For the past few studies, we’ve been discussing Elihu’s remarks to Job and the friends. Elihu believes Job is guilty of great crimes against God and man, and he is openly disappointed in the friends for not being able to silence Job and put him to shame. He has asked everyone present to come to an agreement upon what is right and good (Job 34:2-4). He has said that God can’t do wickedly (Job 34:10), nor could he pervert judgment (Job 34:12). Obviously, no righteous, religious person would disagree with Elihu on these two points. So, in verse-16 Elihu singles Job out, saying “If now you have understanding…” In other words, Job if we are in agreement, or if we have common ground at this point, “listen to me! (Job 34:16)[1] Thus, Elihu is preparing Job for his argument against him, which immediately follows.
Elihu believes (mistakenly) that Job claims God has mistreated him, that the Lord erred or more specifically deliberately erred in judgment. In this context, Elihu then asks Job, “Shall one who hates right govern?” (Job 34:17). In other words, how is it possible for anyone who is unrighteous (hates right) get to govern in its true sense (cp. Romans 3:5-6)? If God sanctions unrighteousness, what would his government look like. Government exists for the sole purpose of keeping evil at bay, and especially for punishing offenders, when they are found guilty of crimes against society. However, if the Lord is unrighteous, in what sense would his government exist at all? Anarchy would reign, would it not, if God were unrighteous?
Would it be logical for Job to tell the king he is worthless, or say to one of his nobles that he is evil and wicked (Job 34:18)? How much more grievous would such a thing be, if such disrespect were directed toward the Ruler of the universe, who shows no partiality for rulers over what he shows the poor? Are not both the work of his hands (Job 34:19)? If God is perfect in all his ways, why would he choose one of his works over the other? Aren’t all of his works perfect, and wouldn’t all of his works fulfill specific purposes in his divine plan? Therefore, doesn’t everyone, whether rich and poor, the king or the peasant: doesn’t all mankind owe the Ruler of the universe their utmost respect? In other words, “Job, is it a good thing for you to impugn the righteousness and the sovereignty of God?” (Job 34:17; cp. Job 34:5-9).
Elihu has set Job up for a fall, but he has a problem. Job never once even implied, during any of his replies to the friends, that God was unrighteous. Both Elihu and the friends have misinterpreted Job’s confessed confusion over the Lord’s treatment of him and his depression over his lack of understanding for disrespect toward the righteous judgment of God. Yet, Job claimed: “Though he slays me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain my own ways before him” (Job 13:15). In other words, Job trusts God, even when he doesn’t understand what the Lord is doing, and this is especially true, since he knows he is innocent of any wrongdoing. This is the problem, when bias is embraced in a debate. Elihu and the friends have assumed their worldview must be true, and if so, then Job **must** be wicked, because God has destroyed his family, his wealth and even his health. Therefore, with their conclusion already known, they go about seeking evidence to prove it so, while neglecting any evidence that would question their worldview.
_________________________________________________________
[1] Elihu seems fond of telling Job and the friends to ‘listen up’ or ‘pay attention’ to what he is about to say. While such a thing isn’t overly unusual in speeches, he does this at least nine times throughout his remarks to Job and the friends (Job 32:10; 33:1, 31, 33; 34:2, 10, 16, 34; 37:14). One begins to wonder why he does this so often. Is it because he is insecure and believes he must continually point out their need to listen to him. After all, he, a bystander and probably a disciple, has approached them as an equal: “Let us choose for ourselves what is right, and know among ourselves what is good!” (Job 34:4). The presumed pause at the end of Job’s speech in Job 31 seems to invite commentary from others who were listening, but to invite a response or even different opinion isn’t the same as offering a chair at the same table, where Job and the friends sit. Nevertheless, Elihu seems to have brought his own chair, however insecure he is about that!
Smoodock's Blog 