three counselors perpetuated the same satanic false doctrine of retribution/recompense. They held that the righteous never suffer and the unrighteous always do. Each friend had his own approach to Job’s problem, yet they shared this theology of retribution/recompense. Therefore their proposed solution was the same: “Repent of your sins so God can restore your prosperity.” Or, more directly, “If you want your health, family, and prosperity back, accept our evaluation, admit to sin and wrongdoing.”

The avowed objective of the three friends was “to sympathize with him and comfort him” (2:11). But this objective was never achieved (except for the first seven days when their silent presence may have been of some comfort to Job). A short summary of the speeches of these men reveals this fact.

After Job lamented his birth (chap. 3), Eliphaz began the three cycles of debate (chaps. 4–31). His speeches are recorded in chapters 4–5, 15, and 22. Eliphaz’s questions immediately revealed his theology, “Who ever perished being innocent? Or where were the upright destroyed?” (4:7). However, experience and history, Job said, show that many innocent persons have suffered (24:1–12). Job himself, he said, is an example. Yet based on a wrong premise Eliphaz sought to convict Job of his “foolish” response to misfortune and to urge him to lay his sin before God (5:8; 15:20–35; 22:5–12). His basic message was that Job must be sinning because he was suffering (4:12–5:16; 15:2–5, 20–35; 22:5–15). Without the benefit of knowing the unseen events of chapter 1, Eliphaz saw God as both the initiator and reliever of suffering (Job 5:18). Therefore Eliphaz wanted Job to see that God’s oppression resulted from the patriarch’s many presumed sins (15:11–16, 20; 22:5–11). Once Job admitted his sin, God would heal Job and his prosperity would return (22:21).

When Job said to his friends, “If I have sinned, show me” (6:24; cf. 7:20–21), Bildad took up the challenge (chaps. 8, 18, 25), and in his first speech he appealed to traditional wisdom (“inquire of past generations, and consider the things searched out by their fathers,” 8:8). Bildad correctly asserted that God is not unjust or unfair (8:2–3). But Bildad was wrong in saying that Job was totally at fault and needed to repent before he could be restored (8:4–7). God would be unfair to allow undeserved suffering to come to a righteous man. Job’s insistence on innocence was an affront to the justice and rightness of God (8:3, 20). Bildad frankly told Job he was evil and that he must repent so that God could bring back his laughter, joy, and peace (8:21–22, a cruel reminder of Job’s losses). According to Bildad, Job was suffering because of sin; and according to the principle of retribution/recompense, Job deserved to be punished. Because Job refused to accept this principle, Bildad said the patriarch did not know God and had been rejected by Him (8:4; 18:5–21). Therefore how could Job claim to be righteous when the evidence against him was so strong (25:4–6)?

Zophar continued the attack on Job’s righteousness and integrity (11:2–4), fear of God (vv. 5–6), and morality (vv. 6, 14). Claiming to have a superior understanding of God and His wisdom, Zophar said Job was too superficial to understand the deeper things of God (vv. 7–12). This third agitator stated that God had even overlooked some of Job’s sins (v. 6). While Job admitted that God was the source of his suffering (12:14–25), he insisted that he had committed no sin commensurate with his suffering (chap. 31).[30]

While it is true that God’s wisdom, as Zophar said, is unfathomable (11:7–9), this was not the issue in Job’s situation. Satan’s original faulty premise was repeated by Zophar: If Job were good, he would prosper; but since he suffers, he must be evil and will die (vv. 13–20). Zophar accused Job of wickedness (20:6), pride (v. 6), perishing like dung (v. 7), and oppressing the poor (v. 19). Like the other two antagonists, Zophar spoke of the wicked person’s loss of prosperity (vv. 15, 18, 20–22). He hoped this would establish the premise of traditional wisdom and eventually lead Job to repent.

