Job Chapter 34
Elihu Denounces Job
A. Elihu denounces Job for losing faith and denying God’s justice.
1. Job 34:1–9, He again inaccurately summarizes Job’s argument.
“Furthermore Elihu answered and said, Hear my words, O ye wise men, and give ear unto me, ye that have knowledge. For the ear trieth words, as the mouth tasteth meat. Let us choose to us judgment: let us know among ourselves what is good. For Job hath said, I am righteous: and God hath taken away my judgment. Should I lie against my right? my wound is incurable without transgression. What man is like Job, who drinketh up scorning like water? Which goeth in company with the workers of iniquity, and walketh with wicked men. For he hath said, It profiteth a man nothing that he should delight himself with God.”
Elihu again begins with a formal appeal to the supposed wisdom of his hearers. “Hear my words, O ye wise men,” reveals both his confidence and his presumption. Though younger than the other speakers, he assumes the role of arbiter and teacher. He invites the audience to test his reasoning, saying, “For the ear trieth words, as the mouth tasteth meat.” This proverb-like statement suggests discernment, yet Elihu himself fails to apply that careful discernment to Job’s actual words. He claims to weigh speech carefully, yet he misrepresents Job in critical ways.
He frames his argument as a communal search for justice, “Let us choose to us judgment: let us know among ourselves what is good.” The irony is evident. Elihu positions himself as defending divine justice, yet in doing so he inaccurately characterizes Job’s statements. He claims, “For Job hath said, I am righteous: and God hath taken away my judgment.” Job did indeed maintain his integrity. In Job 27:5–6 Job declared, “God forbid that I should justify you: till I die I will not remove mine integrity from me. My righteousness I hold fast, and will not let it go: my heart shall not reproach me so long as I live.” However, Job never claimed sinless perfection. Rather, he denied that there was some specific hidden wickedness that justified the magnitude of his suffering.
When Elihu attributes to Job the statement, “Should I lie against my right? my wound is incurable without transgression,” he blends fragments of Job’s anguish into a distorted conclusion. Job had described the severity of his affliction. In Job 6:4 he said, “For the arrows of the Almighty are within me, the poison whereof drinketh up my spirit: the terrors of God do set themselves in array against me.” He also lamented what appeared to be injustice. In Job 27:2 he said, “As God liveth, who hath taken away my judgment; and the Almighty, who hath vexed my soul.” Yet even in these bitter expressions, Job never declared himself absolutely without sin. Earlier he confessed human frailty. In Job 7:21 he said, “And why dost thou not pardon my transgression, and take away my iniquity? for now shall I sleep in the dust; and thou shalt seek me in the morning, but I shall not be.” Job acknowledged sin in general, but denied being the object of catastrophic judgment for some secret crime.
Elihu’s method reveals selective quotation. He extracts the sharpest expressions of Job’s grief and interprets them in the worst possible light. This is not careful exegesis of Job’s words but a prosecutorial summary designed to secure conviction. Job’s complaints arose from confusion and pain, not from settled theological rebellion. The difference is significant.
Elihu intensifies his rhetoric with the accusation, “What man is like Job, who drinketh up scorning like water?” The imagery suggests that Job delights in blasphemy as a thirsty man delights in water. This is a severe charge. To “drinketh up scorning like water” portrays habitual contempt toward God. Yet the record of Job’s speeches shows anguish, bewilderment, and even bold questioning, but not gleeful irreverence. In Job 1:21, at the onset of suffering, Job declared, “Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.” Even later, amid despair, he affirmed hope in God. In Job 13:15 he said, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him: but I will maintain mine own ways before him.” Such statements contradict Elihu’s portrayal of Job as one who casually drinks in scorn.
Elihu further alleges that Job “goeth in company with the workers of iniquity, and walketh with wicked men.” It is unlikely that Elihu believed Job literally consorted with evildoers. Rather, he implies that Job’s reasoning aligns him morally with the wicked. From Elihu’s perspective, to question God’s justice is to stand with the unrighteous. Yet this conflates honest lament with moral rebellion. Job’s struggle was with understanding God’s providence, not with rejecting God Himself.
The climactic accusation comes in verse 9, “For he hath said, It profiteth a man nothing that he should delight himself with God.” Job never uttered these exact words. Elihu draws this conclusion from Job’s observations about the prosperity of the wicked and the suffering of the righteous. In Job 12:6 Job observed, “The tabernacles of robbers prosper, and they that provoke God are secure; into whose hand God bringeth abundantly.” In Job 21:7–8 he asked, “Wherefore do the wicked live, become old, yea, are mighty in power? Their seed is established in their sight with them, and their offspring before their eyes.” These reflections troubled Job because they seemed inconsistent with a simple retributive view of justice.
