Elihu, Saint or Satan?

[christophernyc]

Hello tttallison, I think that's made clear for us by the words of the Text, yes For instance,

Job 32 (NKJV)​

1 So, these three men ceased answering Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. ​

2 Then the wrath of Elihu, the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, was aroused against Job; his wrath was aroused because he [Job] justified himself rather than God. ​

3 Also against his three friends his wrath was aroused, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job.​

Satan, and any who are on his "team", would NEVER find fault with anyone for justifying themselves instead of God!

God bless you!!

~Deuteronomy

The actual Hebrew does not actually say Job justifies himself "more than" or "rather than" God. In fact, Job's actual words state the opposite. Review chapter 9.

However, Job IS willing to declare he is just or righteous TO God. This is different. Yes, Job retains his position that he is innocent and has not committed any sin to incur his suffering. This is true. We know this from chapters 1 & 2 where it is clearly laid out for the reader.

So then it appears Elihu is angry because Job is saying he is innocent -- and that Job is willing to admit this before God Himself. That's why Elihu is angry at Job.

Consider that Elihu is not who some people assume him to be.

Job 32:2 (LSB)
But the anger of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, burned; against Job his anger burned because he [Job] was proving himself righteous before God.

 

[christophernyc]

Job 32:1 So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes.

2 Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram: against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than God.

3 Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job.

4 Now Elihu had waited till Job had spoken, because they were elder than he.

5 When Elihu saw that there was no answer in the mouth of these three men, then his wrath was kindled.

11 Behold, I waited for your words; I gave ear to your reasons, whilst ye searched out what to say.

12 Yea, I attended unto you, and, behold, there was none of you that convinced Job, or that answered his words:

14 Now he hath not directed his words against me: neither will I answer him with your speeches.

15 They were amazed, they answered no more: they left off speaking.

Elihu spoke what was right and Job's 3 friends did not.

Job 42:7 And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.

8 Therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept: lest I deal with you after your folly, in that ye have not spoken of me the thing which is right, like my servant Job.

9 So Eliphaz the Temanite and Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite went, and did according as the LORD commanded them: the LORD also accepted Job.

God told Job to make a burnt offering sacrifice only for his three friends—Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar.

God was angry with the three friends because they had not spoken what was right about Him, unlike Job.

God did not include Elihu in this rebuke, nor did He command Job to offer a sacrifice or pray on Elihu's behalf.

Elihu spoke right and that is why God did not command Job to offer a sacrifice for him and did not need to pray for him.

So I would have to say that Elihu is a saint and spoke right where Job's 3 friends spoke wrong.

Why do people think that Elihu spoke wrong and question him when it is plain he spoke right and God was not displeased with him like Job's 3 friends.

Whatever Elihu said was not displeasing to God and he was speaking the ways of Him.

Elihu's wrath was kindled against Job because Job justified himself not Elihu justified himself if someone thought that.

So we can read explicit affirmation of Job by God in chapters 1 & 2. Then we also have explicit affirmation of Job by God in chapter 42 as well.

Can you show us any verse where Elihu receives explicit affirmation by God? Did you find one?

 

[christophernyc]

How do the words of Elihu compare to the words of God?

How about....how does the motive of Elihu compare to the motive of God? Words spoken are only part of the whole context of the story.

The writer tells us Elihu's anger is burning against Job. It emphasizes this point 4 times.

Does Scripture say God's anger is burning against Job? Can you show us a verse that states that like it does for Elihu? Or like the one where God states twice his anger burns against the 3 friends? Where does it say God's anger burns against Job?

Also, Elihu wishes Job to be "tried unto the end". Does God say that he wishes this kind of punishment upon Job?

Job 34:36 (Elihu speaking)
My desire is that Job may be tried unto the end because of his answers for wicked men.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

Do you have an example where someone lied and we are left to guess?

Yes, Elihu lied and made a number of presumptive accusations against Job, just as did the others.

