“He is insightful one moment, and insipid the next.” That’s Swindoll’s pointed summary of this young man by the name of Elihu. Filled with perception at one turn, and then shortly thereafter overflowing with blandness. One moment the sermon’s a stem winder, the next it’s a real yawner (a count-the-number-of-ceiling-tiles-during-the-sermon type of yawner). Elihu's a real enigma.
32:11 “Behold, I waited for your words, I listened to your reasonings, while you pondered what to say. 12 I even paid close attention to you; indeed, there was no one who refuted Job, not one of you who answered his words.”
After each of Job’s speeches the Comforters probably huddled up and said something like, “Ok guys, let’s figure out how to respond to this line of reasoning.” Note the word “pondered” in verse 11. It means “to weigh mentally, to consider something deeply and thoroughly” (“ponder” and “pound” come from the same root word and both connote “giving weight to”). The Comforters didn't respond immediately; they took time to think about what Job had said and how to refute his arguments.
But even though Eliphaz, Bildad and Elihu were deliberate in their response, Trapp’s synopsis of their line of reasoning is not too flattering, “…for the which you have eviscerated your brains, and well nigh cracked your sconces, but all to no purpose; since you hover in generals…you brought only such reasons as were not cogent (coherent), and used such discourses as did never come at the business; which was no better than a laborious loss of time.”
Eviscerated brains, cracked sconces and a big waste of time. Wow.
Note these phrases of Elihu, “I waited for your words…I listened to your reasonings…I paid close attention…” Even though Elihu was young (and brash), he had developed the trait of being a good listener and had given the most sincere attention to the Comforter’s reasonings. But when it was all said and done, he looked around with incredulity and wondered aloud, “That’s it? That’s all you’ve got???”
More on the “lost art of listening” at the conclusion.
32:13 “Do not say, ’We have found wisdom; God will rout him, not man.’”
This is a difficult verse to interpret; but perhaps Barnes hits the correct note in his commentary, “That is, this (Job’s trial) has been permitted and ordered in such a manner that it might be manifest that the truths which are to convince Job come from God and not from man. You were not permitted to refute or convince him, for if you had been you would have been lifted up with pride, and would have attributed to yourselves what belongs to God. This is in accordance with the entire drift of the book, which is to introduce the Almighty Himself to settle the controversy when human wisdom failed.”
32:14 “For he has not arranged his words against me, nor will I reply to him with your arguments.”
To use a well-worn phrase, Elihu doesn’t have a dog in this fight – he is not speaking out of a desire for revenge. At times the Comforters had become sarcastic in their approach, even going so far as to say that Job’s kids got what they deserved. Elihu wisely abandoned that line of attack.
32:15 “They are dismayed, they no longer answer; Words have failed them.”
The New Living Translation puts it, “You sit there baffled, with nothing more to say.”
“Words have failed them…” All of their arguments and all of their reasonings have become not unlike the ash heap around them.
Note especially the word “dismayed.” It means “demoralization stemming from frustration” and was used of the panic of the Israeli army before the giant Goliath in I Samuel 17:11 (“When Saul and all Israel heard those words of the Philistine, they were dismayed, and greatly afraid”).
The word is also used in Jeremiah 48:1 “Against Moab thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; ‘Woe unto Nebo! for it is spoiled: Kiriathaim is confounded and taken: Misgab is confounded and dismayed.’” Misgab means “strong or high fortress, an inaccessible place.”
As the fortress of Misgab was “dismayed” (demoralized and destroyed), so the fortress arguments of Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar collapsed. The Comforters had begun so confidently and their theology had seemed so unassailable. But now their systematic theology was no more than, as Trapp colorfully puts it, incoherent discourse from cracked sconces.
Job’s life may have crumbled to ashes, but so has the Comforters’ cherished theology. Job sat on the ash heap of his former life; the Comforters sat on the ash heap of their former collapsed theology.
32:16 “Shall I wait, because they do not speak, because they stop and no longer answer?”
The law firm of Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar had never lost a case. But this time there is no rebuttal, there are no closing arguments; just a look of bewilderment on the face of Elihu at the sight of a “dismayed” theology.
32:17 “I too will answer my share, I also will tell my opinion.”
Barnes comments, “There is a delicate expression of modesty in the Hebrew which does not appear in our translation. In all this we may discern a degree of courtesy, and a delicate sense of propriety (on the part of Elihu).”
32:18 “For I am full of words; the spirit within me constrains me.”
Note the contrast between verse 15 (“…words have failed them”) and this verse (“I am full of words…”). Elihu seems to be a rich storehouse of words. On the phrase “I am full of words…” Francis I Anderson, quoting Rowley, states tersely, “None would dispute that!” It seems that some commentators have a favorable view of Elihu (e.g. Barnes), while others have a more critical view (e.g. Anderson). And it also seems that commentators are divided as to whether Elihu was just filled with himself or whether he was truly filled with the Spirit of God. But perhaps it was a little of both (not unlike some of our prophetic messages heard in churches today).
32:19 “Behold, my belly is like unvented wine, Like new wineskins it is about to burst.”
Elihu is Uz’s version of a “YouTube-Mentos-in-Diet-Coke.” He is without a doubt ready to blow, and ready to blow big-time!
32:20 “Let me speak that I may get relief; let me open my lips and answer.”
Wine makers normally would put a tiny hole in the wineskin or in the cask to prevent the cask or wineskin from bursting. Unless Elihu speaks, he is going to explode. And when he does speak he comes at the baffling predicament of Job from a completely different angle. So perhaps what we have here is sort of the new wine in the new wineskin (Elihu) versus the old wine in the old wineskins (Eliphaz/Bildad/Zophar).
32:21 “Let me now be partial to no one, nor flatter any man. 22 For I do not know how to flatter, else my Maker would soon take me away.”
The word “flatter” comes from an old French word meaning “to lick” or “to stroke.” To flatter is to praise insincerely – especially in order to win favor.
Barnes writes, “The conviction that we are soon to appear before God, where all are on a level, and where every mask will be stripped off, and everything appear as it is, would prevent us from ascribing to others qualities which we know they do not possess, and from giving them titles which will only exalt them in their own estimation, and hide the truth from their minds.”
Note these verses from Proverbs on the subject of flattery:
Proverbs 28:23 “He that rebuketh a man afterwards shall find more favour than he that flattereth with the tongue.” The Message puts it, “In the end, serious reprimand is appreciated far more than bootlicking flattery.”
Proverbs 29:5 “A man that flattereth his neighbour spreadeth a net for his feet.” The Message puts it this way, “A flattering neighbor is up to no good; he’s probably planning to take advantage of you.”
Back to the “lost art of listening.” Someone has penned, “I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.” Did you catch that? If not let me put it this way, “I know you think you thought you knew what you thought I said, but I’m not sure you understood what you thought I meant!”
I am not sure who penned those but they certainly are a little humorous (and more than a little hard to follow).
Do we communicate well, and are we good listeners? For all of Elihu’s faults, he did seem to really listen well.
Gill writes this in his commentary, “Elihu waited for them (the words of the Comforters), as for the rain, and the latter rain, to be revived, refreshed, and edified therewith…he endeavored to get into the sense and meaning of their words; not only attended to what they did say, but to what he thought they meant to say: some are not so happy in their expressions; and yet, by what they do say, with close attention it may be understood what they aim at, what is their drift and design; this Elihu was careful to attain unto, not barely to hear their words, but penetrate, if possible, into their meaning.”
Do we fail when it comes to the art of listening? We would do well to emulate Elihu.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment