"_Who hath given Him a charge over the earth?

Or who hath disposed the whole world?

Were He to set His mind upon Himself, To gather to Himself His spirit and His breath, Then all flesh would die together, Man would return to his dust._"

The life of all creatures implies that the mind of the Creator goes forth to His universe, to rule it, to supply the needs of all living beings. He is not wrapped up in Himself, but having given life He provides for its maintenance.

Another personal appeal in verse 16 is meant to secure attention to what follows, in which the idea is carried out that the Creator must rule His creatures by a law of justice.

"_Shall one that hateth right be able to control?

Or wilt thou condemn the Just, the Mighty One?

Is it fit to say to a king, Thou wicked?

Or to princes, Ye unG.o.dly?

How much less to Him who accepts not the persons of princes, Nor regardeth the rich more than the poor?_"

Here the principle is good, the argument or ill.u.s.tration inconclusive.

There is a strong foundation in the thought that G.o.d, who could if He desired withdraw all life, but on the other hand sustains it, must rule according to a law of perfect righteousness. If this principle were kept in the front and followed up we should have a fruitful argument. But the philosophy of it is beyond this thinker, and he weakens his case by pointing to human rulers and arguing from the duty of subjects to abide by their decision and at least attribute to them the virtue of justice.

No doubt society must be held together by a head either hereditary or chosen by the people, and, so long as his rule is necessary to the well-being of the realm, what he commands must be obeyed and what he does must be approved as if it were right. But the writer either had an exceptionally favourable experience of kings, as one, let us suppose, honoured like Daniel in the Babylonian exile, or his faith in the Divine right of princes blinded him to much injustice. It is a mark of his defective logic that he rests his case for the perfect righteousness of G.o.d upon a sentiment or what may be called an accident.

And when Elihu proceeds, it is with some rambling sentences in which the suddenness of death, the insecurity of human things, and the trouble and distress coming now on whole nations now on workers of iniquity are all thrown together for the demonstration of Divine justice. We hear in these verses (20 to 28) the echoes of disaster and exile, of the fall of thrones and empires. Because the afflicted tribes of Judah were preserved in captivity and restored to their own land, the history of the period which is before the writer's mind appears to him to supply a conclusive proof of the righteousness of the Almighty. But we fail to see it. Eliphaz and Bildad might have spoken in the same terms as Elihu uses here. Everything is a.s.sumed that Job by force of circ.u.mstance has been compelled to doubt. The whole is a homily on G.o.d's irresponsible power and penetrating wisdom which, it is taken for granted, must be exercised in righteousness.

Where proof is needed nothing but a.s.sertion is offered. It is easy to say that when a man is struck down in the open sight of others it is because he has been cruel to the poor and the Almighty has been moved by the cry of the afflicted. But here is Job struck down in the open sight of others; and is it for harshness to the poor? If Elihu does not mean that, what does he mean? The conclusion is the same as that reached by the three friends; and this speaker poses, like the rest, as a generous man declaring that the iniquity G.o.d is always sure to punish is tyrannical treatment of the orphan and the widow.

Leaving this unfortunate attempt at reasoning we enter at verse 31 on a pa.s.sage in which the circ.u.mstances of Job are directly dealt with.

"_For hath any one spoken thus unto G.o.d, 'I have suffered though I offend not: That which I see not teach Thou; If I have done iniquity I will do it no more'?

Shall G.o.d's recompense be according to thy mind That thou dost reject it?

For thou must choose, and not I: Therefore speak what thou knowest._"

Here the argument seems to be that a man like Job, a.s.suming himself to be innocent, if he bows down before the sovereign Judge, confesses ignorance, and even goes so far as to acknowledge that he may have sinned unwittingly and promises amendment, such a one has no right to dictate to G.o.d or to complain if suffering and trouble continue. G.o.d may afflict as long as He pleases without showing why He afflicts. And if the sufferer dares to complain he does so at his own peril. Elihu would not be the man to complain in such a case. He would suffer on silently. But the choice is for Job to make; and he has need to consider well before he comes to a decision. Elihu implies that as yet Job is in the wrong mind, and he closes this part of his address in a sort of brutal triumph over the sufferer because he had complained of his sufferings. He puts the condemnation into the mouth of "men of understanding"; but it is his own.

"_Men of understanding will say to me, And the wise who hears me will say:-- Job speaks without intelligence, And his words are without wisdom: Would that Job were tried unto the end For his answers after the manner of wicked men.