What do you think about that?

 

[christophernyc]

Job had requested a mediator from God that was made of clay, someone whose rod would not be heavy, and who would not scare him. He asked God twice for this. Elihu professes to be the man that God sent to satisfy Job's request. This is the reason God did not correct Elihu. Elihu was doing God's bidding, and was speaking with authority of God. To some Elihu seemed brash, but he was only doing God's bidding.

This is complete conjecture and an absolute assumption. God does not need Elihu to speak for Him. In fact, God Himself shows up and speaks to Job and his friends directly, remember? Elihu provides nothing but anger and hatred, like the accuser of the brethren.

Who cares if he says some things that sound "right"? Satan can also quote Scripture. Have you asked yourself what is Elihu's motive?

God states Job reproved him in Job 40:2 and is the reason that God said to Job, in Job 40:8, "Will you condemn me so that you might be righteous?" And is the reason Elihu said in Job 35:2, "Do you think it is right for you to declare yourself more righteous than God."

Job never says he is more righteous than God. This is a LIE. This verse alone is proof of Elihu's character.

 

[christophernyc]

Elihu was the only one of Job's friends who were not in the wrong. The following passage shows that all of Job's other friends
Job 42:7-9

7 And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.

8 Therefore take unto you now seven bullocks and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and my servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept: lest I deal with you after your folly, in that ye have not spoken of me the thing which is right, like my servant Job.

9 So Eliphaz the Temanite and Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite went, and did according as the LORD commanded them: the LORD also accepted Job.
KJV

had to have a sacrifice made for them because of their sin of treating Job the unkind way they had done:

Elihu is never indicated as a "friend" of Job. There is no support in the text for this idea.

There is support in the text for the opposite, however. One example is from Elihu himself.

Job 35:4 (Elihu speaking) ESV
I will answer you and your friends with you.

Elihu distinguishes himself as separate from Job and his friends.

Also, when the friends are introduced at the end of chapter 2, the author tells us that Job's "three" friends came to visit him. It does not say Job's "four" friends. Yet we know that Elihu has been listening the whole time to their conversation before he speaks.

So if Elihu was a "friend" of Job, he would have been introduced as one.

 

[tttallison]

This is complete conjecture and an absolute assumption. God does not need Elihu to speak for Him. In fact, God Himself shows up and speaks to Job and his friends directly, remember? Elihu provides nothing but anger and hatred, like the accuser of the brethren.

Who cares if he says some things that sound "right"? Satan can also quote Scripture. Have you asked yourself what is Elihu's motive?



Job never says he is more righteous than God. This is a LIE. This verse alone is proof of Elihu's character.

It sounds like you don't believe all scripture. You determine what is true, and what is not true.

Job said he was righteous. And Job said God would laugh at the trial of the innocent. If you went into a courthouse tomorrow, and an obviously innocent person was pronounced guilty, and the judge then laughed, would that judge be a righteous judge?

 

[christophernyc]

It sounds like you don't believe all scripture. You determine what is true, and what is not true.

Wrong. This is a false assumption. It is also a straw man argument.

I believe Psalm 91:11,12 is the Word of God:
For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.
They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.

At the same time, I can perceive that when satan quotes this verse to Jesus in the desert, that there is something terribly wrong with satan quoting it under those circumstances.

Matthew 4:5,6
Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, and saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

Satan is saying something true but his motive is wrong, isn't it? He is saying what is right to tempt Jesus to do something wrong, isn't he?

Or do you believe satan is there as a prophet to bring the Word of God to Jesus and have a bible study with Him?

Job said he was righteous. And Job said God would laugh at the trial of the innocent. If you went into a courthouse tomorrow, and an obviously innocent person was pronounced guilty, and the judge then laughed, would that judge be a righteous judge?

This notion is an abstraction. The story is about a specific person (Job) in a specific situation and circumstance (suffering although he is innocent).

