What are we to make of Elihu? By his own admission, he was younger than all the rest and, in respect to them, a combination of deferential and boldly critical. He was the one who said, “I was afraid of declaring my knowledge to you” (32:6c) and “I waited for your words; I heard your reasoning; while you were searching for words, I gave to you my attention” (32:11-12a). At the same time, he came across as rather self-assured - “I get my knowledge from afar; I will ascribe righteousness to my Maker, for surely my words are not false; one perfect in knowledge is with you” (36:3-4). Right.
Elihu seemed both concerned not to offend and sufficiently angry to be offensive! We are told three times of his anger with Job and the friends (32:2-5); he …show more content…
His slightly impetuous nature confounded itself on occasion as he alternately told Job to “be silent,” to “speak up,” and again to “be silent and I will teach you wisdom” (33:31-33). In sum, no matter how we assess the literary role of this interlude and
Elihu’s role in the narrative, these next five chapters are quite the ride. As Newsom so aptly summarized it, “Elihu appears as someone who has defaced a cultural monument with his graffiti...” (Moral Imagination, 200).
Elihu the Latecomer
A significant number of commentators suggest that chapters 32-37 are a later addition to the text. There are credible reasons for this. For one thing, we have neither any warning that Elihu is lurking on the sidelines nor any follow-up to his vigorous assertions. God did not bother to include Elihu in His rebuke to the other three friends. In addition, Elihu has his “own” prose introduction followed by four separate poetic sections so the whole unit could stand alone.
There are also some readers who do not see that Elihu added anything at all beyond what the friends had already said.
Furthermore, the language in these chapters is different. There is not uniform agreement on just how the differences should be characterized and what to do about them, but the poetry …show more content…
Elihu synthesized, piecing together affirmations from all parties, and engaged in a certain amount of “creativity” as he restated the arguments and shaped his presentation of the evidence. In the course of his summary statements he seems to have put words in Job’s mouth.
He attributed to Job a complete declaration of sinlessness (33:8-9), using the terms “pure,”
“without sin,” “clean,” and “free from guilt.” It is not entirely clear that Job had been so definitive about himself. It was God who had said that Job was blameless, upright, and feared
God (1:8). Job repeated the term “blameless” in response to the accusations of his friends (cf.
9:20-21) that he had sinned grievously. He stated that he had led a righteous life (23:11-12) because he feared the Lord (31:23), a clear reflection God’s assessment at the outset.
Nevertheless, lodged within Job’s agonizing were ongoing doubts about his own innocence
(7:20-21; 9:29; 10:14-15; 13:23; 14:16-17). At the close of his final self-vindication, his apprehension surfaced again - “if I have concealed my sin as Adam did, by hiding my guilt in my heart…” (31:33).
Job held God accountable for what had happened to him and was vexed that justice had
Elihu seemed both concerned not to offend and sufficiently angry to be offensive! We are told three times of his anger with Job and the friends (32:2-5); he …show more content…
His slightly impetuous nature confounded itself on occasion as he alternately told Job to “be silent,” to “speak up,” and again to “be silent and I will teach you wisdom” (33:31-33). In sum, no matter how we assess the literary role of this interlude and
Elihu’s role in the narrative, these next five chapters are quite the ride. As Newsom so aptly summarized it, “Elihu appears as someone who has defaced a cultural monument with his graffiti...” (Moral Imagination, 200).
Elihu the Latecomer
A significant number of commentators suggest that chapters 32-37 are a later addition to the text. There are credible reasons for this. For one thing, we have neither any warning that Elihu is lurking on the sidelines nor any follow-up to his vigorous assertions. God did not bother to include Elihu in His rebuke to the other three friends. In addition, Elihu has his “own” prose introduction followed by four separate poetic sections so the whole unit could stand alone.
There are also some readers who do not see that Elihu added anything at all beyond what the friends had already said.
Furthermore, the language in these chapters is different. There is not uniform agreement on just how the differences should be characterized and what to do about them, but the poetry …show more content…
Elihu synthesized, piecing together affirmations from all parties, and engaged in a certain amount of “creativity” as he restated the arguments and shaped his presentation of the evidence. In the course of his summary statements he seems to have put words in Job’s mouth.
He attributed to Job a complete declaration of sinlessness (33:8-9), using the terms “pure,”
“without sin,” “clean,” and “free from guilt.” It is not entirely clear that Job had been so definitive about himself. It was God who had said that Job was blameless, upright, and feared
God (1:8). Job repeated the term “blameless” in response to the accusations of his friends (cf.
9:20-21) that he had sinned grievously. He stated that he had led a righteous life (23:11-12) because he feared the Lord (31:23), a clear reflection God’s assessment at the outset.
Nevertheless, lodged within Job’s agonizing were ongoing doubts about his own innocence
(7:20-21; 9:29; 10:14-15; 13:23; 14:16-17). At the close of his final self-vindication, his apprehension surfaced again - “if I have concealed my sin as Adam did, by hiding my guilt in my heart…” (31:33).
Job held God accountable for what had happened to him and was vexed that justice had