Job 34

What is Good and Right?

Elihu continues his series of speeches in Chapter 34 overall rebuking both Job and his three friends with a passionate, perhaps overzealous defense of divine justice. By doing so, Elihu accuses Job of being brash, recalcitrant, arrogant, and ignorant of God’s ways in the world. Elihu’s impassioned defense of God’s justice serves as his way of calling Job to confession and repentance before the wise council, which Elihu summons to assist him with his deliberation of Job’s case against God. Elihu ultimately beckons Job to confess his recalcitrance before the arbiter of true justice, that is, YHWH, God the Almighty (El Shaddai). However, what is revealed in the end is Elihu’s own recalcitrance, brashness, and lack of compassion for Job’s suffering. Thus, Elihu’s defense reveals he is devoid of the meaning of divine justice.  

By way of context, readers are first introduced to Elihu in the thirty-second chapter. It is the first time the poet mentions this “fourth friend” in the overall narrative. Scholarly consensus suggests that the series of Elihu’s speeches may have been added to the overall composition at a later date. Consequently, it interferingly disturbs the flow of the poetry, resulting in what some consider to be an embarrassing anticlimax that quells the force of YHWH’s whirlwind response to Job’s accusations (see Job 38:1) that end with the poet’s concluding formula found in 31:40: “The words of Job are ended” (NRSVue).[1]  Despite its later addition, Norman C. Habel argues that Elihu’s speeches serve as the logical response to Job’s summons for one to conduct his hearing in court (see Job 31:35).[2]

Elihu ben Barachel the Buzite hails from the clan of Ram. The poet states that Elihu “became angry” after hearing Job’s seemingly intractable self-justification and (blasphemous?) accusations of divine injustice (Job 32:2). Alongside this, Elihu expresses similar anger at Job’s three friends—Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar—for failing to retrieve an answer from Job to their charges against him. Consequently, the poet declares that their failure to find an answer “had put God in the wrong” (Job 32:3).[3] In other words, for Elihu, the friends’ failure places God in an unfathomable and indefensible position of being guilty of Job’s charges. Elihu will have none of it! Job’s self-justification and his friend’s failure to call Job to repentance provokes the younger Elihu to render his own answer to Job’s claims of divine injustice for Job’s suffering (see 32:6ff).

In Job 34:1, Elihu begins his defense of divine justice by summoning a council of “wise men” to join him in deliberation of Job’s case against God. Although he beckons this assembly to “hear [his] words” with discernment (v. 3), Elihu himself is the chief justice, so to speak, in that he will ultimately render a verdict in the case of Job’s alleged recalcitrance and for uttering words “without knowledge” (see v. 35). Still, Elihu desires to make this judgment in a community of wise judges. He thus implores the assembly to collectively determine what is justifiable (v. 4).

Elihu restates Job’s central claim of innocence despite being denied a fair trial by God (see Job 27:2–6). Elihu immediately follows this by accusing Job of aligning himself with evildoers and sinners alike, dismissing Job as one who drinks scoffing or derision like water. In so doing, Elihu finds Job to be no different than those considered to be the most condemnable in respectable society. Elihu ultimately cites Job’s statement as the reason for this charge: “It profits one nothing to take delight in God” (v. 9). To declare that following in the ways of God’s righteousness yields no material benefits for mortals seems anathema in Eli’s judgment.

Consequently, Elihu summons again the council (i.e., those who are sensible or intelligent) to hear his central claim: God does not do any wickedness and that Shaddai is innocent of any wrongdoing (v. 10). Additionally, YHWH’s justice is inherently retributive; God repays all human creatures according to their deeds whether they be evil or good (v. 11). Elihu emphatically testifies to God’s justice: “Of a truth, God will not do wickedly, and the Almighty [Shaddai] will not pervert justice” (v. 12). Next, Elihu raises a rhetorical question about God’s sovereignty (v. 13). As Creator, YHWH’s spirit is the source of life for all living creatures. Thus, “all flesh” utterly depends on God! If God were to withdraw God’s spirit, all living creatures would cease to exist (vv. 14–15).

Elihu summons again the wise council to hear his words concerning God’s justice (v. 16). This time he emphasizes God’s absolute and universal rulership over all human rulers and God’s position as an impartial judge. El unflinchingly rebukes both kings and princes for wickedness and shows no favoritism toward the rich and powerful over the poor and oppressed. All human beings are created by God and experience the transience of human life (vv. 17–21). Moreover, YHWH demonstrates God’s sovereignty in God’s complete surveillance of God’s creation, including evildoers (v. 22). At this point, Elihu makes a key claim, namely, that because of God’s position as sovereign judge and ruler over all creation, it is improper for any mortal to “set a time” to appear before God as a complainant in a human court, especially if God is the defendant (v. 23). In Elihu’s view, God does not directly respond to any mortal’s charge of divine malfeasance.[4]

Furthermore, Elihu defends Shaddai’s manner of judgment with the following statements. First, God exacts judgment upon the powerful without any need for investigation (v. 24). This is based directly on God’s “all-seeing” presence within creation. Second, God intimately knows human deeds—both good and evil—in advance (v. 25). Third, God judges wrongdoers publicly for all to witness and take heed (v. 26). Fourth, God justly judges wrongdoers and sinners because they have turned away from God (v. 27). Finally, God judges wrongdoers on account of hearing the cries of the poor and afflicted (v. 28). For these reasons, Elihu overall considers God’s justice to be absolute and universal. Divine justice is at the same time retributive and redemptive.