For he addeth rebellion to his sin; He clappeth his hands amongst us And multiplieth his words against G.o.d._"

The ideas of Elihu are few and fixed. When his attempts to convince betray his weakness in argument, he falls back on the vulgar expedient of brow-beating the defendant. He is a type of many would-be interpreters of Divine providence, forcing a theory of religion which admirably fits those who reckon themselves favourites of heaven, but does nothing for the many lives that are all along under a cloud of trouble and grief. The religious creed which alone can satisfy is one throwing light adown the darkest ravines human beings have to thread, in ignorance of G.o.d which they cannot help, in pain of body and feebleness of mind not caused by their own sin but by the sins of others, in slavery or something worse than slavery.

XXVI.

_THE DIVINE PREROGATIVE._

CHAPS. x.x.xv.-x.x.xvii.

After a long digression Elihu returns to consider the statement ascribed to Job, "It profiteth a man nothing that he should delight himself with G.o.d" (chap. x.x.xiv. 9). This he laid hold of as meaning that the Almighty is unjust, and the accusation has been dealt with.

Now he resumes the question of the profitableness of religion.

"_Thinkest thou this to be in thy right, And callest thou it 'My just cause before G.o.d,'

That thou dost ask what advantage it is to thee, And 'What profit have I more than if I had sinned'?_"

In one of his replies Job, speaking of the wicked, represented them as saying, "What is the Almighty that we should serve Him? and what profit should we have if we pray unto Him?" (chap. xxi. 15). He added then, "The counsel of the wicked be far from me." Job is now declared to be of the same opinion as the wicked whom he condemned. The man who again and again appealed to G.o.d from the judgment of his friends, who found consolation in the thought that his witness was in heaven, who, when he was scorned, sought G.o.d in tears and hoped against hope for His redemption, is charged with holding faith and religion of no advantage. Is it in misapprehension or with design the charge is made?

Job did indeed occasionally seem to deny the profit of religion, but only when the false theology of his friends drove him to false judgment. His real conviction was right. Once Eliphaz pressed the same accusation and lost his way in trying to prove it. Elihu has no fresh evidence, and he too falls into error. He confounds the original charge against Job with another, and makes an offence of that which the whole scope of the poem and our sense of right completely justify.

"_Look unto the heavens and see, And regard the clouds which are higher than thou.

If thou sinnest, what doest thou against Him?

Or if thy transgressions be multiplied, what doest thou unto Him?

If thou be righteous, what givest thou Him?

Or what receiveth He at thy hands?_"

Elihu is actually proving, not that Job expects too little from religion and finds no profit in it, but that he expects too much. Anxious to convict, he will show that man has no right to make his faith depend on G.o.d's care for his integrity. The prologue showed the Almighty pleased with His servant's faithfulness. That, says Elihu, is a mistake.

Consider the clouds and the heavens which are far above the world.

Thou canst not touch them, affect them. The sun and moon and stars shine with undiminished brightness however vile men may be. The clouds come and go quite independently of the crimes of men. G.o.d is above those clouds, above that firmament. Neither can the evil hands of men reach His throne, nor the righteousness of men enhance His glory. It is precisely what we heard from the lips of Eliphaz (chap. xxii. 2-4), an argument which abuses man for the sake of exalting G.o.d. Elihu has no thought of the spiritual relationship between man and his Creator.

He advances with perfect composure as a hard dogma what Job said in the bitterness of his soul.

If, however, the question must still be answered, What good end is served by human virtue? the reply is,--

"_Thy wickedness may hurt a man as thou art; And thy righteousness may profit a son of man._"

G.o.d sustains the righteous and punishes the wicked, not for the sake of righteousness itself but purely for the sake of men. The law is that of expediency. Let not man dream of witnessing for G.o.d, or upholding any eternal principle dear to G.o.d. Let him confine religious fidelity and aspiration to their true sphere, the service of mankind.

Regarding which doctrine we may simply say that, if religion is profitable in this way only, it may as well be frankly given up and the cult of happiness adopted for it everywhere. But Elihu is not true to his own dogma.

The next pa.s.sage, beginning with verse 9, seems to be an indictment of those who in grievous trouble do not see and acknowledge the Divine blessings which are the compensations of their lot. Many in the world are sorely oppressed. Elihu has heard their piteous cries. But he has this charge against them, that they do not realise what it is to be subjects of the heavenly King.