Job’s irritation at the arguments of these three advisers (and at God) can be seen in these paraphrased responses: “When will your arguments end?” (6:14–17). “What have I done to deserve this?” (6:24). “God, just forgive me and get it over with” (7:21). “No matter what I do, nothing changes” (chap. 9). “Why won’t You answer me, God?” (10:1–7). “I can’t take any more of this!” (14:18–22). “Nobody cares about me!” (19:13–22). “Where can I get some answers?” (28:12). “Everything used to be so perfect” (chap. 29). “What good is it to serve God?” (chap. 30).[31]

Soon after his first calamities, Job worshiped God, saying “The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of the Lord” (1:21). He “did not sin nor did he blame God” (v. 22). But later, under the pressure of his opponents’ accusations and under the weight of his seemingly endless physical and emotional plight, Job said, “For He bruises me with a tempest, and multiplies my wounds without cause” (9:17).[32] In his despair Job accused God of being unfair and unjust (vv. 17–20), since he observed that God punishes good people and rewards bad people (vv. 21–24). God does not fit the preconceived claims of traditional wisdom, so as Job became despondent over the brevity of life (vv. 25–26), he sensed that God would never forgive him (vv. 27–31), and he pleaded for a mediator[33] (vv. 32–33). Giving up on that possibility, Job asked God to diminish his suffering so that he could meet God in court and plead his own case (vv. 34–35). Even though Job saw great inconsistencies in the application of the retribution/recompense doctrine by the three antagonists (24:1–12),[34] he concluded that God did not really care for him and that he was caught in some sort of divine entrapment in which God’s lovingkindness was absent (10:1–13, 16–17). He lamented his birth (vv. 18–19) and his coming death (vv. 20–22). Captured by false counsel and confused by God’s ways, Job was now ready for a true counselor.

The Intervention of Elihu

Elihu began his discourses with a lengthy introduction and expression of anger toward both Job and the three older companions (32:1–10).[35] He felt that both parties had been guilty of perverting divine justice and of misrepresenting God (32:2–3, 11–22). Elihu attempted to correct the friends’ and Job’s faulty image of God.

Elihu affirmed that God was not silent during Job’s suffering (33:14–30). He argued that God is not unjust (34:10–12, 21–28). Furthermore God is neither uncaring (35:15), nor is He powerless to act on behalf of His people (chaps. 36–37). Elihu presented a totally different perspective on suffering from that of the three. He said Job’s suffering was not because of past sin, but was designed to keep him from continuing to accept a sinful premise for suffering, to draw him closer to God, to teach him that God is sovereignly in control of the affairs of life, and to show him that God does reward the righteous, but only on the basis of His love and grace.[36] It was as if Elihu were saying, “You insist on justice and righteousness, but do you really want to be treated justly? Have you really considered what would happen if God took you at your word?”[37]

One cannot have a relationship with God as long as one thinks that there is something in oneself which makes one deserve God’s friendship—or for that matter, a genuine relationship with another human being on such terms…. God never withdraws from the just, no matter what, no matter how deep the frustration, the bitterness, the darkness, the confusion, the pain.[38]

Elihu identified himself with Job. He was a fellow sufferer, not an observer (33:6).[39] He helped Job realize that a relationship with God is not founded on nor maintained by his insistence on loyalty, purity, or righteousness, but is wholly of God’s grace. Elihu did not see the primary basis of Job’s suffering as sin, though he did not minimize Job’s move toward sin in the dialogue (e.g., 34:36–37; 35:16). Among other things suffering, Elihu said, was a preventive measure to keep Job from perpetuating a sinful, false theology. God’s sovereign control and freedom of action over the affairs of Job’s life were not restricted by a theological system of retribution/recompense, but were acts of grace and mercy. God therefore rewards the righteous in grace, not because of some human action seeking a deserved response.[40] Job was never the same after his contact with Elihu.

The three counselors intensified their pressure on Job to accept the traditional doctrine of retribution/recompense, thus inflicting greater mental suffering on Job.[41] Acting unknowingly as agents of Satan’s philosophy, the three friends increased the suffering of an already hurting man. However, even though Job found inconsistencies with the application of the doctrine, he shared the view of the friends that the world is based on a reward-and-punishment scheme.[42] This position only added to his frustration.

