The book of Job, my favorite book.

[PaulThomson]

The context in which God says Job has spoken rightly about Him is in direct comparison to Job's 3 friends. That is the contrast. Those words and speeches that are being compared are from chapters 4 - 31. That is the comparison God is clearly making in that statement.

So what is your opinion of what Job said from prior to chapter 32? What do you say to all of the majesty he gives God in chapter 9? Or when Job says that he knows his Redeemer lives? Or chapter 28 when he states that the fear of the Lord is beginning of wisdom and to depart from evil is understanding? What do you say about those words attributed to Job in this story?

Job said some true things and some God-slandering things. As did His friends say some true things and some God-slandering and Job-slandering things.

It is not at all "the comparison God is clearly making in that statement." Before Job's confession of ignorance, God said he was darkrning counsel without knowledge. After Job's confession of ignorance, God said he had spoken "the thing" that is right.

 

[PaulThomson]

To clarify for you, here is the text:

1Then these three men stopped answering Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. 2But 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 [a]before God. 3And his *anger burned* against his three friends because they had found no answer, yet they had condemned Job. 4Now Elihu had waited to speak to Job because they were years older than he. 5But when Elihu saw that there was no answer in the mouth of the three men, his *anger burned*.

Elihu is angry for two different reasons, but it is stated in the text *four* times. Can you acknowledge that if something in Scripture is reiterated four times it is probably important and significant?

Also, it does not say "righteous indignation". That is based on your predetermined conclusion that Elihu is a good agent in this story, which I would disagree.

Elihu is nothing like Jesus, actually. He presumes to be, but he is definitely not like Jesus.

You seem to have developed an incurable hatred for Elihu. I suspect that President Trump and Elon Musk can sympathise with Elihu.

 

[PaulThomson]

Can you please describe how you believe Job "buckled"? The test was that if Job lost everything (which he did) that he would turn on God and curse Him. Those were the terms of the test set out at the beginning of the story. Is it your belief Job failed this test? If so, can you explain?

Job accused God of being unjust and uncaring toward him. Job's trust/faith in God failed a few times causing him to speak unwiseky.

 

[PaulThomson]

So "spoken of me" is a reference to Job repenting at the very end? If that were the case why is God even mentioning that to the three friends, are they standing by when God rebukes Job and he repents? There is no indication of that in the text.

What is clear is God knows the conversation they had with Job and He rebukes them for what they said, saying they did not speak aright concerning Him, but that Job did. I think it is a safe and reasonable conclusion that God is talking to them about their conversation with Job.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. we do not know everything God said to Job pr the other men, only the parts that are recorded. You cannot logically claim to prove God did not let the other men know that they had spoken unwisely and needed to repent of their presumptions to having wisdom.

 

[NOV25]

Job tells us what the story is about.

I repent.. I had heard of the with the ear but now my eye sees.

Did Job see God that day, did anyone? No.

Job is stating the same thing we all do at conversion, I once was blind but now I see.

Job is a story of God’s grace to His glory. A story of God allowing evil, no more than is necessary and no more than Job could handle, to bring about His ultimate will-namely Job’s salvation which occurred the same way it does for everyone, in God revealing himself.

 

[ZNP]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. we do not know everything God said to Job pr the other men, only the parts that are recorded. You cannot logically claim to prove God did not let the other men know that they had spoken unwisely and needed to repent of their presumptions to having wisdom.

So you are basing an interpretation on what we do not know. That is even flimsier than basing an interpretation on a single verse.

 

[christophernyc]

Direct rebuke vs divine sarcasm ? They are both critical. Elihu said Job's righteousness and unrighteousness don't add to God or take anything from Him. But other men's wickedness can leaven those around them. So, it is perhaps understandable that from Elihu's perspective as an intercessor, a man experiencing human frailty and hanging out with Job, that he is rather upset about the potential collateral damage to Job and others, if Job carries on down the path of accusing God of injustice. God on the other hand is not subject to human frailty, so can be less influenced by fear of the consequences that may fall upon humans. He also has a long game perspective , whereas men look from a mortal limited lifespan perspective.