Based on what is written, Job seems to have suffered nearly every hardship imaginable as part of his test. The only thing he does not suffer during his trial is death. That was the line God told satan he could not cross. But it appears Job suffered in every other possible way, all which God allowed as part of his test. He passes the test, as we know, and it proves satan to be a liar. Job never curses God to his face as satan falsely predicted.

 

[tttallison]

Wrong. This is a false assumption. It is also a straw man argument.

Which statement is false and which statement is true? That you don't believe all scripture, or that you determine which is true and which is false?

At the same time, I can perceive that when satan quotes this verse to Jesus in the desert, that there is something terribly wrong with satan quoting it under those circumstances.

Matthew 4:5,6
Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, and saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

Satan is saying something true but his motive is wrong, isn't it? He is saying what is right to tempt Jesus to do something wrong, isn't he?

Or do you believe satan is there as a prophet to bring the Word of God to Jesus and have a bible study with Him?

Satan makes two statements, one in agreement with scripture and one diabolically opposed to scripture. So what is your point?

This notion is an abstraction. The story is about a specific person (Job) in a specific situation and circumstance (suffering although he is innocent).

Based on what is written, Job seems to have suffered nearly every hardship imaginable as part of his test. The only thing he does not suffer during his trial is death. That was the line God told satan he could not cross. But it appears Job suffered in every other possible way, all which God allowed as part of his test. He passes the test, as we know, and it proves satan to be a liar. Job never curses God to his face as satan falsely predicted.

Your supposition is false that Job is innocent. He raised himself above God. God put it this way. "Will you condemn me that you might be righteous?" God said Job reproved him. God also accused Job of considering a permanent covenant with the king over the children of pride. You give Job a pass for everything he did, but God did not.

Job worship blinds the eyes.

 

[christophernyc]

Which statement is false and which statement is true? That you don't believe all scripture, or that you determine which is true and which is false?

You are setting up a straw man argument by insinuating I don't believe the bible or I pick and choose which parts I think are true or not true. This is incorrect, as you seem to be accusing. I'm guessing you're trying to use this false premise to try and bolster your arguments? To help prop up your point of view? If that's the case, it's illegitimate argumentation.

Satan makes two statements, one in agreement with scripture and one diabolically opposed to scripture. So what is your point?

In Matthew 4:5,6 satan quotes Scripture from Psalm 91:11, 12. Did you read it? Satan is saying something true but his motive is wrong, isn't it? He is saying what is right to tempt Jesus to do something wrong.

So just because Elihu says things that are right or "sound" right does not automatically mean that his motive, and his purpose, and his function, and his role in this story is a good one -- or that he is "speaking for God" as some are misled into believing. Elihu does not speak for God any more than satan spoke for God when he accurately quoted Scripture from Psalm 91.

As I have written before, Elihu is the foil of the story.

You seem to assume just because Elihu is speaking in Scripture that every single thing he says -- or WHY he says it -- is right and true. Do you see the irony here? One of the apparent contradictions with this estimation is that you decry Job at every turn, insisting he says things that are not true. So according to your own logic, why are Job's words even in the bible then? How are they also part of Scripture? Your own reasoning here makes no sense. You are not applying your approach to the text equally across the board.

I would encourage more critical thinking about Elihu's character. In fact, one previous post here already proved he lied. Did you see that one?

You throw around this idea of "Job worship" to people here. Could this be projection? Have you considered there may be some Elihu worship going on perhaps?

 

[Deuteronomy]

The actual Hebrew does not actually say Job justifies himself "more than" or "rather than" God. In fact, Job's actual words state the opposite.

Hello Christopher, if what you say (and what the LSB at least appears to be saying in v2) is true, then why did Elihu's anger burn against Job

Thanks!

God bless you!!

~Deuteronomy

 

[Deuteronomy]

Also, here are a number of our translations and paraphrases, and I must say that the LSB (which I use and HIGHLY regard as excellent) stands alone/seems to say something else in v2 than all of the rest of our translations and/or paraphrases do (if you go to the link at the bottom, you will find additional translations as well, but this is all I could post because of our 1,000 character limit).

Why do you think that might be

I'll highlight in bold the LSB and the NKJV translations (since those are the two that were quoted by us), and you can check out the rest translations/paraphrases if you'd care to do so. In the meantime, I will reread Chapter 9 (as per your suggestion) and look elsewhere, as well.

​

New International Version But Elihu son of Barakel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, became very angry with Job for justifying himself rather than God. New Living Translation Then Elihu son of Barakel the Buzite, of the clan of Ram, became angry. He was angry because Job refused to admit that he had sinned and that God was right in punishing him. English Standard Version Then Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, burned with anger. He burned with anger at Job because he justified himself rather than God. Berean Standard Bible This kindled the anger of Elihu son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram. He burned with anger against Job for justifying himself rather than God, Berean Literal Bible But the anger of Elihu son of Barachel, the Buzite from the family of Ram, was kindled; his anger was kindled against Job, upon his justifying himself rather than God. King James Bible Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram: against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than God. New King James Version Then the wrath of Elihu, the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, was aroused against Job; his wrath was aroused because he justified himself rather than God. New American Standard Bible But the anger of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, burned against Job; his anger burned because he justified himself before God. NASB 1995 But the anger of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram burned; against Job his anger burned because he justified himself before God. NASB 1977 But the anger of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram burned; against Job his anger burned, because he justified himself before God. Legacy Standard Bible But the anger of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, burned; against Job his anger burned because he was proving himself righteous before God. Amplified Bible But Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, became indignant. His indignation was kindled and burned and he became upset with Job because he justified himself rather than God [and even expressed doubts about God’s character]. Berean Annotated Bible This kindled the anger of Elihu (He is my God) son of Barachel (God blesses) the Buzite (contempt), of the family of Ram (exalted). He burned with anger against Job (hated) for justifying himself rather than God {Elohim}, Christian Standard Bible Then Elihu son of Barachel the Buzite from the family of Ram became angry. He was angry at Job because he had justified himself rather than God. Holman Christian Standard Bible Then Elihu son of Barachel the Buzite from the family of Ram became angry. He was angry at Job because he had justified himself rather than God. American Standard Version Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram: against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than God. Contemporary English Version Elihu from Buz was there, and he had become upset with Job for blaming God instead of himself. English Revised Version Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram: against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than God. GOD'S WORD® Translation Then Elihu, son of Barachel, a descendant of Buz from the family of Ram, became very angry with Job because Job thought he was more righteous than God. Good News Translation But a bystander named Elihu could not control his anger any longer, because Job was justifying himself and blaming God. (Elihu was the son of Barakel, a descendant of Buz, and belonged to the clan of Ram.) International Standard Version But then Barachel's son Elihu from Buz, one of Ram's descendants, got really angry. He was furious with Job because he had been declaring himself righteous instead of vindicating God. NET Bible Then Elihu son of Barakel the Buzite, of the family of Ram, became very angry. He was angry with Job for justifying himself rather than God. New Heart English Bible Then the wrath of Elihu the son of Barakel, the Buzite, of the family of Ram, was kindled against Job. His wrath was kindled because he justified himself rather than God. Webster's Bible Translation Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram: against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than God. Majority Text Translations Majority Standard Bible This kindled the anger of Elihu son of Barachel the Buzite, of the family of Ram. He burned with anger against Job for justifying himself rather than God, World English Bible Then the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel, the Buzite, of the family of Ram, was kindled against Job. His wrath was kindled because he justified himself rather than God. ~https://biblehub.com/job/32-2.htm​

​

 

[Deuteronomy]

So then it appears Elihu is angry because Job is saying he is innocent -- and that Job is willing to admit this before God Himself. That's why Elihu is angry at Job.

Consider that Elihu is not who some people assume him to be.

Hello again Christopher, I apologize for replying to the opening of your last post (to me) w/o reading through the rest of it first. While I disagree with your assessment of why Elihu is angry with Job (because I believe that the LSB is actually saying the very same thing that all of the other translations are, such as the NASB, just in a different way), I thank for it, nevertheless

God bless you!!

~Deuteronomy

 

[Deuteronomy]

Job IS willing to declare he is just or righteous TO God. This is different. Yes, Job retains his position that he is innocent and has not committed any sin to incur his suffering. This is true. We know this from chapters 1 & 2 where it is clearly laid out for the reader.

One last thing, while I agree that Job was not suffering because he was a sinner (this is, in point of fact, one of the most important things that we learn from the Book of Job, yes? .. a point that was clearly lost on the Scribes, Pharisees, and even the Lord's disciples, in the 1st Century .. e.g. John 9).

That said, if the balance of all of Job's words (concerning himself and God) were wholly without fault, then why does God question what he said/point his words out to him (at length), and why, then, does Job choose to repent in dust and ashes .. e.g. Job 42:6

God bless you!!

~Deuteronomy
p.s. - I'm glad that @tttallison broached this topic, as it is, indeed, a very important and interesting one (it also reminded me of my need to spend some time looking into the Book of Job again, which I haven't done, except in passing, for about 20 years now ).

 

[tttallison]

You are setting up a straw man argument by insinuating I don't believe the bible or I pick and choose which parts I think are true or not true. This is incorrect, as you seem to be accusing. I'm guessing you're trying to use this false premise to try and bolster your arguments? To help prop up your point of view? If that's the case, it's illegitimate argumentation.

I asked you "Which statement is false and which statement is true? That you don't believe all scripture, or that you determine which is true and which is false?" If that meets the requirements for a false dilemma, what is the third or fourth choice? What is your response to these two questions which are colored in orange?

In Matthew 4:5,6 satan quotes Scripture from Psalm 91:11, 12. Did you read it? Satan is saying something true but his motive is wrong, isn't it? He is saying what is right to tempt Jesus to do something wrong.

Yes we know all about Satan's motives because Jesus explains it to us. We are never told anything about Elihu's deceptive motives. Why, therefore, do you believe Elihu to have deceptive motives? Is it because it doesn't fit the narrative of the book that you have been taught?

Do you realize you don't respond very clearly to hard questions which put Job in a poor light. In response to Job's two tests, you have never acknowledged that there even was two tests.

So just because Elihu says things that are right or "sound" right does not automatically mean that his motive, and his purpose, and his function, and his role in this story is a good one -- or that he is "speaking for God" as some are misled into believing. Elihu does not speak for God any more than satan spoke for God when he accurately quoted Scripture from Psalm 91.


As I have written before, Elihu is the foil of the story.

If Elihu was lying when he said he stood in the place of God at Job's request, why didn't God respond to Elihu's unbelievable statement if it wasn't true?

You seem to assume just because Elihu is speaking in Scripture that every single thing he says -- or WHY he says it -- is right and true. Do you see the irony here? One of the apparent contradictions with this estimation is that you decry Job at every turn, insisting he says things that are not true. So according to your own logic, why are Job's words even in the bible then? How are they also part of Scripture? Your own reasoning here makes no sense. You are not applying your approach to the text equally across the board.

We are told by God that Job was without knowledge. God told us Job reproved God. I believe Job spoke in ignorance because he was without knowledge. While some of Job's words were not truth, Job actually believed they were true. God was willing to endure with Job for a season, but if he hadn't repented he would have ended up in that pit that Elihu spoke of in chapter 33.

I would encourage more critical thinking about Elihu's character. In fact, one previous post here already proved he lied. Did you see that one?

Elihu never lied. I didn't see the post.

You throw around this idea of "Job worship" to people here. Could this be projection? Have you considered there may be some Elihu worship going on perhaps?

I wouldn't worship Elihu no more than I would worship Elijah, or Daniel. God is no respecter of persons.

 

[Davidstarr]

I asked you "Which statement is false and which statement is true? That you don't believe all scripture, or that you determine which is true and which is false?" If that meets the requirements for a false dilemma, what is the third or fourth choice? What is your response to these two questions which are colored in orange?





Yes we know all about Satan's motives because Jesus explains it to us. We are never told anything about Elihu's deceptive motives. Why, therefore, do you believe Elihu to have deceptive motives? Is it because it doesn't fit the narrative of the book that you have been taught?

Do you realize you don't respond very clearly to hard questions which put Job in a poor light. In response to Job's two tests, you have never acknowledged that there even was two tests.




If Elihu was lying when he said he stood in the place of God at Job's request, why didn't God respond to Elihu's unbelievable statement if it wasn't true?




We are told by God that Job was without knowledge. God told us Job reproved God. I believe Job spoke in ignorance because he was without knowledge. While some of Job's words were not truth, Job actually believed they were true. God was willing to endure with Job for a season, but if he hadn't repented he would have ended up in that pit that Elihu spoke of in chapter 33.





Elihu never lied. I didn't see the post.




I wouldn't worship Elihu no more than I would worship Elijah, or Daniel. God is no respecter of persons.

You are asking Christopher a trick question:

"I asked you "Which statement is false and which statement is true? That you don't believe all scripture, or that you determine which is true and which is false?" If that meets the requirements for a false dilemma, what is the third or fourth choice? What is your response to these two questions which are colored in orange?

You want him to say either one or the other.

You want him to say either "I don't believe all scripture" or "I determine which is true and which is false" (which would imply he does not believe all scripture is true).

It is a trick question.

A type of question the priests asked Jesus "Should we pay taxes to Rome or not?" or "By whose authority do you do these things?"

Trick questions designed only to try to discredit Jesus' testimony.

 

[tttallison]

You are asking Christopher a trick question:

"I asked you "Which statement is false and which statement is true? That you don't believe all scripture, or that you determine which is true and which is false?" If that meets the requirements for a false dilemma, what is the third or fourth choice? What is your response to these two questions which are colored in orange?

You want him to say either one or the other.

You want him to say either "I don't believe all scripture" or "I determine which is true and which is false" (which would imply he does not believe all scripture is true).

It is a trick question.

It is not a trick question. He can say yes or not to either question. Or he can say yes to both, or no to both. I know yes or no questions are hard. You have to commit. Stating that a question is a straw man is just another way of avoiding the question, especially when it will reflect poorly on the man who has been placed on a pedestal.

A type of question the priests asked Jesus "Should we pay taxes to Rome or not?" or "By whose authority do you do these things?"

Trick questions designed only to try to discredit Jesus' testimony.

It was a hard question, and Jesus answered it. Jesus didn't say it was a straw man's tactic to avoid the question.

 

[christophernyc]

Hello Christopher, if what you say (and what the LSB at least appears to be saying in v2) is true, then why did Elihu's anger burn against Job

Thanks!

God bless you!!

~Deuteronomy

God bless you!

Great question. These are perfect places in this story, specifically Elihu's speech, where we should pause and really analyze his character. Why wold Elihu be angry at Job for persistently declaring his innocence in this matter? It appears he deeply desires Job to be guilty and to make a confession of wrong. But as any reader knows from the beginning, Job is not guilty. He has not committed any sin to incur his suffering.

Also, Elihu is angry at Job's 3 friends. Why? Because they also did not reach any substantial conviction of Job (and yet declared him guilty anyway). Here again it appears Elihu is angry because he is ardent for a conviction of Job, whom every reader knows is innocent based on chapters 1 & 2.

Additionally, isn't it interesting that Elihu is angry at Job's 3 friends for a different reason than God? We are told why Elihu is angry (mentioned above) but God is angry at Job's 3 friends because they did not speak rightly of God "as My servant Job has". Isn't that interesting?