However, acknowledging the perplexity of providence is not the same as declaring devotion useless. Job continued to seek God. In Job 23:3–4 he said, “Oh that I knew where I might find him, that I might come even to his seat! I would order my cause before him, and fill my mouth with arguments.” This is not the language of a man who finds no profit in delighting in God. It is the language of a man who longs for restored fellowship and vindication.
Elihu’s theological instinct is correct in one sense. It is unthinkable that God would act unjustly. Scripture affirms this plainly. Deuteronomy 32:4 declares, “He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.” Yet Elihu errs in assuming that Job’s anguish equals doctrinal denial. In defending God’s justice, Elihu overreaches and becomes unjust in his assessment of Job.
2. Job 34:10–15, The righteousness of God and His moral order
“Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, that he should do wickedness; and from the Almighty, that he should commit iniquity. For the work of a man shall he render unto him, and cause every man to find according to his ways. Yea, surely God will not do wickedly, neither will the Almighty pervert judgment. Who hath given him a charge over the earth? or who hath disposed the whole world? If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath; All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust.”
Elihu now moves from accusation to theological assertion. “Far be it from God, that he should do wickedness.” In this declaration he stands on firm ground. The holiness and righteousness of God are foundational truths of Scripture. Deuteronomy 32:4 declares, “He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.” Likewise Psalm 145:17 affirms, “The LORD is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.” Elihu is correct that moral corruption cannot be attributed to God.
He continues, “For the work of a man shall he render unto him, and cause every man to find according to his ways.” This expresses the principle of retribution, the idea that God repays according to conduct. Scripture does affirm this principle in a general sense. Proverbs 24:12 states, “If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?” The apostle Paul likewise writes in Romans 2:6, “Who will render to every man according to his deeds.”
Yet the critical issue in Job is whether this principle operates as an immediate and inflexible law in every circumstance. Elihu, like Eliphaz before him, treats it almost as an absolute equation. Earlier Eliphaz declared in Job 4:7–8, “Remember, I pray thee, who ever perished, being innocent? or where were the righteous cut off? Even as I have seen, they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same.” That principle is generally true in the moral order of God’s universe, but it is not mechanically applied in every temporal circumstance. The Book of Job itself exists to challenge the oversimplified application of that doctrine.
The New Testament clarifies this balance. Galatians 6:7 states, “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” This principle of sowing and reaping is real, but it is not a doctrine of spiritual karma that guarantees immediate visible results. If strict and immediate retribution were applied without mercy, all men would stand condemned. Romans 3:23 declares, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” Were God to repay strictly and instantly according to sin, none could stand. Psalm 130:3 asks, “If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?” The answer is clear, none.
Elihu is correct that “surely God will not do wickedly, neither will the Almighty pervert judgment.” The problem is not with the doctrine of divine justice, but with the assumption that human observers can always interpret providence accurately. Isaiah 55:8–9 reminds us, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” God does not pervert justice, but His administration of justice may transcend human calculation.
Elihu further emphasizes God’s sovereignty. “Who hath given him a charge over the earth? or who hath disposed the whole world?” The implied answer is no one. God is accountable to none. Daniel 4:35 declares, “And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?” Elihu correctly affirms God’s absolute independence.
He then underscores human frailty. “If he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath; All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust.” This recalls Genesis 2:7, “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Life itself is a divine gift. Should God withdraw that sustaining breath, humanity would instantly perish. Psalm 104:29 states, “Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.”
Elihu’s point is clear. God’s righteousness, sovereignty, and sustaining power place Him beyond human indictment. The doctrine is orthodox. The application to Job, however, remains problematic, because Job has not denied these truths. He has struggled with their manifestation in his personal experience.
3. Job 34:16–20, God preserves His moral order
“If now thou hast understanding, hear this: hearken to the voice of my words. Shall even he that hateth right govern? and wilt thou condemn him that is most just? Is it fit to say to a king, Thou art wicked? and to princes, Ye are ungodly? How much less to him that accepteth not the persons of princes, nor regardeth the rich more than the poor? for they all are the work of his hands. In a moment shall they die, and the people shall be troubled at midnight, and pass away: and the mighty shall be taken away without hand.”
Elihu presses his argument with rhetorical force. “Shall even he that hateth right govern?” The implied answer is no. A ruler who hates justice is unfit to rule. By extension, since God governs the universe, He cannot hate justice. This reasoning is sound in principle. Psalm 89:14 affirms, “Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face.” God’s rule is grounded in righteousness.