The difference need not be satanic vs. divine.



I think this accusation that Job's righteousness is more than God's is implied rather than explicitly stated.

As an example, in Job 29
12 Because I delivered the poor that cried, and the fatherless, and him that had none to help him.

13 The blessing of him that was ready to perish came upon me: and I caused the widow's heart to sing for joy.

14 I put on righteousness, and it clothed me: my judgment was as a robe and a diadem.

15 I was eyes to the blind, and feet was I to the lame.

16 I was a father to the poor: and the cause which I knew not I searched out.

17 And I brake the jaws of the wicked, and plucked the spoil out of his teeth.

(Implication "But God isn't doing that for me.")

Job 30: 9 He hath cast me into the mire, and I am become like dust and ashes.

20 I cry unto thee, and thou dost not hear me: I stand up, and thou regardest me not.

21 Thou art become cruel to me: with thy strong hand thou opposest thyself against me.

22 Thou liftest me up to the wind; thou causest me to ride upon it, and dissolvest my substance.

23 For I know that thou wilt bring me to death, and to the house appointed for all living.

24 Howbeit he will not stretch out his hand to the grave, though they cry in his destruction.

25 Did not I weep for him that was in trouble? was not my soul grieved for the poor?


Job 31:16 If I have withheld the poor from their desire, or have caused the eyes of the widow to fail;

17 Or have eaten my morsel myself alone, and the fatherless hath not eaten thereof;

18 (For from my youth he was brought up with me, as with a father, and I have guided her from my mother's womb

19 If I have seen any perish for want of clothing, or any poor without covering;

20 If his loins have not blessed me, and if he were not warmed with the fleece of my sheep;

21 If I have lifted up my hand against the fatherless, when I saw my help in the gate:

22 Then let mine arm fall from my shoulder blade, and mine arm be broken from the bone.

(But look how God is leaving me to suffer unjustly.)

God speaks to Job in the form of questions and Elihu speaks in harsh, condemning statements. Asking questions introduces grace into the conversation. Consider when Jesus confronts Saul on the road and asks him a question, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?" Jesus does not come in guns blazing to rebuke and condemn Saul despite his egregious sins.

You stated the idea of Job's righteousness verses God's righteousness is implied. However, according to the text, Elihu says that Job said that very thing. That is false. Job never said those words. Also, it is not clear that the references you provided from Job’s speech imply that Job is making this claim about his righteousness being more than God’s. If you reread the story, you will see that the whole time Job believes he is on his way to death. This idea progresses more and more with him throughout the story until God shows up and saves him. This speech is Job recounting how his life used to be before this ordeal. In no way does it mean he is pitting his righteousness against God’s. That’s only conjecture, unless of course you believe Elihu's false claim.

The biggest problem I see is how many people latch onto Elihu as he is the savior of the book somehow. Everything the lovers of Elihu see in the story is filtered through Elihu and his words, and they seem to somehow forget all of the other key facts in the book. They even add things to the story that are simply not there. It’s like they are hypnotized by Elihu for some reason.

 

[christophernyc]

Job said some true things and some God-slandering things. As did His friends say some true things and some God-slandering and Job-slandering things.

It is not at all "the comparison God is clearly making in that statement." Before Job's confession of ignorance, God said he was darkrning counsel without knowledge. After Job's confession of ignorance, God said he had spoken "the thing" that is right.

We can agree to disagree here. That's fine. When God compares Job's words with the 3 friends, God is making this comparison in the same sentence. He saying it in the same breath essentially. It is a huge stretch to try and tie that line by Job to what God was referring to, and it makes far more sense he is comparing Job's words to their words which occur between chapters 4 - 31.

Also, just because Job clearly spoke about things he did not understand, do you believe that automatically means that what he said was wrong? Isn't it possible that Job spoke out of ignorance, but what he said was also true?

For example, when Job says that he knows his Redeemer lives, and one day He will stand on the earth, how did he "know" this? This statement is a foreshadowing of the day when Jesus Christ would come and walk on the earth. This is a profound statement by Job. Of course he didn't "know" all of the details, but what he said was right, it was substantive. This is just one example of why it comports much better, I believe, with God's assessment that Job has spoken rightly of Him.