Elihu condemns Job for his words. God affirms Job for his words. Hm.

 

[christophernyc]

Also, here are a number of our translations and paraphrases, and I must say that the LSB (which I use and HIGHLY regard as excellent) stands alone/seems to say something else in v2 than all of the rest of our translations and/or paraphrases do (if you go to the link at the bottom, you will find additional translations as well, but this is all I could post because of our 1,000 character limit).

Why do you think that might be

I'll highlight in bold the LSB and the NKJV translations (since those are the two that were quoted by us), and you can check out the rest translations/paraphrases if you'd care to do so. In the meantime, I will reread Chapter 9 (as per your suggestion) and look elsewhere, as well.

​

​

​

As you can see not all translations are saying the same thing. One different choice of word seems to change the whole meaning of this verse. Here are the 3 main variations I found:

1. Job justified himself rather than / instead of God
2. Job declared he was more righteous than God
3. Job declared his innocence before God

Something to consider when evaluating which translation is accurate are the actual words Job has spoken. Did he say any of these?

1. Did he justify himself rather than / instead of God? I guess someone could argue for this version, but this notion does not seem to comport with the rest of the text.

2. Did he declare he was more righteous than God? Uh...no. Full stop.

3. Did Job declare his innocence before God? Clearly, yes. This is the entire thrust of most of his words. He is telling his 3 friends he is innocent and has done nothing wrong. He also turns to God many times and says the same thing. So this translation makes the most sense based on what is written elsewhere in the story.

 

[tttallison]

Great question. These are perfect places in this story, specifically Elihu's speech, where we should pause and really analyze his character. Why wold Elihu be angry at Job for persistently declaring his innocence in this matter? It appears he deeply desires Job to be guilty and to make a confession of wrong. But as any reader knows from the beginning, Job is not guilty. He has not committed any sin to incur his suffering.

Lets look at Job's sins.

1. He was speculating on whether to make a permanent covenant with the king over the children of pride.
2. He did not bless God when things got tough.
3. He cursed the day he was born.
4. He no longer wanted to be God's servant.
5. He strove with God. (Isaiah 45:9 Woe unto him that striveth with his maker.---)
6. He reproved God. ( That is a big one.)
7. He exalted himself above God. (Didn't Satan do the same?)

Also, Elihu is angry at Job's 3 friends. Why? Because they also did not reach any substantial conviction of Job (and yet declared him guilty anyway). Here again it appears Elihu is angry because he is ardent for a conviction of Job, whom every reader knows is innocent based on chapters 1 & 2.

God no longer compliments Job after the second test because Job failed it. We are told Job didn't sin with his lips, but it seems obvious that he sinned with his heart when he did not bless God. (We are given two methods of sinning in the first chapter. Satan states the one, which is with the mouth, when he said he will curse you to your face, and Job gives the second, when he said his children may have cursed God with their hearts.

Additionally, isn't it interesting that Elihu is angry at Job's 3 friends for a different reason than God? We are told why Elihu is angry (mentioned above) but God is angry at Job's 3 friends because they did not speak rightly of God "as My servant Job has". Isn't that interesting?

Elihu was angry at the three friends for not saying what is right, or the correct answer to Job's problem. God was angry with the three friends because they did not have the correct answer for their own problems, while Job had discovered the answer to the problem, which is repentance, which comes before salvation.

Your bias is not allowing you see the overall picture. God said Job was without knowledge, but that all changed when he said,
Job 42:6 Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes. It wasn't until after this that Job was accepted by God.

Isn't this how it works for us? We repent and turn to God and he accepts us. Job wasn't saying right things about God when he said God would laugh at the trial of the innocent, or when he said he no longer wanted to be God's servant, or when he reproved God.

Elihu condemns Job for his words. God affirms Job for his words. Hm.

You are correct Elihu's condemnation came before Job's repentance, and God's acceptance occurred after Job's repentance.