We need to keep in mind, as we continue in our study of Elihu’s discourses, that he is determined to show that what is widely accepted as true, namely: what a man sows that shall he reap, is, in fact, so. Up to this point, Elihu had misinterpreted Job’s words, and it isn’t always clear how he could have done so with integrity. It seems Elihu is driven to defend his understanding of God, vis-à-vis his worldview, which Job has attacked in his previous discourses with the friends. By claiming his innocence of wrongdoing in the face of the widely accepted truth, or worldview, that men are rewarded and punished according to their deeds, Job had set himself up to be attacked by those who profess the then dominant worldview.
Therefore, if Elihu is to defend the truth, as truth is understood by the majority of the folks of his day, he **must** find fault with Job, and whatever Job had said that seemed to prove that, what was accepted as truth, was erroneous. The problem at this point for Elihu is, Job had brought up the point that many innocent folks are oppressed by evil, wicked men, who hold sway over their lives. Job claimed the then present worldview of God didn’t speak to these innocent folks who suffered at the hand of the wicked, because they often go to their deaths without the Lord ever intervening on their behalf in answer the prayers they lift up to him (Job 24:12). Moreover, Job claimed that God never laid folly to those who oppressed the innocent. In other words, God didn’t judge them for their behavior during the time they spent in the land of the living. Therefore, on the one hand, the wicked weren’t always punished, and on the other, the innocent weren’t always rewarded or saved out of trouble. Why is that? Why doesn’t ‘what a man sows that shall he reap’ work under such circumstances? How should Elihu answer this objection?
The fact is that, although Elihu agrees men do, indeed, cry out to God over the many abuses of power made against them (Job 35:9), he never addresses the fact that these wicked folks aren’t judged for their apparent abusive behavior. If wicked folks aren’t judged by God for their behavior toward the innocent, then Job’s position wasn’t hurt by Elihu, as he sought to reply to Job’s objection.
On the other hand, Elihu did address Job’s point that the innocent suffer at the hand of the oppressor, but the prayers of many are never answered. Elihu claimed that they cried out, only because they were oppressed and wanted relief. In other words, such sufferers are ungrateful to God and don’t really seek the presence of “God, their Maker, who gives songs in the night!” (Job 35:10-11). It is difficult to imagine how Elihu could find fault with those who suffer at the hand of the wicked and not show even the slightest sign of compassion. This is a common flaw in those who seek to defend God/truth (meaning to defend what they believe about God/truth), while behaving as though the end justifies the means.[1]
Elihu’s only proof of his worldview in the face of Job’s claim is, men ought to be grateful for God making them so much higher than the beasts of the field (Job 35:11), but are, instead, arrogant and evil in themselves. Therefore, their prayers go unanswered (Job 35:12). Why should the Lord listen to such vain folks? Why should the Almighty regard their condition and relieve them (Job 35:13)? Thus, without any regard for the suffering of the oppressed or the mercy and kindness of God, Elihu defends his God/worldview. For Elihu, the silence of God must be, because there is a fault, but for Job it is proof of the need of a resurrection in order to reward the righteous and punish the wicked (cp. Matthew 25:31-34, 41).
____________________________________________________
[1] A modern example might be protestors of abortion destroying property and/or hurting and killing folks in the process. While this isn’t always so, it has been done and defended by otherwise righteous folks. It is also true that these otherwise righteous folks become unequally yoked with unbelievers (2Corinthians 6:14). The case in point being to seek those in authority, vis-à-vis public figures in government, to aid them (the righteous folks) in bringing about a desirable end, namely, conservative Supreme Court Justices etc. In other words, enforcing the law to get a desirable end is better and more effective than preaching the Gospel for that purpose. So, many women, even mothers financially burdened with large families, could be imprisoned for aborting or ending their pregnancies. No compassion or mercy is shown toward these victims, except to say the unborn alone deserve such sympathy. Thus, the end justifies the means! One must do whatever it takes to establish one’s worldview in society.
Smoodock's Blog 