"_By reason of the mult.i.tude of oppressions men cry out, They cry for help by reason of the arm of the mighty; But none saith, Where is G.o.d my Maker, Who giveth songs in the night, Who teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth, And maketh us wiser than the fowls of heaven?

There they cry because of the pride of evil men; But none giveth answer._"

These cries of the oppressed are complaints against pain, natural outbursts of feeling, like the moans of wounded animals. But those who are cruelly wronged may turn to G.o.d and endeavour to realise their position as intelligent creatures of His who should feel after Him and find Him. If they do so, then hope will mingle with their sorrow and light arise on their darkness. For in the deepest midnight G.o.d's presence cheers the soul and tunes the voice to songs of praise. The intention is to show that when prayer seems of no avail and religion does not help, it is because there is no real faith, no right apprehension by men of their relation to G.o.d. Elihu, however, fails to see that if the righteousness of men is not important to G.o.d as righteousness, much less will He be interested in their grievances.

The bond of union between the heavenly and the earthly is broken; and it cannot be restored by showing that the grief of men touches G.o.d more than their sin. Job's distinction is that he clings to the ethical fellowship between a sincere man and his Maker and to the claim and the hope involved in that relationship. There we have the jewel in the lotus-flower of this book, as in all true and n.o.ble literature. Elihu, like the rest, is far beneath Job. If he can be said to have a glimmering of the idea it is only that he may oppose it. This moral affinity with G.o.d as the principle of human life remains the secret of the inspired author; it lifts him above the finest minds of the Gentile world. The compiler of the Elihu portion, although he has the admirable sentiment that G.o.d giveth songs in the night, has missed the great and elevating truth which fills with prophetic force the original poem.

From verse 14 onward to the close of the chapter the argument is turned directly against Job, but is so obscure that the meaning can only be conjectured.

"_Surely G.o.d will not hear vanity, Neither will the Almighty regard it._"

If any one cries out against suffering as an animal in pain might cry, that is vanity, not merely emptiness but impiety, and G.o.d will not hear nor regard such a cry. Elihu means that Job's complaints were essentially of this nature. True, he had called on G.o.d; that cannot be denied. He had laid his case before the Judge and professed to expect vindication. But he was at fault in that very appeal, for it was still of suffering he complained, and he was still impious.

"_Even when thou sayest that thou seest Him not, That thy cause is before Him and thou waitest for Him; Even then because His anger visiteth not, And He doth not strictly regard transgression, Therefore doth Job open his mouth in vanity, He multiplied words without knowledge._"

The argument seems to be: G.o.d rules in absolute supremacy, and His will is not to be questioned; it may not be demanded of Him that He do this or that. What is a man that he should dare to state any "righteous cause" of his before G.o.d and claim justification? Let Job understand that the Almighty has been showing leniency, holding back His hand. He might kill any man outright and there would be no appeal nor ground of complaint. It is because He does not strictly regard iniquity that Job is still alive. Therefore appeals and hopes are offensive to G.o.d.

The insistence of this part of the book reaches a climax here and becomes repulsive. Elihu's opinions oscillate we may say between Deism and Positivism, and on either side he is a special pleader. It is by the mercy of the Almighty all men live; yet the reasoning of Elihu makes mercy so remote and arbitrary that prayer becomes an impertinence. No doubt there are some cries out of trouble which cannot find response.

But he ought to maintain, on the other hand, that if sincere prayer is addressed to G.o.d by one in sore affliction desiring to know wherein he has sinned and imploring deliverance, that appeal shall be heard. This, however, is denied. For the purpose of convicting Job Elihu takes the singular position that though there is mercy with G.o.d man is neither to expect nor ask it, that to make any claim upon Divine grace is impious.

And there is no promise that suffering will bring spiritual gain. G.o.d has a right to afflict His creatures, and what He does is to be endured without a murmur because it is less than He has the right to appoint.

The doctrine is adamantine and at the same time rent asunder by the error which is common to all Job's opponents. The soul of a man resolutely faithful like Job would turn away from it with righteous contempt and indignation. The light which Elihu professes to enjoy is a midnight of dogmatic darkness.

Pa.s.sing to chap. x.x.xvi. we are still among vague surmisings which appear the more inconsequent that the speaker makes a large claim of knowledge.