This quid pro quo premise was contested by Elihu and shown to be without substance. He prepared Job for God’s response to the debates and Job’s ultimate submission to His sovereignty. Elihu brought “perspective, clarity, empathy, compassion, and concrete help,”[43] thereby preparing Job for God’s words.

God’s Speeches to Job

Speaking out of a windstorm, God began by charging Job with darkening His counsel by “words without knowledge” (38:2; as Elihu had said twice [34:35; 35:16]). God did not address Job’s suffering directly during this discourse, nor did He answer Job’s attacks on His justice. After attempting to find answers to unanswerable problems, Job and his friends were now forced to return to God. God spoke of His sovereignty and omnipotence as demonstrated in the creation of the earth, the sea, the sun, the underworld, light and darkness, the weather, and the heavenly bodies (38:4–38). Animate creation testifies of God’s sovereign power and providential compassion: the lion (vv. 39–40), the raven (v. 41), the mountain goat and the deer (39:1–4), the donkey (39:5–8), the ox (39:9–12), the ostrich (39:13–18), the horse (39:19–25), the hawk (39:26), and the eagle or vulture (39:27–30). Then He said to Job, “Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty? Let him who reproves God answer it” (40:2). Of course Job could not respond to God’s remarks (40:3–5).

The storm motif continued in the second speech (40:6). Job 40:8–14 presents the power of God versus the power of man. God affirmed His justice without defending or explaining it. God said, in essence, that He is and always will be just and fair to His creatures. God alone—not Job, nor the three friends, and certainly not Satan—administers and regulates justice. “The ode to the behemoth” follows, in which God’s own wisdom poetry stresses His power in opposition to that of man or Satan (40:15–24). The second poem (chap. 41), “the ode to the leviathan,” represents the same essential principles. What the behemoth and the leviathan represent is contested in scholarly circles, but the message is clear: Since man has no power over these creatures, he can find strength and power only in God. God is sovereign, omnipotent, just, loving, and perfectly righteous.[44]

God did not tell Job to repent so that his pain would be explained, or that he would be vindicated, or that his prosperity would be restored. Instead, God brought Job to a face-to-face meeting with Himself. What did Job learn from this encounter?

Perhaps the first thing he discovered concerned the mistaken reason for Job’s quest. The consuming passion for vindication suddenly presented itself as ludicrous once the courageous rebel stood in God’s presence. By maintaining complete silence on this singular issue which had brought Job to a confrontation with his maker, God taught his servant the error in assuming that the universe operated according to a principle of rationality. Once that putative principle of order collapsed before divine freedom, the need for personal vindication vanished as well, since God’s anger and favor show no positive correspondence with human acts of villainy or virtue. Job’s personal experience had taught him that last bit of information, but he had also clung tenaciously to an assumption of order. Faced with a stark reminder of divine freedom, Job finally gave up this comforting claim, which had hardly brought solace in his case.[45]

Then Job repented of his misconception of God, not of any alleged sin on which his three friends had focused.[46] Still, God commended Job, because even in the face of doubt and pressure from false theology, he maintained a personal relationship with Him and brought his doubts directly to Him. Therefore Satan’s hypothesis (1:9–11; 2:3–4) was proven false. Job finally rejected human approaches, the approaches of tradition, logic, and all wisdom that was foreign to what he learned about God and himself. All attempts to explain God and His actions, either logically, historically, or traditionally, failed. Job was left with God and God alone. Job’s prosperity was returned only after everyone involved understood that all blessing comes by God’s grace alone, not because of an individual’s piety nor because of accepting a retribution/recompense theology.

Conclusion

While God is just, it is wrong to assume that the fallen world, under the rulership of Satan, is fair. The failure of traditional wisdom to answer Job’s complaint reveals that the world operates by the plan of a fallen being, and only by a personal relationship with God can fallen humanity find meaning and purpose within the injustices of the world. Satan, Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar, and to some extent Job wrongly assumed that punishment of the wicked and reward of the righteous in this life is a fixed doctrine. But this limits God’s freedom. For example in retribution/recompense theology, rain was often seen as a reward, or if rain were withheld that was viewed as punishment. Here, however, “the phenomenon is shown not to be a vehicle of morality at all—the moral purpose ascribed to it just does not exist (38:25–27).”[47] Rain falls by the grace of God on both the righteous and wicked (Matt 5:45).

