The narrative verses which introduce the new speaker state that his wrath was kindled against Job because he justified himself rather than G.o.d, and against the three friends because they had condemned Job and yet found no answer to his arguments. The mood is that of a critic rather hot, somewhat too confident that he knows, beginning a task that requires much penetration and wisdom. But the opening sentences of the speech of Elihu betray the need the writer felt to justify himself in making his bold venture.

"_I am young and ye are very old; Wherefore I held back and durst not show my knowledge.

I thought, Days should speak, And the mult.i.tude of years teach wisdom.

Still, there is a spirit in man, And the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

Not the great in years are wise, Nor do the aged understand what is right.

Therefore I say: Hearken to me; I also will show my opinion._"

These verses are a defence of the new writer's boldness in adding to a poem that has come down from a previous age. He is confident in his judgment, yet realises the necessity of commending it to the hearers.

He claims that inspiration which belongs to every reverent conscientious inquirer. On this footing he affirms a right to express his opinion, and the right cannot be denied.

Elihu has been disappointed with the speeches of Job's friends. He has listened for their reasons, observed how they cast about for arguments and theories; but no one said anything convincing. It is an offence to this speaker that men who had so good a case against their friend made so little of it. The intelligence of Elihu is therefore from the first committed to the hypothesis that Job is in the wrong. Obviously the writer places his spokesman in a position which the epilogue condemns; and if we a.s.sume this to have been deliberately done a subtle verdict against the scope of the poem must have been intended. May it not be surmised that this implied comment or criticism gave the interpolated discourse value in the eyes of many? Originally the poem appeared somewhat dangerous, out of the line of orthodoxy. It may have become more acceptable to Hebrew thought when this caveat against bold a.s.sumptions of human perfectibility and the right of man in presence of his Maker had been incorporated with the text.

Elihu tells the friends that they are not to say, We have found wisdom in Job, unexpected wisdom which the Almighty alone is able to vanquish.

They are not to excuse themselves nor exaggerate the difficulties of the situation by entertaining such an opinion. Elihu is confident that he can overcome Job in reasoning. As if speaking to himself he describes the perplexity of the friends and states his intention.

"_They were amazed, they answered no more; They had not a word to say.

And shall I wait because they speak not, Because they stand still and answer no more?

I also will answer my part, I also will show my opinion._"

His convictions become stronger and more urgent. He must open his lips and answer. And he will use no flattery. Neither the age nor the greatness of the men he is addressing shall keep him from speaking his mind. If he were insincere he would bring on himself the judgment of G.o.d. "My Maker would soon take me away." Here again the second writer's self-defence colours the words put into Elihu's mouth.

Reverence for the genius of the poet whose work he is supplementing does not prevent a greater reverence for his own views.

The general exordium closes with the thirty-second chapter, and in the thirty-third Elihu, addressing Job by name, enters on a new vindication of his right to intervene. His claim is still that of straightforwardness, sincerity. He is to express what he knows without any other motive than to throw light on the matter in hand. He feels himself, moreover, to be guided by the Divine Spirit. The breath of the Almighty has given him life; and on this ground he considers himself ent.i.tled to enter the discussion and ask of Job what answer he can give. This is done with dramatic feeling. The life he enjoys is not only physical vigour as contrasted with Job's diseased and infirm state, but also intellectual strength, the power of G.o.d-given reason.

Yet, as if he might seem to claim too much, he hastens to explain that he is quite on Job's level nevertheless.

"_Behold, I am before G.o.d even as thou art; I also am formed out of the clay.

Lo, my terror shall not make thee afraid, Neither shall my pressure be heavy upon thee_.