 

[NOV25]

“Wager view” proponents start off on the wrong foot by falsely claiming Job is a saint, a true believer. It’s this mistake that carries them further off track as they continue reading-by the end of the book Job is Jesus and Elihu is the antichrist. 🤦‍♂️

Read plainly, the text merely states Job is a religious, rich man. Remember, these enter the kingdom with great difficulty by only by God’s grace.

Download a Strong’s Concordance, it’s free on Apple Store.

Perfect/Tam: morally pious
Upright/Yashar: righteous

Note: Ezekiel uses similar verbiage to describe Lucifer pre fall, so does Paul when describing himself prior to conversion…

In other words, none of God’s descriptors of Job indicate he was a true believer, and by Job’s sinful response, God’s clear disappointment and Job’s own admission at the end-we see that Job is actually a story of salvation.

 

[Magenta]

Job 19 verses 25-27a I know that my Redeemer lives, and in the end He will stand upon the earth. Even after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God. I will see Him for myself; my eyes will behold Him, and not as a stranger.

 

[Magenta]

Job 33 verses 27b-28 ~ I have sinned and perverted what was right; yet I did not get what I deserved. He redeemed my soul from going down to the Pit, and I will live to see the Light.

 

[christophernyc]

So "spoken of me" is a reference to Job repenting at the very end? If that were the case why is God even mentioning that to the three friends, are they standing by when God rebukes Job and he repents? There is no indication of that in the text.

What is clear is God knows the conversation they had with Job and He rebukes them for what they said, saying they did not speak aright concerning Him, but that Job did. I think it is a safe and reasonable conclusion that God is talking to them about their conversation with Job.

This is exactly right, I believe. Otherwise the comparison by God is totally disjointed. I've seen others try and make this stretch because they are essentially opponents of Job, it seems.

You are correct, the comparison of words is between Job and his 3 friends which occur between chapters 4 - 31. It's quite obvious.

 

[christophernyc]

“Wager view” proponents start off on the wrong foot by falsely claiming Job is a saint, a true believer. It’s this mistake that carries them further off track as they continue reading-by the end of the book Job is Jesus and Elihu is the antichrist. 🤦‍♂️

Read plainly, the text merely states Job is a religious, rich man. Remember, these enter the kingdom with great difficulty by only by God’s grace.

Download a Strong’s Concordance, it’s free on Apple Store.

Perfect/Tam: morally pious
Upright/Yashar: righteous

Note: Ezekiel uses similar verbiage to describe Lucifer pre fall, so does Paul when describing himself prior to conversion…

In other words, none of God’s descriptors of Job indicate he was a true believer, and by Job’s sinful response, God’s clear disappointment and Job’s own admission at the end-we see that Job is actually a story of salvation.

Yes, I agree the book of Job is a story of salvation. Absolutely.

So when you say "righteous" are you implying he is "self-righteous"? Is that what you mean?

 

[NOV25]

So when you say "righteous" are you implying he is "self-righteous"? Is that what you mean?

“Read plainly, the text merely states Job is a religious, rich man.”

I was very clear 👆

You hate Elihu, claim he represents the antichrist, while I claim he represents God and is likely the author. This is no small disagreement. If you’re wrong, which you are, you’re attributing that which is holy, to be that of satan.

 

[christophernyc]

“Read plainly, the text merely states Job is a religious, rich man.”

I was very clear 👆

You hate Elihu, claim he represents the antichrist, while I claim he represents God and is likely the author. This is no small disagreement. If you’re wrong, which you are, you’re attributing that which is holy, to be that of satan.

The text does not use the word "religious" as you put it. It describes his wealth, points out his practices, and describes him as blameless, one who fears God and shuns evil.

What is your opinion of Job's blamelessness? You mentioned Paul also being blameless, but that was Paul talking about himself. Did you notice that the description of Job and his blamelessness is God's. It does not say Job thought this about himself. Also, Paul was actively murdering believers. Are you really comparing Job to Saul before his conversion?