Is it not conceivable that God wanted to show that neither man’s piety nor his sin affects how God administers His plan? Did He not then, and does He not now, administer that plan by grace? As Tsevat wrote, “Job behaved piously throughout, but his behavior had, in the narrated time of 1:13–31,[40] no consequences compatible with the accepted idea of reward and punishment.”[48] His hope had been in the positive results of a false doctrine, while his friends had extolled the negative aspects of that same doctrine. First Elihu (chaps. 32–37) and then God (chaps. 38–41) stated that these misplaced hopes of retribution/recompense have 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.”[49]

This is not to say that the Book of Job teaches that a person has no obligation to moral and righteous living nor to a commitment to truth and justice in the face of sin and evil. What it does say, at least in large part, is that the believer has an obligation to examine his motivation in coming to and serving God, especially during times of trial and suffering. Furthermore the Book of Job does not support the mistaken idea that all suffering is for discipline or that suffering always results from sin and evil. God does discipline, teach, guide, and direct through suffering, but He cannot be manipulated by a manmade system of blessing and cursing—a system negatively called the theology of retribution/recompense or positively labeled the theology of prosperity. God is not obligated to man under any conditions. Once this is understood, believers are free to examine their suffering on the basis of God’s grace. All saints share in the “fellowship of his sufferings” (Phil 3:10). “That the Lord Himself has embraced and absorbed the undeserved consequences of all evil is the final answer to Job and to all the Jobs of humanity. As an innocent sufferer, Job is the companion of God.”[50]

The question, “Why do the righteous suffer?” cannot be clarified by only one answer. The many reasons given in Scripture for personal suffering[51] must all be examined in light of God’s grace. Job was righteous because he had a grace relationship with the Righteous One, not because he had earned it. Job responded with humility and godly fear of God’s sovereignty (42:1–2), he acknowledged God’s inscrutability (v. 3), reflected on His superiority (v. 4), refocused on God’s intimacy (v. 5), and repented of serving God from wrong motivation (v. 6).[52] So why did God put Job through all of his suffering? Primarily it was

to reveal Himself to Job…. Through this interrogation, God has taught Job that He alone created everything—the heavens and the earth, and all that is in them—and He alone controls all that He created. He alone has the right to do with His own as He pleases. He is under no obligation to explain His actions to His creation. He alone is sovereign and unaccountable to anyone.[53]

However, the purpose of the Book of Job should not be limited to an expression of God’s sovereignty. Can a community of suffering saints find other answers and applications here? Yes, because Job’s struggle and ultimate triumph gives those who suffer much more to apply. The following sixteen truths may be gained from the Book of Job.

1. God is not to be limited to a preconceived notion of retribution/recompense theology.
2. Sin is not always the basis for suffering.
3. Accepting false tenets about suffering can cause one to blame and challenge God.
4. A retributive/recompensive theology distorts God’s ways and confines Him to human standards of interpretation.
5. Satan is behind this false concept and delights in using it to afflict the righteous.
6. The devil’s world is unfair and unjust, and even though people may misunderstand the ways of God and the “why’s” of life, having a personal relationship with God is the only way one can know justice.
7. Life is more than a series of absurdities and unexplainable pains that simply must be endured. Instead life for believers is linked with God’s unseen purpose.
8. People do not always know all the facts, nor is such knowledge necessary for living a life of faith.
9. God’s wisdom is above human wisdom.
10. God’s blessings are based solely on grace, not on a traditional, legalistic formula.
11. Suffering can be faced with faith and trust in a loving, gracious God even when there is no immediately satisfying logical or rational reason to do so.
12. God does allow suffering, pain, and even death, if they best serve His purposes.
13. Prosperity theology has no place in God’s grace plan.
14. Suffering can have a preventive purpose.
15. The greatest of saints struggle with the problem of undeserved suffering and will continue to do so.
16. Because God’s people are intimately related to Him, suffering is often specifically designed to glorify God in the unseen war with Satan.

