THE MYSTERIOUS ELIHU (JOB 32-37)

Does he even belong in the book?

The first hurdle to deal with in trying to understand this book deals with its unity or lack thereof. Marvin Pope lists some of the greatest barriers to understanding it as a unified work by a single author:

    1. The tone of the Prologue and Epilogue differs from that of the Dialogues.

    2. “The Prologue and Epilogue together present a fairly complete story.”

    3. “The poem on Wisdom (xxviii) is almost universally recognized as extraneous. Its style and language, however, show similarities to those of the rest of the Dialogue and some scholars have regarded it as an independent composition by the same author.”

    4. “The Elihu speeches (xxxii-xxxvii) are rejected as interpolations by many critics...”

In rebuttal, see my post titled “Book of Job: Introduction to the Literary Structure” for a demonstration of the complete symmetry to the book as we presently have it, without taking into account any of its presumed pre-history. And Swanson points out that the Elihu speeches were apparently in the text of Job by at least the 1^st century B.C. since portions have been found in the Dead Sea scrolls.

Adding to the suspicion that the Elihu speeches were an afterthought is the fact that he is not mentioned either before or after he appears in chapters 32-37. Clines says, “Elihu is not mentioned in the prologue, and while it could be argued that this is nothing remarkable since it was to the author's dramatic advantage to have a fresh interlocutor appear at the end of the cycles of speeches, Elihu's absence from the epilogue is surprising.” Others are concerned over the fact that at the end of the book, God instructs the three friends to offer burnt sacrifices for their words but says nothing about Elihu doing so. So how do we deal to Elihu's total disappearance from the end of the book? Here are some previously proposed solutions:

    Scofield came up with a unique perspective. He claimed that when God appeared right after the end of Elihu's speaking and asked “Who is this who darkens counsel without knowledge?”, He was talking about Elihu, not Job, and thereby dismissed him out of hand. Both the immediate context and the consensus of commentators since that time effectively rule out that otherwise attractive suggestion.

    But God's best comment on Elihu and his ideas may have taken the form of action, not words. Thus, deSilva states, “God himself puts Elihu in his place (Job 38:2) ironically demonstrating Elihu's closing assertion that God 'does not regard any who are wise in their own conceit' (Job 37:24).” That would certainly explain God's utter dismissal of him from that point on.

    A very similar suggestion has been made in regard to Elihu's comment in the previous verse: “The Almighty – we cannot find him; he is great in power and justice...” God's very appearance in 38:1 is God's best rebuttal to that contention.

How does Elihu differ from the other friends?

One reason for his inclusion in the book may be his different background, which could result in a fresh perspective on the subject of suffering. In the first place, only Elihu is Jewish and possesses an impressive ancestry that can be traced back to the patriarchs. (Hartley) Seow provides some OT references to the genealogical information listed in Job: Elihu (I Samuel 1:1; I Chronicles 12:20; 26:7; 27:18), Buzite (Genesis 22:21; Jeremiah 25:23); Ram (Ruth 4:19; I Chronicles 2:9-10,25,27). This is in addition to the good Jewish names Elihu (“He is God”) and Barachel (“God has blessed”).

A second reason for putting Elihu's ideas into the equation is that, as Job 32:1-6 explains, he is the prototype “angry young man” in contrast to the other three friends. Therefore he is not nearly as likely to rely on the “wisdom of the ages” in order to make his points. Interestingly, the three friends' speeches are introduced at 2:13 with the explanation that they had remained silent earlier out of respect to Job's great sufferings. Similarly, Elihu's silence up to this point in the book is ascribed in 32:4 to his deference to the three elder spokesmen.

How do Elihu's ideas differ from those of the other three?

And regarding the fourth point above, it is interesting that a scholar such as C. Cornill can call the Elihu speeches the “crowning point of the book of Job.” Pope also notes that “a few critics regard Elihu's diatribes as the climax of the work and the author's best word on the problem of evil.” It is obvious that unanimity on this subject, as well as on the person of Elihu, is far from coming into focus, as we shall soon show, starting with some negative assessments:

    “For the most part Elihu's arguments merely echo what the friends have already said repeatedly, yet he has the effrontery to offer them as if they were novel and decisive. (Pope)

    “At best, this section of the book can be considered an abortive disputation.” (Longman)

    “Elihu contends that Job's speeches do indeed constitute blasphemy. He goes on to accuse Job directly and offers a prosecutorial speech (Job 34). In this way, Elihu becomes the Satan's second accuser in the trial before the divine council. He thereby picks up where the Satan left off and completes the case against Job.” (Wells and Magdalene)

By contrast, many other commentators see some new thoughts in Elihu's words:

    Elihu's speeches “marginally surpass” those of the three friends in offering alternative solutions to the question of theodicy (i.e. the problem of evil in the world). (Greenberg)

    “If Elihu has anything distinctive to contribute, it is the elaboration of the idea that suffering may be disciplinary (xxxiii 14-33), already suggested by Eliphaz in his first speech (v. 17).” (Pope)

    “Elihu declares that God not only spares his people from the pit but also enlightens them with 'the light of life' through ransom, redemption and acceptance (see Job 33:18-30).” (Mobie)

    Unlike the first three friends, Elihu concentrates on the purpose of suffering rather then its cause. (Viberg)

    “Elihu is distinct as the participant who actually offers a theodicy...suffering serves to bring potential problems to our attention so that they can be remedied...In fact he could be considered one of the first true 'theologians.'” (Walton)

    “What God is reproaching Job with is the latter maintaining his own righteousness at the expense of God's righteousness (Job 40:8; in this God agrees with Elihu [see Job 32: 34:17]).” (Kwakkel)

Gordis feels that the Elihu speeches function as a sort of middle way between the positions of Job vs. his three friends, a contention hinted at in some of the comments above. These positions can best be understood as follows:

    Friends: God is just and Job's punishment proves that he has sinned.

    Job: He denies that his suffering is the result of any sin. Therefore, he feels that God is unjust.

    Elihu: Suffering may serve as a warning against future sin. Therefore God is just.

As if the above scholarly opinions were not already all over the map, I decided to leave reality and go to the internet. There was one very long stream of responses to a post by Peter Krol on the subject of Elihu. From those responses we can see the “man-on-the-street” comments regarding the character of Elihu. They included: an angel (perhaps Raphael), God appearing as a man, the pre-incarnate Christ, Melchizedek, a type of Christ, the author of the book of Job, Satan or someone like him, and (my favorite by far) “a puffed up and pious man who went on to be little more than a curiosity with a mouthful.” My own comment to most of these suggestions is that people could save a whole lot of time coming up with nonsense if they simply read the book in its context. The very fact that Elihu is the only one of the various characters in the book to be given such complete biographical credentials makes him the most firmly grounded in real history. With that in mind, I think that we can safely discard any opinion that would ascribe supernatural characteristics to him, be they divine or evil.