 

[christophernyc]

It was after Job confessed he lacked the knowledge to be a wise judge that God approved of "the thing" (singular) that Job had said. There is no indication that God approved of all the other "things (plural)" tat Job had said,

The other three maybe still thought they knew enough to be qualified to condemn others rightly.

Respectfully, there is no "the thing" in the Hebrew. Noticed it's italicized, too, which means it's words added in addition to the original Hebrew.

Also, I understand many want it to be that God is referring to Job's statement in 42, but the comparison could not be more clear. In the same sentence God is comparing the words of Job with the words of his friends. That's the contrast God is blatantly highlighting, and those words occur between chapters 4 - 31.

 

[christophernyc]

42:1 Then Job answered the Lord, and said, 2 I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee. 3 Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge?

Job answers your question for you.

therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.

OK so Job uttered what he did not understand, and spoke about things too wonderful for him. So do you believe what Job said was wrong? Is that your takeaway here?

 

[ZNP]

OK so Job uttered what he did not understand, and spoke about things too wonderful for him. So do you believe what Job said was wrong? Is that your takeaway here?

My takeaway is that there is head knowledge about Jesus Christ conquering death and then there is experiential knowledge. Philippians describes entering into the experiential knowledge of Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected.

My takeaway is that Job did not have an appreciation for how wonderful Jesus was. I have seen this many, many times with probably every single Christian. They know what the Lord's advice is, but they ignore it, or they think it is foolish, out of date, etc. The fact is they don't appreciate how brilliant and amazing the Lord is. Once they do they are like Job realizing they were saying things they didn't understand and things that were too wonderful for them.

 

[christophernyc]

That is the question? What counsel does Job prefer?

Proverbs 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

It seems to me you keep changing the goalposts.

I thought the original question is why does God not say Elihu spoke right? Then it became do you think Elihu is a picture of the Antichrist, the most arrogant one of all? Then it became can you explain the discrepancy between the way Elihu and God communicate with Job, one is making statements and the other is asking questions.

To me the question is simple, if Elihu is the Antichrist then why doesn't God tell him to repent? If he is the most arrogant of all why doesn't God tell him to repent? If God had a problem with Elihu's method of communication why doesn't He tell him to repent?

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.

Fantastic question. Thank you. Referring to Elihu in that way is not some pejorative. After looking very closely at him, I see him tracking as an actual archetype of antichrist. That is my belief, and not some flagrant insult. I think it is dangerous to believe him, despite his blaring confidence and things that sound "right". In the end, when the actual antichrist is on earth, do you think he will announce to everyone, "Hey, I'm here. I'm the bad guy." Likely it will be the complete opposite.

As to the different statements of mine you referred to, I don't see them as goalposts being moved, but as all tied together. They are all avenues to really look at Elihu from different angles and figure him out. I think most everybody who reads the book can agree they are surprised by his appearance in chapter 32 and then have to wonder about him and figure him out. It seems to me that is part of the intent by the author to have Elihu written in this way.

But, to something more substantive. Compare 2 Thessalonians 2:1-11 (KJV) which describes the "man of sin" and compare him to Elihu. See what you think. Here are a few parts. It describes a man "showing himself that he is God" and "whose coming is after the working of satan with all power and signs and lying wonders." But in the end, it says the LORD shall consume this wicked man with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming.

To your question as to why God does not rebuke Elihu. Excellent question. Well, do you see a parallel here with the end of the story of Job and 2 Thessalonians? Isn't it interesting that after God shows up in the whirlwind, that Elihu is not heard from or mentioned again? Do you know that if you cross reference the word "whirlwind" the majority of times that they appear are when they come to destroy the wicked. Here's one example from Proverbs 10:25 25 "As the whirlwind passeth, so is the wicked no more: but the righteous is an everlasting foundation."

You might say, Elihu has sown the wind (all his many words) and reaped the whirlwind.

 

[christophernyc]

Job accused God of being unjust and uncaring toward him. Job's trust/faith in God failed a few times causing him to speak unwiseky.

So would you say that satan was right in chapter 2 then? When satan says that Job will fail the second test (loss of health) do you believe he was right then? You agree with his claim?