Satan, who attacked Job in Job 1–2, 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 grace plan for His saints. “True wisdom, like God, defies human reason.”[54] Therefore true wisdom defies the wrong concepts of traditional wisdom, and, when properly applied by God’s people during undeserved suffering, it becomes a living demonstration of God’s grace and a believer’s faith. “I have heard of Thee by the hearing of the ear; but now my eye sees Thee” (42:5).

Notes

1. Ample evidence supports the claim that the setting of Job is patriarchal. See Roy B. Zuck, “Job,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Old Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1985), 717, for nine reasons the Book of Job points to a patriarchal period. Archer and others see the Book of Job as the oldest book in the Bible (Gleason L. Archer, The Book of Job: God’s Answer to the Problem of Undeserved Suffering [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982], 16). Alternate views are given in Édouard Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job (Nashville: Nelson, 1984); F. Delitzsch, The Book of Job, trans. F. Bolton, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949); M. Jastrow, The Book of Job (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1920); and Robert Gordis, The Book of God and Man (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965).
2. “Undeserved suffering” does not imply that God unjustly placed mankind under the curse as a result of the Fall. Rather it refers to suffering that is not directly traceable to an act of personal sin or disobedience. This phrase does not imply that Job was sinless, nor that he was without sin during the cycles of debate. Suffering is undeserved in the sense of being or appearing to be unfair or unjust.
3. David J. A. Clines, Job 1–20, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas, TX: Word, 1989), xxxviii. He points to three major issues in suffering: (1) How do we answer the why’s, how’s, and what’s of suffering? (2) Is there really such a thing as innocent suffering? (3) What kind of answers can be given when suffering?
4. This is not to imply that “theodicy” is the one main theme of the book, nor that one main theme can be agreed on. While one may see one primary emphasis in the Book of Job, it encompasses several related themes. See the review on theodicy in Konrad Müller, “Die Auslegung des Theodizeeproblems im Buche Hiob,” Theologische Blätter 32 (1992): 73-79.
5. For example Clines, Job 1–20, xxxiii.
6. “What one learns from suffering is the central theme” (Bruce Wilkinson and Kenneth Boa, Talk Thru the Old Testament [Nashville: Nelson, 1983], 1:145).
7. Matitiahu Tsevat, “The Meaning of the Book of Job,” Hebrew Union College Annual 37 (1966): 195. Though the word “innocent” disturbs some, it is used here in the sense of innocence of any wrongdoing as the base for the suffering Job endured, not innocence in the sense of having no sin or culpability as a fallen creation. See Clines, Job 1–20, xxxviii, for a more detailed discussion.
8. Stanley E. Porter, “The Message of the Book of Job: Job 42:7b as Key to Interpretation?” Evangelical Quarterly 63 (1991): 151. It would seem that the author of Job had several purposes under the general theme of wisdom’s teaching about God and human suffering. While God and His freedom are the major focus of the book, the problem of suffering is the medium through which the book’s purpose is presented. Stressing one subject over the other would be unproductive.
9. Zuck, “Job,” 715. “The Book of Job also teaches that to ask why, as Job did (3:11–12, 16, 20), is not wrong. But to demand that God answer why, as Job also did (13:22; 19:7; 31:15) is wrong” (ibid.).
10. Wesley C. Baker, More Than a Man Can Take: A Study of Job (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966), 17.
11. Francis I. Andersen, Job: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1976), 64–65. This is not to say that a nonbeliever does not struggle with the same questions. But if an unbeliever’s questions do not lead to a relationship with God, then they are normally used as excuses for not believing in God and as reasons to dismiss divine claims without struggling with the biblical issues. The believer, however, struggles with the seeming inconsistencies and incongruities, attempting to harmonize these difficulties with faith in what is known of God in His Word.
12. “By all means let Job the patient be your model so long as that is possible for you; but when equanimity fails, let the grief and anger of Job the impatient direct itself and yourself toward God, for only in encounter with him will the tension of suffering be resolved” (Clines, Job 1–20, xxxix).
13. “Retribution theology” is a term often used to explain the “cursing and blessing” clauses of the Mosaic Covenant. Here it is used mainly to describe a misuse of that theology that attempts to set boundaries on God’s sovereign will and obligate Him to man’s actions and assumptions concerning blessing and cursing. The term is also used to represent a theology that assumes God’s blessing is based on how good a person is or acts and that His cursing is based on how bad a person is or acts. While Israel deserved cursing on many occasions, God’s longsuffering was often extended in grace. Conversely the righteous often suffered along with the unrighteous under the discipline due them, the nation, and its leaders. In Job, Satan and the three counselors tried to limit God and His freedom to act according to their own standards. They saw this concept as a fixed formula for judging the life of an individual and therefore for limiting God to predetermined actions in dealings with people. The biblical idea of blessing and cursing is based on a relationship with God and is primarily internal in nature. The satanic counterfeit of blessing and cursing is based on a relationship with health, other people, and material goods, and is primarily external in nature.
14. The term “recompense theology” suggests the concept of “payment.” Job’s accusers said God is somehow under obligation to mankind and is confined to giving exact payment to individuals.
15. L. D. Johnson, Out of the Whirlwind: The Major Message of the Book of Job (Nashville: Broadman, 1971), 8.
16. Ibid.
17. Robert L. Alden, Job, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1993), 41.
18. Andersen, Job: An Introduction and Commentary, 68.
19. Alden, Job, 41.
20. Steven J. Lawson, When All Hell Breaks Loose (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1994), 14.
21. “The Accuser” (הַשָּׂטָן) occurs fourteen times in eleven verses (Job 1:6–9, 12; 2:1–4, 6–7), always with the definite article.
22. Johnson, Out of the Whirlwind, 25.
23. A presentation of the differing views on the authenticity, placement, structure, and purpose of the Elihu speeches can be found in David Allen Diewert, “The Composition of the Elihu Speeches: A Poetic and Structural Analysis” (Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1991), 1–23. See also Helen H. Nichols, “The Composition of the Elihu Speeches (Job, Chaps. 32–37),” American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature 27 (1910–1911): 97-186; Matthias H. Stuhlmann, Hiob. Ein religiöses Gedicht aus dem Hebräischen neu übersetzt, geprüft und erläutert (Hamburg: Friedrich Perthes, 1804), 14–24, 40–44; and Gary W. Martin, “Elihu and the Third Cycle in the Book of Job” (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1972), 51.
24. “The classical Judaic tradition toward suffering is expressed in the Talmudic-Midrashic writings. God is seen as the One who punishes the wicked, as well as the One who brings good and rewards the righteous. Job is considered by some exegetes to be a Jew while others believe that he never existed as a person but was merely an example. Other talmudic writers thought God rebuked Job for his lack of patience when suffering was inflicted on Job; still others excused his outbursts because they were uttered under duress” (Buddy R. Pipes, “Christian Response to Human Suffering: A Lay Theological Response to the Book of Job” [D.Min. project, Drew University, 1981], 10).