Elihu is no great personage, no heaven-sent prophet whose oracles must be received without question. He is not terrible like G.o.d, but a man formed out of the clay. The dramatising appears overdone at this point, and can only be explained by the desire of the writer to keep on good terms with those who already reverenced the original poet and regarded his work as sacred. What is now to be said to Job is spoken with knowledge and conviction, yet without pretension to more than the wisdom of the holy. There is, however, a covert attack on the original author as having made too much of the terror of the Almighty, the constant pain and anxiety that bore down Job's spirit. No excuse of the kind is to be allowed for the failure of Job to justify himself.

He did not _because he could not_. The fact was, according to this critic, that Job had no right of self-defence as perfect and upright, without fault before the Most High. No man possessed or could acquire such integrity. And all the attempts of the earlier dramatist to put arguments and defences into his hero's mouth had of necessity failed.

The new writer comprehends very well the purpose of his predecessor and intends to subvert it.

The formal indictment opens thus:--

"_Surely thou hast spoken in my hearing And I have heard thy words:-- I am clean without transgression; I am innocent, neither is there iniquity in me.

Behold, He findeth occasions against me, He counteth me for His enemy; He putteth me in the stocks, He marketh all my paths._"

The claim of righteousness, the explanation of his troubles given by Job that G.o.d made occasions against him and without cause treated him as an enemy, are the errors on which Elihu fastens. They are the errors of the original writer. No one endeavouring to represent the feelings and language of a servant of G.o.d should have placed him in the position of making so false a claim, so base a charge against Eloah. Such criticism is not to be set aside as either incompetent or over bold. But the critic has to justify his opinion, and, like many others, when he comes to give reasons his weakness discloses itself.

He is certainly hampered by the necessity of keeping within dramatic lines. Elihu must appear and speak as one who stood beside Job with the same veil between him and the Divine throne. And perhaps for this reason the effort of the dramatist comes short of the occasion.

It is to be noted that attention is fixed on isolated expressions which fell from Job's lips, that there is no endeavour to set forth fully the att.i.tude of the sufferer towards the Almighty. Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar had made Job an offender for a word and Elihu follows them. We antic.i.p.ate that his criticism, however telling it may be, will miss the true point, the heart of the question. He will possibly establish some things against Job, but they will not prove him to have failed as a brave seeker after truth and G.o.d.

Opposing the claim and complaint he has quoted, Elihu advances in the first instance a proposition which has the air of a truism--"_G.o.d is greater than man._" He does not try to prove that even though a man has appeared to himself righteous he may really be sinful in the sight of the Almighty, or that G.o.d has the right to afflict an innocent person in order to bring about some great and holy design. The contention is that a man should suffer and be silent. G.o.d is not to be questioned; His providence is not to be challenged. A man, however he may have lived, is not to doubt that there is good reason for his misery if he is miserable. He is to let stroke after stroke fall and utter no complaint. And yet Job had erred in saying, "_G.o.d giveth not account of any of His matters._" It is not true, says Elihu, that the Divine King holds Himself entirely aloof from the inquiries and prayers of His subjects. He discloses in more than one way both His purposes and His grace.

"_Why dost thou contend against G.o.d That He giveth not account of any of His matters?

For G.o.d speaketh once, yea twice, Yet man perceiveth it not._"

The first way in which, according to Elihu, G.o.d speaks to men is by a dream, a vision of the night; and the second way is by the chastis.e.m.e.nt of pain.

Now as to the first of these, the dream or vision, Elihu had, of course, the testimony of almost universal belief, and also of some cases that pa.s.sed ordinary experience. Scriptural examples, such as the dreams of Jacob, of Joseph, of Pharaoh, and the prophetic visions already recognised by all pious Hebrews, were no doubt in the writer's mind. Yet if it is implied that Job might have learned the will of G.o.d from dreams, or that this was a method of Divine communication for which any man might look, the rule laid down was at least perilous. Visions are not always from G.o.d. A dream may come "by the mult.i.tude of business." It is true, as Elihu says, that one who is bent on some proud and dangerous course may be more himself in a dream than in his waking hours. He may see a picture of the future which scares him, and so he may be deterred from his purpose. Yet the waking thoughts of a man, if he is sincere and conscientious, are far more fitted to guide him, as a rule, than his dreams.

Pa.s.sing to the second method of Divine communication, Elihu appears to be on safer ground. He describes the case of an afflicted man brought to extremity by disease, whose soul draweth near to the grave and his life to the destroyers or death-angels. Such suffering and weakness do not of themselves insure knowledge of G.o.d's will, but they prepare the sufferer to be instructed. And for his deliverance an interpreter is required.

"_If there be with him an angel, An interpreter, one among a thousand, To show unto man what is his duty; Then He is gracious unto him and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit, I have found a ransom._"

Elihu cannot say that such an angel or interpreter will certainly appear. He may: and if he does and points the way of uprightness, and that way is followed, then the result is redemption, deliverance, renewed prosperity. But who is this angel? "One of the ministering spirits sent forth to do service on behalf of the heirs of salvation?"

The explanation is somewhat far-fetched. The ministering angels were not restricted in number. Each Hebrew was supposed to have two such guardians. Then Malachi says, "The priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth; for he is the angel (messenger) of Jehovah Sebaoth." Here the priest appears as an angel-interpreter, and the pa.s.sage seems to throw light on Elihu's meaning. As no explicit mention is made of a priest or any priestly function in our text, it may at least be hinted that interpreters of the law, scribes or incipient rabbis are intended, of whom Elihu claims to be one. In this case the ransom would remain without explanation. But if we take that as a sacrificial offering, the name "angel-interpreter" covers a reference to the properly accredited priest. The pa.s.sage is so obscure that little can be based upon it; yet a.s.suming the Elihu discourses to be of late origin and intended to bring the poem into line with orthodox Hebrew thought the introduction of either priest or scribe would be in harmony with such a purpose.

Mediation at all events is declared to be necessary as between the sufferer and G.o.d; and it would be strange indeed if Elihu, professing to explain matters, really made Divine grace to be consequent on the intervention of an angel whose presence and instruction could in no way be verified. Elihu is realistic and would not rest his case at any point on what might be declared purely imaginary.

The promise he virtually makes to Job is like those of Eliphaz and the others,--renewed health, restored youth, the sense of Divine favour.

Enjoying these, the forgiven penitent sings before men, acknowledging his fault and praising G.o.d for his redemption. The a.s.surance of deliverance was probably made in view of the epilogue, with Job's confession and the prosperity restored to him. But the writer misunderstands the confession, and promises too glibly. It is good to receive after great affliction the guidance of a wise interpreter; and to seek G.o.d again in humility is certainly a man's duty. But would submission and the forgiveness of G.o.d bring results in the physical sphere, health, renewed youth and felicity? No invariable nexus of cause and effect can be established here from experience of the dealings of G.o.d with men. Elihu's account of the way in which the Almighty communicates with His creatures must be declared a failure.

It is in some respects careful and ingenious, yet it has no sufficient ground of evidence. When he says--

"_Lo, all these things worketh G.o.d Oftentimes with man, To bring back his soul from the pit_"--

the design is pious, but the great question of the book is not touched. The righteous suffer like the wicked from disease, bereavement, disappointment, anxiety. Even when their integrity is vindicated the lost years and early vigour are not restored. It is useless to deal in the way of pure fancy with the troubles of existence. We say to Elihu and all his school, Let us be at the truth, let us know the absolute reality. There are valleys of human sorrow, suffering, and trial in which the shadows grow deeper as the traveller presses on, where the best are often most afflicted. We need another interpreter than Elihu, one who suffers like us and is made perfect by suffering, through it entering into His glory.

An invocation addressed by Elihu to the bystanders begins chap. x.x.xiv.

Again he emphatically a.s.serts his right to speak, his claim to be a guide of those who think on the ways of G.o.d. He appeals to sound reason and he takes his auditors into counsel--"_Let us choose to ourselves judgment; let us know among ourselves what is good._" The proposal is that there shall be conference on the subject of Job's claim. But Elihu alone speaks. It is he who selects "what is good."

