“474. ELIHU’S ARGUMENT—JOB 32-37”

Elihu’s Argument—Job 32-37

A very large number of persons who have taken up the notion that all which Job says is right, and that all, or nearly all, that his three friends say is wrong, feel surprised that Elihu is dissatisfied not only with the arguments of the latter, but with those of Job himself. This is expressly stated. They sympathize in his anger at the friends, and are prepared to side with him as the champion on the side of Job against them. But when it appears that Job has some share of his displeasure, they turn against Elihu, and regard him as a forward young man, thrusting himself needlessly into the controversy, arrogantly undertaking to decide it; and, as some urge, being himself as much in the wrong as any of the disputants.

If this were correct, if the sacred writer did not mean to set Elihu forth as a fair, an enlightened, and true umpire of the dispute, it is difficult to see why he should have been introduced at all. Otherwise his appearance would be anomalous and a hindrance to the progress of the poem; but if he be right, his appearance is perfectly harmonious with the design, falls in at the proper place, and importantly advances the conclusion.

It remains, therefore, to show that Elihu was right in his condemnation of Job as well as of the three friends, and is also right in the solution which he himself produces. For this purpose it is necessary to recapitulate the argument.

The proposition to be solved is, How the sufferings of the righteous may be reconciled with the perfect justice of God.

The solution of this problem is not to be found in the speeches of Job. Indeed he is as clearly as possible described by the sacred writer himself as having been in grievous error. It is only after he had humbled himself that he found favor with God. We have already pointed out the implication. from Job_1:22; Job_2:10, compared with 3:1, that Job is represented as charging God foolishly, and sinning with his lips: and if we go on to Job_32:1-2, we shall see that this consisted in the fact that “he was righteous in his own eyes, and justified himself rather than God.” No one who reads his words with attention, can fail to see that in the midst of much sound matter and correct views, the temper thus indicated pervades his utterances. There is also great contradiction in his views at different times; in which we trace the varying feelings and impressions natural to a man under extreme affliction, and who was not in possession of any fixed principle on which be could himself with confidence rely for the solution of the difficulty. He is embarrassed by it to the last, and the only point of which he feels assured, is, that his friends are in the wrong. Job erred chiefly in not acknowledging the sin inherent in him, notwithstanding his integrity and sincere piety; and this prevented him from apprehending the objects of the calamities inflicted on him, led him to regard God’s punishments as arbitrary, and made him despair of better days. The greatness of his sufferings was in some measure the cause of his misconception, by exciting his feelings and preventing him from calmly considering his case. He had also received much provocation from his friends; and from these concurrent excitements be is tempted into harsh assertions, the subsequent endeavor to soften which repeatedly leads him into apparent, and indeed real contradictions; such as must needs occur in the thoughts, if not in the utterances, of all who have been greatly tempted. But he is loud in acknowledging the wisdom of God, and at times allows himself to indulge in cheering hopes for the future. All this much excuses him, but cannot justify him; and it is, therefore, greatly to his praise that when the true state of the case is set before him by Elihu, he remains silent, and ultimately acknowledges his fundamental error of justifying himself rather than God.

Still less shall we find the true solution in the words of the three friends; good and well-meaning, though somewhat obstinate, men as they were. Their demeanor is distinctly reproved by the Lord himself, and is represented as indeed involving such positive sin as to require a propitiatory sacrifice, which Job offered on their behalf. Their arguments were ever more unsound than those of Job, while their backwardness in that acknowledgment of error, which he so readily made, evinced such sinful obduracy as demanded this expiation. But we have only now to do with their arguments. The notions which the friends entertained of the nature of sill were even more crude than those of Job. They saw only its external aspects, and inferring its existence from the presence of calamity, they were hence led to conclude that Job was guilty of crimes heinous in proportion to his afflictions. The moral use of suffering was unknown to them; and this proved that they were themselves not yet purged and free from guilt. If they had been duly sensible of the fallen nature of man, if they had understood themselves, they would have been led, on seeing the misery of Job, not to fall thus furiously upon him, but far rather to smite upon their own breasts, and cry, “God be merciful to me a sinner.” They are right in the general perception of the connection there is between misery and sin; but they fail and stumble in the application of this central truth. In fact, the essential errors of both parties resolve themselves into the same source—the want of a sound insight into the nature of sin. Job conceives himself righteous, and not deserving such afflictions as had fallen upon him, because he had not committed any heinous crimes; and his friends can only account for his great misery by assuming that he was greatly criminal.

Elihu was, therefore, justified in his censure of both parties.

The leading principle of Elihu’s own statement is—that calamity, in the shape of trial, is inflicted on comparatively the best of men; but that God allowed a favorable turn to take place as soon as its object has been realized. This view we have so often enforced in our way through the book, that we shall not now further develop it. “It affords,” as Hengstenberg Note: We have, with some modification, followed here the view which Hengstenberg has given of the argument; and we have done so with the more satisfaction, from having been obliged, in the preceding pages, to dissent from some of his conclusions, and to produce views different from those which this great writer has taken. remarks, “the key to the events of Job’s life.” Though a pious and righteous man, he is tried by severe afflictions. He knows not for what purpose he is smitten, and his calamity continues. But when he hears it from the addresses of Elihu and of God, and humbles himself, he is relieved from the burden which oppresses him, and ample prosperity compensates for the afflictions he has sustained. Add to this, that the remaining portion of Elihu’s speech, in which he points to God’s infinite majesty as including his justice, is contained in the addresses of God; that Elihu foretells God’s appearance; that he is not rebuked by God, as are the friends of Job; in fine, that Job by his very silence acknowledges the problem to have been solved by Elihu; and his silence is the more significant, because Elihu had urged him to defend himself (Job_33:32); and because Job had repeatedly declared that he would “hold his peace, if it were shown him wherein he had erred.”

Autor: JOHN KITTO