Job 35

Elihu spake moreover, and said—This brief verse introduces Elihu's third speech (chapters 35-37). The name Elihu (אֱלִיהוּא) means 'He is my God' or 'My God is He,' theologically significant as this young sage attempts to vindicate God's justice. The term va-ya'an (וַיַּעַן), 'and he answered,' suggests Elihu responds to Job's previous arguments.

Elihu represents a fourth perspective beyond Job's protests, his three friends' retribution theology, and God's eventual answer. His speeches (chapters 32-37) receive no divine rebuke (unlike Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar in 42:7), suggesting partial theological validity. Yet God doesn't commend Elihu either, simply bypassing him to address Job directly. This transitional positioning makes Elihu's role debated—is he the book's hero or another inadequate counselor?

The verse's simplicity belies its importance: Elihu will emphasize God's transcendence (chapter 35), His use of suffering as discipline (chapter 36), and His sovereignty over creation (chapter 37), preparing for Yahweh's whirlwind theophany. His pedagogy—teaching through questions about creation—previews God's method in chapters 38-41.

Elihu challenges Job: 'Thinkest thou this to be right, that thou saidst, My righteousness is more than God's?' This misrepresents Job - he never claimed superiority to God, only innocence of charges. Straw man arguments don't address actual concerns.

Elihu quotes Job's question: "For thou saidst, What advantage will it be unto thee? and, What profit shall I have, if I be cleansed from my sin?" The noun sakan (סָכַן, "advantage") means benefit or profit. The verb ya'al (יָעַל, "profit") asks about usefulness. Elihu accuses Job of asking what good righteousness does. This is another mischaracterization—Job questioned why righteousness didn't protect from suffering, not whether righteousness matters. From a Reformed perspective, Elihu identifies a real danger: justifying righteousness by its earthly benefits rather than God's glory and command. Yet Job's actual question was more subtle: if covenant promises blessing, why does he suffer? This reflects wrestling with providence, not denying righteousness's value. The distinction matters: questioning God's ways isn't the same as rejecting His commands. Lament psalms similarly question God's dealings while maintaining obedience.

I will answer thee, and thy companions with thee—Elihu directly addresses Job and indirectly the three friends (Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar). The verb shiv (שִׁיב), 'to answer' or 'to respond,' indicates Elihu's confidence in providing what the others couldn't—satisfying explanation of Job's suffering. The phrase reeka (רֵעֶיךָ), 'your companions,' acknowledges the failed counselors.

Elihu's youthful boldness claims ability to answer what confounded his elders. This represents either admirable courage or presumptuous pride—the text's ambiguity forces readers to judge. His subsequent argument (verses 5-8) emphasizes God's transcendence: human sin cannot harm God, nor human righteousness benefit Him. Therefore, Job's claim to deserve better treatment misconstrues the divine-human relationship.

Elihu's answer contains truth—God's aseity (self-existence) means He needs nothing from creatures. Yet this truth incompletely addresses Job's situation. God's transcendence doesn't negate His covenant faithfulness or diminish the problem of innocent suffering. Later, God will vindicate Job's protest over the friends' false accusations (42:7), suggesting Elihu's answer, while theologically accurate regarding divine transcendence, misses the relational dimension of covenantal suffering.

Look unto the heavens, and see (הַבֵּט שָׁמַיִם וּרְאֵה, habbet shamayim ur-eh)—The imperative habbet (הַבֵּט), from nabat (נָבַט), means 'to look intently' or 'to gaze upon.' Shamayim (שָׁמַיִם), 'heavens,' evokes cosmic scale and divine dwelling. Behold the clouds which are higher than thou (וְשׁוּר שְׁחָקִים גָּבְהוּ מִמֶּךָּ, ve-shur shechakim gavehu mimekka)—shechakim (שְׁחָקִים) means 'clouds' or 'skies,' from shachaq (שָׁחַק), 'to rub away' or 'pulverize,' suggesting dust-like cloud particles.

Elihu employs creation pedagogy—directing Job's eyes upward to recognize creaturely limitation versus Creator transcendence. This method anticipates God's own teaching strategy in chapters 38-41, suggesting Elihu grasps correct pedagogical approach even if his conclusions remain incomplete. The heavens' height establishes metaphor for divine transcendence and human finitude.

This argument cuts two ways: it humbles human presumption (Job cannot command God's attention based on merit) but also risks distancing God from covenant relationship. Psalm 8 similarly begins by observing the heavens' grandeur, then marvels that God regards humanity at all ('what is man, that thou art mindful of him?'). Elihu emphasizes transcendence; the psalmist adds divine condescension. Both truths require holding in tension.

