The purpose of government is to promote justice and keep wickedness at bay. However, one may ask why should this be so? For example, what if those in authority accept bribes from time to time? Certainly, if a bribe is accepted by a civil servant, his service to the public becomes biased toward a specific party. Is justice served, when the civil servant is no longer blind? If he rules with partiality, he is no longer blind to whom he serves. If he governs by principle rather than bias, then he is deliberately blind to whom the principle of government serves most. However, if bias enters into the decisions of government, then the civil servant’s eyes are open, and he not only sees whom he serves, but he decides whom he serves. So, does justice really matter? Does it matter that wickedness prevails? Who really gets to say? While good principles are the foundation of good government, the bribe will corrupt principled men!
This idea is easier to notice in civil government, but it is also true in religion. The Hebrew at the beginning of chapter 34 in the Book of Job indicates that Elihu may have paused at the end of chapter 34, causing one to believe he may have looked for a response from Job. However, Job made no attempt to reply! Why is that? It may have been that Job didn’t see the need to respond, according to the folly of a foolish person (Proverbs 26:4). After all, what had Elihu said that required a response? Hadn’t he thus far taken Job’s words out of context? What, exactly, did Elihu claim about Job that was true, or what evidence did he offer to show Job was wrong? One might assume that Elihu is deliberately blind to what Job really claimed in order to give inordinate credence to the worldview he embraced! In other words, Elihu indicates he is biased. He quotes Job out of context in order to uphold his false worldview.
Since a response was not forthcoming, Elihu then asked Job, if he really believed he was more righteous than God (Job 35:1-2). Yet, Job made no such claim (Job 9:30-35). He did claim that it was God who destroyed him (Job 9:6) and that without cause (Job 9:17; cp. Job 2:3). In other words, Job claimed that the then present dominant worldview that said as a man sows, so shall he reap, wasn’t true. While it is, indeed, a truism, it is not always so, because God cannot be bound by such a saying. The fact is, he moves in mysterious ways, which man isn’t always able to interpret properly (Job 9:10; cp. Romans 11:33). Since Job knew he was righteous and never sinned in a manner that required God to punish him, as the dominant worldview indicated, Job claimed the worldview must be in error. Moreover, such an understanding had cast Job into the depths of darkness, because he didn’t know why the Lord had done so with him (Job 9:6, 22; cp. 16:12-17; 10:13-15). Both Elihu and the friends claimed it was because Job was wicked and had brought all his calamities upon himself. Nevertheless, Job simply refused to justify their claims (Job 27:2-6).
Elihu went on to say that Job claimed there was no profit in serving God or doing good (Job 35:3; cp. 34:9). However, once again Elihu misquoted Job, making it more difficult to believe he was speaking out of the integrity of his heart (cp. Job 33:3). What Job actually said was: “What is the Almighty, that we should serve him? and what profit should we have, if we pray unto him?” (Job 21:15). Job put those words in the mouths of the wicked (Job 21:13-15), but he made no such claim. It is difficult to believe Elihu missed this, for such tactics are often used in debates against those who make just and logical claims against what is widely accepted as true but is flawed. Elihu seems to be grasping at straws in order to defend his beliefs. Job hadn’t replied to him, when Elihu paused to offer an opportunity to do so, and that may have been uncomfortable for Elihu. Why wouldn’t Job have taken the opportunity to respond, when given space to defend himself?
Whatever the reason for Job’s silence, Elihu decided he would go on to reply to both Job and his associates, vis-à-vis his wicked friends (Job 35:4; cp. 34:8, 36). Elihu also repeats Eliphaz’s argument by pointing to the height of the heavens, asking, since man is unable to affect the course of the clouds so far above him, how is it possible that man’s righteous or wicked behavior could affect God for good or for ill (Job 35:5-7; cp. Job 22:2-3, 12)? This argument may itself be true (Jeremiah 7:19; Proverbs 8:36), but it’s, obviously, misplaced, because Job never claimed God owed him anything for his righteous behavior. His words, which conclude it is unprofitable to serve God, were put in the mouths of the wicked (Job 21:13-15). Those words don’t express Job’s own heart.
To conclude, Elihu says Job’s righteousness or wickedness affects himself as well as other folks (Job 35:8), but the Lord isn’t helped or hurt by either. According to Elihu, the Lord requires righteousness and punishes wickedness for the benefit of mankind, as a man sows, so shall he reap (Galatians 6:7), which is the point Eliphaz used against Job (Job 4:8; 15:31). Nevertheless, Job’s argument that he is righteous, despite the calamities the Lord had laid upon him, speaks against this worldview. While the saying is a truism, there are exceptions to the general rule, but, as a worldview, exceptions aren’t permitted, which in the context of Elihu’s argument, begs the question: Does justice matter? Does wickedness really matter? …and who gets to say?
Smoodock's Blog 