Finally, Elihu makes his appeal to Job to confess his sins before the wise council and ultimately before God. Elihu insists that God will respond justly to those who acknowledge their faults and humble themselves before God so that God will make plain in their understanding any wrongdoing they fail to recognize. However, before Job can respond to Elihu’s defense, Elihu readily renders a scathing verdict in the company of the wise council. Elihu determines that Job lacks both knowledge and understanding. Further, Elihu determines Job should be “tried to the limit,” meaning that he should be further tested to the extreme because Job speaks like sinners do. Hopefully, in Elihu’s view, such extreme testing would provoke Job to humble himself and confess his sins before God. Instead, Job remains recalcitrant in his rebellion against El Shaddai.

What are we to make of Elihu’s defense of divine justice?  Elihu presents a “traditional” understanding of divine justice, namely that God is the sovereign Creator and Judge of all creation, and God judges both retributively and redemptively. On its face, Elihu’s depiction of divine justice is not necessarily wrong. However, Elihu fails to perceive Job’s accusations against God as “the cries of the afflicted.” Elihu’s passionate self-justification to speak of God’s ways in the world (see Job 32:6–22) ultimately restricts him from extending grace or compassion to Job in his suffering. Like Job’s three friends, Elihu glibly attributes Job’s suffering to unconfessed sin and his arrogance before God. Thus, the striking irony of Elihu’s accusation of Job’s recalcitrance and brashness is the fact that Elihu himself is recalcitrant and brash. Elihu’s judgment against Job is thus foolish and rash.

Elihu’s defense of divine justice reminds me of the ways many cis-heteronormative Christians today continue to fail to extend compassion and lovingkindness towards LGBTIQA+ people. They continue to perceive LGBTIQA+ people’s suffering at the hands of both church and state as the result of their unconfessed “sins.” When LGBTIQA+ people cry out to God for vindication, these Christians immediately claim to speak on God’s behalf, justifying God’s ways in the world! They do so by their own authority rather than humbly seeking God for wisdom and listening to the testimonies and stories of LBTIQA+ people, especially those of the faith. How might Elihu’s “defense” serve as a cautionary tale for readers to be “quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger” (James 1:19)? Perhaps, they might adequately determine with humility and compassion in the company of their LGBTIQA+ siblings in the faith what is good and right and, consequently, walk together in the justice of the Almighty.

Watch the Queering Job Writer Interview with Jason Oliver Evans here.

Further Reading

Birch, Bruce C., Walter Brueggemann, Terence E. Fretheim, and David L. Petersen, A Theological

Introduction to the Old Testament. 2^nd ed. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005.

Brueggemann, Walter and Tod Linafelt. An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian

Imagination. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012.

Habel, Norman C. The Book of Job: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia:

Westminster, 1985.

[1] Walter Brueggemann and Tod Linafelt, An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Imagination. 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 331–332. See also Bruce C. Birch et al., A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament. 2^nd ed. (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 402–416.

[2] Norman C. Habel, The Book of Job: A Commentary, OT Library (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1985), 32.

[3] This phrase is the alternative rendering of the Hebrew. In the NRSVue, it reads “he [Elihu] was angry also at Job’s three friends because they had found no answer, though they had declared Job to be in the wrong.” I follow Habel’s translation of Job 32:3–4: “His [Elihu] anger also flared up against his three friends because they had found no answer and so had made God appear guilty.” See also Habel, Job, 441.

[4] Habel, Job, 484.

Jason Oliver Evans Ph.D. (he/him/his) is a constructive theologian working at the intersection of Christian systematic theology with theological and social ethics, Africana studies, and studies of gender and sexuality. He is completing a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of Virginia. Evans earned an M.A. and a Ph.D. in religious studies from the University of Virginia. Previously, Evans earned a Th.M. from Candler School of Theology at Emory University, an M.Div. from Duke University Divinity School, and a B.S. in speech communication from Millersville University of Pennsylvania.

In addition, Evans has abiding research interests in historical theology, Trinitarian theology, Black and womanist theologies, queer theologies, Scripture and theological hermeneutics, and the thought of 20th-century Reformed theologian Karl Barth. Moreover, Evans is a podcast contributor for the Religion, Race, and Democracy Lab at the University of Virginia. Evans has also contributed articles and posts for The Conversation and the Center for Barth Studies’ blog God Here & Now. An ordained minister in the American Baptist Churches USA, Inc., Evans currently serves as an associate minister at the historic St. Paul’s Baptist Church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Evans enjoys cooking, baking, reading cookbooks and food magazines, and binge-watching cooking shows in his spare time.