Elihu asks: "If thou sinnest, what doest thou against him? or if thy transgressions be multiplied, what doest thou unto him?" These rhetorical questions probe whether human sin harms God. The verb pa'al (פָּעַל, "doest") means to work or accomplish. Elihu argues that sin doesn't damage God's being—a true insight. God's perfection and self-sufficiency mean He doesn't suffer diminishment from our rebellion. However, Elihu draws a faulty conclusion: that God is therefore indifferent to sin. Reformed theology distinguishes between God's essential being (unaffected by creatures) and His relational disposition (genuinely grieved by sin). Ephesians 4:30 commands, "Grieve not the holy Spirit of God." While sin doesn't harm God's essence, it violates His holy character and grieves His covenant love. The cross demonstrates sin's seriousness—though God needed not suffer, He chose to in Christ to remedy sin's offense against His holiness.

If thou be righteous, what givest thou him? (אִם־צָדַקְתָּ מַה־תִּתֶּן־לוֹ, im-tsadaqta mah-titten-lo)—The verb tsadaq (צָדַק) means 'to be righteous' or 'to be in the right.' Elihu's rhetorical question challenges Job's implicit claim that his righteousness obligates God to respond favorably. Or what receiveth he of thine hand? (אוֹ מַה־מִיָּדְךָ יִקָּח, o mah-miyadkha yiqqach)—laqach (לָקַח), 'to receive' or 'take,' emphasizes that God gains nothing from human righteousness.

Elihu articulates divine aseity—God's self-sufficiency and independence from creation. This theological truth appears throughout Scripture: 'If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof' (Psalm 50:12); 'Who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?' (Romans 11:35). Human righteousness doesn't create divine debt or obligate blessing.

Yet this truth requires nuance: while God needs nothing from us, He chooses covenant relationship where obedience pleases Him and sin grieves Him. The incarnation reveals God's voluntary vulnerability to human action—we can wound Christ, serve Him, feed Him (Matthew 25:40). Elihu grasps God's transcendent self-sufficiency but underestimates covenantal mutuality. Job later learns (42:5-6) that seeing God matters infinitely more than receiving answers—relationship transcends transaction.

Thy wickedness may hurt a man as thou art (לְאִישׁ־כָּמוֹךָ רִשְׁעֶךָ, le-ish-kamocha rish'ekha)—Rasha (רֶשַׁע) denotes 'wickedness' or 'guilt.' Elihu argues that human sin affects fellow humans, not God. And thy righteousness may profit the son of man (וּלְבֶן־אָדָם צִדְקָתֶךָ, ul-ven-adam tsidqatekha)—Tsedaqah (צְדָקָה), 'righteousness,' benefits ben-adam (בֶּן־אָדָם), 'son of man,' humanity collectively.

This verse complements verse 7's divine transcendence with moral action's horizontal dimension. Sin and righteousness primarily impact the human community, not God's essential being. This contains profound truth: ethical behavior creates societal consequences—injustice harms communities, righteousness builds them (Proverbs 14:34).

Yet Elihu's limitation appears again: while God's being isn't affected by human action, His covenantal heart responds to both wickedness and righteousness. 'The LORD's soul was grieved for the misery of Israel' (Judges 10:16); 'Grieve not the holy Spirit of God' (Ephesians 4:30). God's impassibility (unchanging essence) coexists with His covenant responsiveness. Elihu rightly emphasizes creation-order morality's social impact but underplays covenant relationship's divine-human mutuality. Jesus later demonstrates this balance—suffering evil's effects (horizontal) while bearing sin's divine judgment (vertical, Isaiah 53:10).

By reason of the multitude of oppressions (מֵרֹב עֲשׁוּקִים, me-rov ashuqim)—Rov (רֹב) means 'abundance' or 'multitude'; osheq (עֹשֶׁק) denotes 'oppression' or 'extortion.' Elihu describes widespread injustice driving victims to cry out. They make the oppressed to cry (יַזְעִיקוּ, yaz'iqu)—from za'aq (זָעַק), 'to cry out' or 'call for help,' the technical term for distress cries reaching God (Exodus 2:23, 22:23).

They cry out by reason of the arm of the mighty (יְשַׁוְּעוּ מִזְּרוֹעַ רַבִּים, yeshave'u mi-zero'a rabbim)—Shava (שָׁוַע), 'to cry for help,' parallels za'aq. Zero'a (זְרוֹעַ), 'arm,' symbolizes power; rabbim (רַבִּים), 'many' or 'mighty ones,' denotes oppressors.

Elihu observes that oppression prompts prayer—suffering drives people to seek help. Yet he'll argue (verse 10) that these cries often lack true God-seeking, remaining merely crisis appeals without authentic worship. This critique contains truth: adversity can produce shallow religiosity rather than genuine faith. However, Elihu risks dismissing legitimate lament. The psalms validate crying to God in oppression without requiring that every prayer demonstrate mature theology. Job's own cries, though confused, showed authentic faith-seeking-understanding. Elihu's standard—prayer must ask 'Where is God my maker?' (verse 10)—sets high bar that may condemn legitimate distress.

Elihu asks: 'But none saith, Where is God my maker, who giveth son