work again after a long interval, at a period in his life when he had
lost his verve and his style, may have added this fragment with the
idea of completing the poem. There are strong reasons against such an
explanation. For one thing there seems to be a misconception where, at
the outset, Elihu is made to assume that Job and his friends are very
old. The earlier part of the poem by no means affirms this. Job,
though we call him a patriarch, was not necessarily far advanced in
life, and Zophar appears considerably younger. Again the contention in
the eighth verse--"There is a spirit in man, and the breath of the
Almighty giveth them understanding"--seems to be the justification a
later writer would think it needful to introduce. He acknowledges the
Divine gift of the original poet and adding his criticism claims for
Elihu, that is, for himself, the lucidity God bestows on every calm
and reverent student of His ways. This is considerably different from
anything we find in the addresses of the other speakers. It seems to
show that the question of inspiration had arisen and passed through
some discussion. But the rest of the book is written without any
consciousness, or at all events any admission of such a question.
Elihu appears to represent the new "wisdom" which came to Hebrew
thinkers in the period of the exile; and there are certain opinions
embodied in his address which must have been formed during an exile
that brought many Jews to honour. The reading of affliction given is
one following the discovery that the general sinfulness of a nation
may entail chastisement on men who have not personally been guilty of
great sin, yet are sharers in the common neglect of religion and pride
of heart, and further that this chastisement may be the means of great
profit to those who suffer. It would be harsh to say the tone is that
of a mind which has caught the trick of "voluntary humility," of
pietistic self-abasement. Yet there are traces of such a tendency, the
beginning of a religious strain opposed to legal self-righteousness,
running, however, very readily to excess and formalism. Elihu,
accordingly, appears to stand on the verge of a descent from the
robust moral vigour of the original author towards that low ground in
which false views of man's nature hinder the free activity of faith.
The note struck by the Book of Job had stirred eager thought in the
time of the exile. Just as in the Middle Ages of European history the
Divine Comedy of Dante was made a special study, and chairs were
founded in universities for its exposition, so less formally the drama
of Job was made the subject of inquiry and speculation. We suppose
then that among the many who wrote on the poem, one acting for a
circle of thinkers incorporated their views in the text. He could not
do so otherwise than by bringing a new speaker on the stage. To add
anything to what Eliphaz or Bildad or Job had said would have
prevented the free expression of new opinion. Nor could he without
disrespect have inserted the criticism after the words of Jehovah.
Selecting as the only proper point of interpolation the close of the
debate between Job and the friends, the scribe introduced the Elihu
portion as a review of the whole scope of the book, and may indeed
have subtly intended to assail as entirely heterodox the
presupposition of Job's integrity and the Almighty's approval of his
servant. That being his purpose, he had to veil it in order to keep
the discourse of Elihu in line with the place assigned to him in the
dramatic movement. The contents of the prologue and epilogue and the
utterance of the Almighty from the storm affect, throughout, the added
discourse. But to secure the unity of the poem the writer makes Elihu
speak like one occupying the same ground as Eliphaz and the others,
that of a thinker ignorant of the original motive of the drama; and
this is accomplished with no small skill. The assumption is that
reverent thought may throw new light, far more light than the
original author possessed, on the case as it stood during the
colloquies. Elihu avoids assailing the conception of the prologue that
Job is a perfect and upright man approved by God. He takes the state
of the sufferer as he finds it, and inquires how and why it is, what
is the remedy. There are pedantries and obscurities in the discourse,
yet the author must not be denied the merit of a careful and
successful attempt to adapt his character to the place he occupies in
the drama. Beyond this, and the admission that something additional is
said on the subject of Divine discipline, it is needless to go in
justifying Elihu's appearance. One can only remark with wonder in
passing that Elihu should ever have been declared the Angel Jehovah,
or a personification of the Son of God.
The narrative verses which introduce the new speaker state that his
wrath was kindled against Job because he justified himself rather than
God, and against the three friends because they had condemned Job and
yet found no answer to his arguments. The mood is that of a critic
rather hot, somewhat too confident that he knows, beginning a task
that requires much penetration and wisdom. But the opening sentences
of the speech of Elihu betray the need the writer felt to justify
himself in making his bold venture.
"_I am young and ye are very old;
Wherefore I held back and durst not show my knowledge.
I thought, Days should speak,
And the multitude of years teach wisdom.
Still, there is a spirit in man,
And the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding.
Not the great in years are wise,
Nor do the aged understand what is right.
Therefore I say: Hearken to me;
I also will show my opinion._"
These verses are a defence of the new writer's boldness in adding to a
poem that has come down from a previous age. He is confident in his
judgment, yet realises the necessity of commending it to the hearers.
He claims that inspiration which belongs to every reverent
conscientious inquirer. On this footing he affirms a right to express
his opinion, and the right cannot be denied.
Elihu has been disappointed with the speeches of Job's friends. He has
listened for their reasons, observed how they cast about for arguments
and theories; but no one said anything convincing. It is an offence to
this speaker that men who had so good a case against their friend made
so little of it. The intelligence of Elihu is therefore from the first
committed to the hypothesis that Job is in the wrong. Obviously the
writer places his spokesman in a position which the epilogue condemns;
and if we assume this to have been deliberately done a subtle verdict
against the scope of the poem must have been intended. May it not be
surmised that this implied comment or criticism gave the interpolated
discourse value in the eyes of many? Originally the poem appeared
somewhat dangerous, out of the line of orthodoxy. It may have become
more acceptable to Hebrew thought when this caveat against bold
assumptions of human perfectibility and the right of man in presence
of his Maker had been incorporated with the text.
Elihu tells the friends that they are not to say, We have found wisdom
in Job, unexpected wisdom which the Almighty alone is able to vanquish.
They are not to excuse themselves nor exaggerate the difficulties of the
situation by entertaining such an opinion. Elihu is confident that he
can overcome Job in reasoning. As if speaking to himself he describes
the perplexity of the friends and states his intention.
"_They were amazed, they answered no more;
They had not a word to say.
And shall I wait because they speak not,
Because they stand still and answer no more?
I also will answer my part,
I also will show my opinion._"
His convictions become stronger and more urgent. He must open his lips
and answer. And he will use no flattery. Neither the age nor the
greatness of the men he is addressing shall keep him from speaking his
mind. If he were insincere he would bring on himself the judgment of
God. "My Maker would soon take me away." Here again the second
writer's self-defence colours the words put into Elihu's mouth.
Reverence for the genius of the poet whose work he is supplementing
does not prevent a greater reverence for his own views.
* * * * *
The general exordium closes with the thirty-second chapter, and in the
thirty-third Elihu, addressing Job by name, enters on a new
vindication of his right to intervene. His claim is still that of
straightforwardness, sincerity. He is to express what he knows without
any other motive than to throw light on the matter in hand. He feels
himself, moreover, to be guided by the Divine Spirit. The breath of
the Almighty has given him life; and on this ground he considers
himself entitled to enter the discussion and ask of Job what answer
he can give. This is done with dramatic feeling. The life he enjoys is
not only physical vigour as contrasted with Job's diseased and infirm
state, but also intellectual strength, the power of God-given reason.
Yet, as if he might seem to claim too much, he hastens to explain that
he is quite on Job's level nevertheless.
"_Behold, I am before God even as thou art;
I also am formed out of the clay.
Lo, my terror shall not make thee afraid,
Neither shall my pressure be heavy upon thee_.
Elihu is no great personage, no heaven-sent prophet whose oracles must
be received without question. He is not terrible like God, but a man
formed out of the clay. The dramatising appears overdone at this
point, and can only be explained by the desire of the writer to keep
on good terms with those who already reverenced the original poet and
regarded his work as sacred. What is now to be said to Job is spoken
with knowledge and conviction, yet without pretension to more than the
wisdom of the holy. There is, however, a covert attack on the original
author as having made too much of the terror of the Almighty, the
constant pain and anxiety that bore down Job's spirit. No excuse of
the kind is to be allowed for the failure of Job to justify himself.
He did not _because he could not_. The fact was, according to this
critic, that Job had no right of self-defence as perfect and upright,
without fault before the Most High. No man possessed or could acquire
such integrity. And all the attempts of the earlier dramatist to put
arguments and defences into his hero's mouth had of necessity failed.
The new writer comprehends very well the purpose of his predecessor
and intends to subvert it.
The formal indictment opens thus:--
"_Surely thou hast spoken in my hearing
And I have heard thy words:--
I am clean without transgression;
I am innocent, neither is there iniquity in me.
Behold, He findeth occasions against me,
He counteth me for His enemy;
He putteth me in the stocks,
He marketh all my paths._"
The claim of righteousness, the explanation of his troubles given by
Job that God made occasions against him and without cause treated him
as an enemy, are the errors on which Elihu fastens. They are the
errors of the original writer. No one endeavouring to represent the
feelings and language of a servant of God should have placed him in
the position of making so false a claim, so base a charge against
Eloah. Such criticism is not to be set aside as either incompetent or
over bold. But the critic has to justify his opinion, and, like many
others, when he comes to give reasons his weakness discloses itself.
He is certainly hampered by the necessity of keeping within dramatic
lines. Elihu must appear and speak as one who stood beside Job with
the same veil between him and the Divine throne. And perhaps for this
reason the effort of the dramatist comes short of the occasion.
It is to be noted that attention is fixed on isolated expressions
which fell from Job's lips, that there is no endeavour to set forth
fully the attitude of the sufferer towards the Almighty. Eliphaz,
Bildad, and Zophar had made Job an offender for a word and Elihu
follows them. We anticipate that his criticism, however telling it may
be, will miss the true point, the heart of the question. He will
possibly establish some things against Job, but they will not prove
him to have failed as a brave seeker after truth and God.
Opposing the claim and complaint he has quoted, Elihu advances in the
first instance a proposition which has the air of a truism--"_God is
greater than man._" He does not try to prove that even though a man
has appeared to himself righteous he may really be sinful in the sight
of the Almighty, or that God has the right to afflict an innocent
person in order to bring about some great and holy design. The
contention is that a man should suffer and be silent. God is not to be
questioned; His providence is not to be challenged. A man, however he
may have lived, is not to doubt that there is good reason for his
misery if he is miserable. He is to let stroke after stroke fall and
utter no complaint. And yet Job had erred in saying, "_God giveth not
account of any of His matters._" It is not true, says Elihu, that the
Divine King holds Himself entirely aloof from the inquiries and
prayers of His subjects. He discloses in more than one way both His
purposes and His grace.
"_Why dost thou contend against God
That He giveth not account of any of His matters?
For God speaketh once, yea twice,
Yet man perceiveth it not._"
The first way in which, according to Elihu, God speaks to men is by a
dream, a vision of the night; and the second way is by the
chastisement of pain.
Now as to the first of these, the dream or vision, Elihu had, of
course, the testimony of almost universal belief, and also of some
cases that passed ordinary experience. Scriptural examples, such as
the dreams of Jacob, of Joseph, of Pharaoh, and the prophetic visions
already recognised by all pious Hebrews, were no doubt in the
writer's mind. Yet if it is implied that Job might have learned the
will of God from dreams, or that this was a method of Divine
communication for which any man might look, the rule laid down was at
least perilous. Visions are not always from God. A dream may come "by
the multitude of business." It is true, as Elihu says, that one who is
bent on some proud and dangerous course may be more himself in a dream
than in his waking hours. He may see a picture of the future which
scares him, and so he may be deterred from his purpose. Yet the waking
thoughts of a man, if he is sincere and conscientious, are far more
fitted to guide him, as a rule, than his dreams.
Passing to the second method of Divine communication, Elihu appears to
be on safer ground. He describes the case of an afflicted man brought to
extremity by disease, whose soul draweth near to the grave and his life
to the destroyers or death-angels. Such suffering and weakness do not of
themselves insure knowledge of God's will, but they prepare the sufferer
to be instructed. And for his deliverance an interpreter is required.
"_If there be with him an angel,
An interpreter, one among a thousand,
To show unto man what is his duty;
Then He is gracious unto him and saith,
Deliver him from going down to the pit,
I have found a ransom._"
Elihu cannot say that such an angel or interpreter will certainly
appear. He may: and if he does and points the way of uprightness, and
that way is followed, then the result is redemption, deliverance,
renewed prosperity. But who is this angel? "One of the ministering
spirits sent forth to do service on behalf of the heirs of salvation?"
The explanation is somewhat far-fetched. The ministering angels were
not restricted in number. Each Hebrew was supposed to have two such
guardians. Then Malachi says, "The priest's lips should keep
knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth; for he is the
angel (messenger) of Jehovah Sebaoth." Here the priest appears as an
angel-interpreter, and the passage seems to throw light on Elihu's
meaning. As no explicit mention is made of a priest or any priestly
function in our text, it may at least be hinted that interpreters of
the law, scribes or incipient rabbis are intended, of whom Elihu
claims to be one. In this case the ransom would remain without
explanation. But if we take that as a sacrificial offering, the name
"angel-interpreter" covers a reference to the properly accredited
priest. The passage is so obscure that little can be based upon it;
yet assuming the Elihu discourses to be of late origin and intended to
bring the poem into line with orthodox Hebrew thought the introduction
of either priest or scribe would be in harmony with such a purpose.
Mediation at all events is declared to be necessary as between the
sufferer and God; and it would be strange indeed if Elihu, professing
to explain matters, really made Divine grace to be consequent on the
intervention of an angel whose presence and instruction could in no
way be verified. Elihu is realistic and would not rest his case at any
point on what might be declared purely imaginary.
The promise he virtually makes to Job is like those of Eliphaz and the
others,--renewed health, restored youth, the sense of Divine favour.
Enjoying these, the forgiven penitent sings before men, acknowledging
his fault and praising God for his redemption. The assurance of
deliverance was probably made in view of the epilogue, with Job's
confession and the prosperity restored to him. But the writer
misunderstands the confession, and promises too glibly. It is good to
receive after great affliction the guidance of a wise interpreter; and
to seek God again in humility is certainly a man's duty. But would
submission and the forgiveness of God bring results in the physical
sphere, health, renewed youth and felicity? No invariable nexus of
cause and effect can be established here from experience of the
dealings of God with men. Elihu's account of the way in which the
Almighty communicates with His creatures must be declared a failure.
It is in some respects careful and ingenious, yet it has no sufficient
ground of evidence. When he says--
"_Lo, all these things worketh God
Oftentimes with man,
To bring back his soul from the pit_"--
the design is pious, but the great question of the book is not
touched. The righteous suffer like the wicked from disease,
bereavement, disappointment, anxiety. Even when their integrity is
vindicated the lost years and early vigour are not restored. It is
useless to deal in the way of pure fancy with the troubles of
existence. We say to Elihu and all his school, Let us be at the truth,
let us know the absolute reality. There are valleys of human sorrow,
suffering, and trial in which the shadows grow deeper as the traveller
presses on, where the best are often most afflicted. We need another
interpreter than Elihu, one who suffers like us and is made perfect by
suffering, through it entering into His glory.
* * * * *
An invocation addressed by Elihu to the bystanders begins chap. xxxiv.
Again he emphatically asserts his right to speak, his claim to be a
guide of those who think on the ways of God. He appeals to sound
reason and he takes his auditors into counsel--"_Let us choose to
ourselves judgment; let us know among ourselves what is good._" The
proposal is that there shall be conference on the subject of Job's
claim. But Elihu alone speaks. It is he who selects "what is good."
Certain words that fell from the lips of Job are again his text. Job
hath said, I am righteous, I am in the right; and, God hath taken away
my judgment or vindication. When those words were used the meaning of
Job was that the circumstances in which he had been placed, the
troubles appointed by God seemed to prove him a transgressor. But was
he to rest under a charge he knew to be untrue? Stricken with an
incurable wound though he had not transgressed, was he to be against
his right by remaining silent? This, says Elihu, is Job's unfounded
impious indictment of the Almighty; and he asks:--
"_What man is like Job,
Who drinketh up impiety like water,
Who goeth in company with the workers of iniquity,
And walketh with wicked men?_"
Job had spoken of his right which God had taken away. What was his
right? Was he, as he affirmed, without transgression? On the contrary,
his principles were irreligious. There was infidelity beneath his
apparent piety. Elihu will prove that so far from being clear of blame
he has been imbibing wrong opinions and joining the company of the
wicked. This attack shows the temper of the writer. No doubt certain
expressions put into the mouth of Job by the original dramatist might be
taken as impeaching the goodness or the justice of God. But to assert
that even the most unguarded passages of the book made for impiety was a
great mistake. Faith in God is to be traced not obscurely but as a shaft
of light through all the speeches put into the mouth of his hero by the
poet. One whose mind is bound by certain pious forms of thought may fail
to see the light, but it shines nevertheless.
The attempt made by Elihu to establish his charge has an appearance of
success. Job, he says, is one who drinks up impiety like water and
walks with wicked men,--
"_For he hath said, It profiteth a man nothing
That he should delight himself with God._"
If this were true, Job would indeed be proved irreligious. Such a
statement strikes at the root of faith and obedience. But is Elihu
representing the text with anything like precision? In chap. ix. 22
these words are put into Job's mouth:--
"_It is all one, therefore I say,
He destroyeth the perfect and the wicked._"
God is strong and is breaking him with a tempest. Job finds it useless
to defend himself and maintain that he is perfect. In the midst of the
storm he is so tossed that he despises his life; and in perplexity he
cries,--It is all one whether I am righteous or not, God destroys the
good and the vile alike. Again we find him saying, "Wherefore do the
wicked live, become old, yea, are mighty in power?" And in another
passage he inquires why the Almighty does not appoint days of judgment.
These are the expressions on which Elihu founds his charge, but the
precise words attributed to Job were never used by him, and in many
places he both said and implied that the favour of God was his greatest
joy. The second author is either misapprehending or perverting the
language of his predecessor. His argument accordingly does not succeed.
Passing at present from the charge of impiety, Elihu takes up the
suggestion that Divine providence is unjust and sets himself to show
that, whether men delight themselves in the Almighty or not, He is
certainly All-righteous. And in this contention, so long as he keeps to
generalities and does not take special account of the case which has
roused the whole controversy, he speaks with some power. His argument
comes properly to this, If you ascribe injustice or partiality to Him
whom you call God, you cannot be thinking of the Divine King. From His
very nature and from His position as Lord of all, God cannot be unjust.
As Maker and Preserver of life He must be faithful.
"_Far be from God a wickedness,
From the Almighty an injustice!
For every one's work He requiteth him,
And causeth each to find according to his ways.
Surely, too, God doeth not wickedness,
The Almighty perverteth not justice._"
Has God any motive for being unjust? Can any one urge Him to what is
against His nature? The thing is impossible. So far Elihu has all with
him, for all alike believe in the sovereignty of God. The Most High,
responsible to Himself, must be conceived of as perfectly just. But
would He be so if He were to destroy the whole of His creatures? Elihu
says, God's sovereignty over all gives Him the right to act according
to His will; and His will determines not only what is, but what is
right in every case.
"_Who hath given Him a charge over the earth?
Or who hath disposed the whole world?
Were He to set His mind upon Himself,
To gather to Himself His spirit and His breath,
Then all flesh would die together,
Man would return to his dust._"
The life of all creatures implies that the mind of the Creator goes
forth to His universe, to rule it, to supply the needs of all living
beings. He is not wrapped up in Himself, but having given life He
provides for its maintenance.
Another personal appeal in verse 16 is meant to secure attention to
what follows, in which the idea is carried out that the Creator must
rule His creatures by a law of justice.
"_Shall one that hateth right be able to control?
Or wilt thou condemn the Just, the Mighty One?
Is it fit to say to a king, Thou wicked?
Or to princes, Ye ungodly?
How much less to Him who accepts not the persons of princes,
Nor regardeth the rich more than the poor?_"