25. There is evidence of this concept in ancient Near Eastern literature and in the Old Testament (see Bildad’s appeal to “tradition” in Job 8:11–22 and the many parallels in the Book of Proverbs and the Psalms). That this was a general viewpoint of ancient peoples can been seen in the parallels between ancient wisdom texts and the Book of Job (Gregory W. Parsons, “A Biblical Theology of Job 38:1–42:6 ” [Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1980], 19–54). See James B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1950), 418–19, 589–91, 597; and W. G. Lambert, “The Babylonian Theodicy,” in The Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), 71–89, especially page 75, lines 70–71. “The Mesopotamian texts dealing with the problem of the righteous sufferer give one a glimpse of the intellectual tradition within which the book of Job fits. It is a long tradition that includes an early Sumerian composition and an Old Babylonian Akkadian text. Its most elaborate literary expressions, however, are found in the long poem ‘I Will Praise the Lord of Wisdom’ (Ludlul bel nemeqi) and ‘The Babylonian Theodicy,’ a text constructed in the form of a cycle of dialogues between the righteous sufferer and a friend” (James Luther Mays, ed., Harper’s Bible Commentary [New York: Harper and Row, 1988], 36).
26. Clines, Job 1–20, xxxix-xxxx. Also see Nahum Glatzer, The Dimensions of Job (New York: Schocken, 1969), 1–18. Glatzer discusses the differing views of Talmudic-Midrashic tradition in relation to Job.
27. “Traditional wisdom” refers here to what is contrary to God’s wisdom (Matt 15:3, 6; Mark 7:3, 5, 13; Col 2:8).
28. Johnson, Out of the Whirlwind, 17-18.
29. Ibid., 18.
30. For an excellent discussion of Job 31, see Pipes, “Christian Response to Human Suffering,” 1–18.
31. Mark R. Littleton, When God Seems Far Away: Biblical Insight for Common Depression (Wheaton, IL: Shaw, 1987), 53–61.
32. Also see 7:17–21; 9:22–24; 10:3; 12:12–25; 13:21–22; 14:18–22; 16:11, 13; 19:6, 21; 21:23; 27:2; 30:20; and 31:35.
33. Could this be the role of Elihu in either acting as a mediator or suggesting one? See H. D. Beeby, “Elihu—Job’s Mediator?” Southeast Asian Journal of Theology 7 (October 1969): 33-54. Other suggestions include Elihu as a “forerunner” to God in chapters 38–42 (Robert Gordis, “Elihu the Intruder,” in Biblical and Other Studies, ed. Alexander Altmann [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963], 60–78, and Elihu as arbiter (Norman C. Habel, “The Role of Elihu in the Design of the Book of Job,” in In the Shelter of Elyon, ed. W. Boyd Barrick and John R. Spencer [Sheffield: JSOT, 1984], 81–98).
34. The fact that God postpones judgment disproves the theory of the three friends concerning immediate retribution for wrongdoing. “Job is no more out of God’s favor as one of the victims than the criminal in vv. 13–17 is in God’s favor because of God’s inaction” (The NIV Study Bible, ed. Kenneth Barker [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985], 759).
35. Like the reader, Elihu was dismayed, worn down, and tired of the dialogues which had solved nothing. Many have criticized Elihu’s lengthy introduction, but both protocol (his youth against the age of the others), local custom, and his exasperation were justly expressed.
36. Lawson, When All Hell Breaks Loose, 220.
37. Walter L. Michel, “Job’s Real Friend: Elihu,” Criterion 21 (Spring 1982): 31.
38. Ibid.
39. “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” (Henri J. M. Nouwen, “Living the Questions: The Spirituality of the Religion Teacher,” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 32 [Fall 1976]: 21). Also see Marvin E. Tate, “The Speeches of Elihu,” Review & Expositor 68 (Fall 1971): 490; and Gordis, “Elihu the Intruder,” 62–63.
40. Lawson, When All Hell Breaks Loose, 220.
41. Johnson, Out of the Whirlwind, 30-60.
42. Tsevat, “The Meaning of the Book of Job,” 97.
43. Michel, “Job’s Real Friend: Elihu,” 32.
44. Zuck comments, “The behemoth and leviathan have many similarities, so if one is an actual animal, then the other probably is also. As discussed earlier, in the ancient Near East both animals were symbols of chaotic evil…. Man cannot subdue single-handedly a hippopotamus or a crocodile, his fellow creatures (40:15). Nor can man conquer evil in the world, which they symbolize. Only God can do that. Therefore Job’s defiant impugning of God’s ways in the moral universe—as if God were incompetent or even evil—was totally absurd and uncalled for” (Zuck, “Job,” 772–73). Also see Roy B. Zuck, Job, Everyman’s Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1978), 180.