Certain words that fell from the lips of Job are again his text. Job hath said, I am righteous, I am in the right; and, G.o.d hath taken away my judgment or vindication. When those words were used the meaning of Job was that the circ.u.mstances in which he had been placed, the troubles appointed by G.o.d seemed to prove him a transgressor. But was he to rest under a charge he knew to be untrue? Stricken with an incurable wound though he had not transgressed, was he to be against his right by remaining silent? This, says Elihu, is Job's unfounded impious indictment of the Almighty; and he asks:--

"_What man is like Job, Who drinketh up impiety like water, Who goeth in company with the workers of iniquity, And walketh with wicked men?_"

Job had spoken of his right which G.o.d had taken away. What was his right? Was he, as he affirmed, without transgression? On the contrary, his principles were irreligious. There was infidelity beneath his apparent piety. Elihu will prove that so far from being clear of blame he has been imbibing wrong opinions and joining the company of the wicked. This attack shows the temper of the writer. No doubt certain expressions put into the mouth of Job by the original dramatist might be taken as impeaching the goodness or the justice of G.o.d. But to a.s.sert that even the most unguarded pa.s.sages of the book made for impiety was a great mistake. Faith in G.o.d is to be traced not obscurely but as a shaft of light through all the speeches put into the mouth of his hero by the poet. One whose mind is bound by certain pious forms of thought may fail to see the light, but it shines nevertheless.

The attempt made by Elihu to establish his charge has an appearance of success. Job, he says, is one who drinks up impiety like water and walks with wicked men,--

"_For he hath said, It profiteth a man nothing That he should delight himself with G.o.d._"

If this were true, Job would indeed be proved irreligious. Such a statement strikes at the root of faith and obedience. But is Elihu representing the text with anything like precision? In chap. ix. 22 these words are put into Job's mouth:--

"_It is all one, therefore I say, He destroyeth the perfect and the wicked._"

G.o.d is strong and is breaking him with a tempest. Job finds it useless to defend himself and maintain that he is perfect. In the midst of the storm he is so tossed that he despises his life; and in perplexity he cries,--It is all one whether I am righteous or not, G.o.d destroys the good and the vile alike. Again we find him saying, "Wherefore do the wicked live, become old, yea, are mighty in power?" And in another pa.s.sage he inquires why the Almighty does not appoint days of judgment.

These are the expressions on which Elihu founds his charge, but the precise words attributed to Job were never used by him, and in many places he both said and implied that the favour of G.o.d was his greatest joy. The second author is either misapprehending or perverting the language of his predecessor. His argument accordingly does not succeed.

Pa.s.sing at present from the charge of impiety, Elihu takes up the suggestion that Divine providence is unjust and sets himself to show that, whether men delight themselves in the Almighty or not, He is certainly All-righteous. And in this contention, so long as he keeps to generalities and does not take special account of the case which has roused the whole controversy, he speaks with some power. His argument comes properly to this, If you ascribe injustice or partiality to Him whom you call G.o.d, you cannot be thinking of the Divine King. From His very nature and from His position as Lord of all, G.o.d cannot be unjust.

As Maker and Preserver of life He must be faithful.

"_Far be from G.o.d a wickedness, From the Almighty an injustice!

For every one's work He requiteth him, And causeth each to find according to his ways.

Surely, too, G.o.d doeth not wickedness, The Almighty perverteth not justice._"

Has G.o.d any motive for being unjust? Can any one urge Him to what is against His nature? The thing is impossible. So far Elihu has all with him, for all alike believe in the sovereignty of G.o.d. The Most High, responsible to Himself, must be conceived of as perfectly just. But would He be so if He were to destroy the whole of His creatures? Elihu says, G.o.d's sovereignty over all gives Him the right to act according to His will; and His will determines not only what is, but what is right in every case.