45. James L. Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction (London: SCM, 1982), 124–25.
46. “His emotional world suddenly assumes a different form. The clouds of darkness are dispersed. A feeling of infinite confidence in the world and its Divine Leader arises in his soul and he laughs at the thousand questions, the hungry wolves with burning eyes, and they disappear from his soul” (Chaim Zhitlowsky, “Job and Faust,” in Two Studies in Yiddish Culture, ed. Percy Matenko [Leiden: Brill, 1968], 152).
47. Tsevat, “The Meaning of the Book of Job,” 100.
48. Ibid., 104.
49. Ibid.
50. Andersen, Job: An Introduction and Commentary, 73.
51. The most common examples are these: (1) Suffering is used to test and teach (Wilkinson and Boa, Talk Thru the Old Testament, 1:145). The focus is on what Job learned from suffering, not suffering itself. Suffering therefore teaches believers to look to future glory, to be obedient, to learn patience, to be sympathetic to others who suffer, to live a life of faith, to understand God’s gracious purposes, to abide in Christ, to pray, to be sensitive to sin, to love God, to draw closer to the Scriptures, to learn contentment, and more (George Washington Oestreich, “The Suffering of Believers under Grace” [Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1944], 42). (2) Some hold that no answer is given to the problem of undeserved suffering. God is so great that if an answer were given, one could not understand it (David M. Howard, How Come, God? Reflections from Job about God and Puzzled Man [Philadelphia: Holman, 972], 114). (3) Others state that the sufferer is honored by God to “demonstrate the meaning of full surrender” and to demonstrate the New Testament principle of Romans 8:28 (Archer, The Book of Job, 18). (4) Suffering is given for the purpose of preventing one from becoming arrogant (2 Cor 12:7–10). (5) Suffering demonstrates that God is absolutely sovereign and can do with His creatures whatever He pleases (Parsons, “A Biblical Theology of Job 38:1–42:6 ,” 151), with focus on the “sovereign grace of God and man’s response of faith and submissive trust” (ibid.). Littleton also seems to see this as the answer (When God Seems Far Away). (6) Another approach simply suggests, “What cannot be comprehended through reason must be embraced in love” (Alden, Job, 41). (7) “Knowing the answer to the question who, Job no longer needs to ask the question why” (David L. McKenna, Job, Communicator’s Commentary [Waco, TX: Word, 1986], 315). “Job did not receive explanations regarding his problems; but he did come to a much deeper sense of the majesty and loving care of God” (Zuck, “Job,” 776). (8) Suffering is often given for disciplinary purposes (William Bode, The Book of Job and the Solution of the Problem of Suffering It Offers [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1914], 210–17). (9) Suffering is a tempering process (Oestreich, “The Suffering of Believers under Grace,” 57). (10) Some see undeserved suffering as providing the opportunity for the exercise of faith (ibid., 50). First Peter 5:10 supports this view, as well as Romans 8:35–39. (11) Suffering is a testimony to others of the believer’s love and faithfulness to God (ibid., 54). (12) There is also a sense in which believers suffer by being a part of God’s family (ibid., 66–71). (13) Believers often suffer because of the invisible war that is waged beyond human vision (Job 1–2). (14) God is glorified and honored by the testimony of the believer in the invisible court proceedings in heaven (Job 1–2). (15) Suffering makes believers acutely aware of the power of evil, strips them of all their worldly securities, allows them to see Christ in His glory, and enables them to bear the fruit of the Spirit (Littleton, When God Seems Far Away, 116).
52. Lawson, When All Hell Breaks Loose, 245-48.
53. Ibid., 240.
54. Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction, 123.

“Im going to get you.. I won’t ever stop” BLOOD sprayed at preacher!

They Put A “Christian Transgender” On MSNBC?!

Christian Preacher CONFRONTS Drag Queen...

Why Christians CANNOT BOW to the PRIDE movement! MUST SEE

"Do you believe in the Devil yet?" EXTREME Spiritual resistance to the G...