He then asks, “Wilt thou condemn him that is most just?” Elihu interprets Job’s lament as condemnation of God. Yet Job’s complaints were rooted in reverence. Job 1:22 records, “In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.” Even amid anguish, Job did not formally denounce God as unjust. His wrestling was the struggle of faith seeking understanding, not the rebellion of unbelief.
Elihu argues from lesser to greater. “Is it fit to say to a king, Thou art wicked? and to princes, Ye are ungodly?” If it is inappropriate to insult earthly rulers, how much more inappropriate to accuse the divine King. Ecclesiastes 8:4 reminds us, “Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?” Yet the analogy is imperfect. Earthly kings can be unjust. God cannot. Elihu’s premise is correct, but again he assumes Job is directly accusing God of moral evil, which overstates Job’s case.
He emphasizes divine impartiality. “He accepteth not the persons of princes, nor regardeth the rich more than the poor; for they all are the work of his hands.” This aligns perfectly with biblical revelation. Deuteronomy 10:17 declares, “For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward.” Likewise Acts 10:34 affirms, “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons.” All stand equal before their Creator because all are “the work of his hands.”
Finally, Elihu underscores the fragility of human power. “In a moment shall they die… and the mighty shall be taken away without hand.” No human strength can resist divine decree. Psalm 146:3–4 teaches, “Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.” Even the mighty fall suddenly, often without visible human agency, “without hand,” meaning by divine action.
Elihu’s theology in this section is orthodox and strong. God is just, impartial, sovereign, and irresistible. The weakness lies not in the doctrine but in the conclusion he draws about Job. He assumes that lament equals blasphemy and that perplexity equals rebellion. In defending God’s justice, he misjudges a righteous sufferer.
4. Job 34:21–30, The perfection of God’s judgments
“For his eyes are upon the ways of man, and he seeth all his goings. There is no darkness, nor shadow of death, where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves. For he will not lay upon man more than right; that he should enter into judgment with God. He shall break in pieces mighty men without number, and set others in their stead. Therefore he knoweth their works, and he overturneth them in the night, so that they are destroyed. He striketh them as wicked men in the open sight of others; Because they turned back from him, and would not consider any of his ways: So that they cause the cry of the poor to come unto him, and he heareth the cry of the afflicted. When he giveth quietness, who then can make trouble? and when he hideth his face, who then can behold him? whether it be done against a nation, or against a man only: That the hypocrite reign not, lest the people be ensnared.”
Elihu continues to build his case for the flawless justice of God. “For his eyes are upon the ways of man, and he seeth all his goings.” This affirms divine omniscience. Nothing escapes the scrutiny of God. Proverbs 15:3 declares, “The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.” Likewise Hebrews 4:13 states, “Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.” Elihu rightly insists that God’s judgments are informed by perfect knowledge.
“There is no darkness, nor shadow of death, where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves.” This echoes Psalm 139:11–12, “If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.” God’s moral government cannot be thwarted by secrecy. Hidden sin is not hidden from heaven.
Elihu declares, “For he will not lay upon man more than right; that he should enter into judgment with God.” The meaning is that God does not need prolonged investigation or human litigation. He does not require additional inquiry, because His knowledge is exhaustive. Isaiah 11:3–4 speaks of the Messiah judging with perfect perception, “And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth.” God’s judgments are never based on incomplete information.
“He shall break in pieces mighty men without number, and set others in their stead.” Earthly power offers no immunity. Daniel 2:21 affirms, “And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings.” God overthrows rulers and raises others according to His sovereign will. “He overturneth them in the night, so that they are destroyed,” emphasizes suddenness and inevitability. Human authority is fragile before divine decree.
Elihu intensifies the moral explanation in verses 27–28. “He striketh them as wicked men in the open sight of others; Because they turned back from him, and would not consider any of his ways: So that they cause the cry of the poor to come unto him, and he heareth the cry of the afflicted.” Here Elihu presents a moral cause and effect. Judgment falls because of rebellion and oppression. Scripture consistently affirms that God hears the oppressed. Psalm 9:12 declares, “When he maketh inquisition for blood, he remembereth them: he forgetteth not the cry of the humble.” Likewise Exodus 22:23 says, “If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry.”
The doctrine is correct. God is a defender of the afflicted. He judges tyrants who exploit the weak. Elihu likely intends this as a warning to Job, suggesting that suffering may signal hidden injustice. Yet this is precisely where Elihu misapplies truth. Job was not an oppressor of the poor. In Job 29:12–13 Job testified, “Because I delivered the poor that cried, and the fatherless, and him that had none to help him. The blessing of him that was ready to perish came upon me: and I caused the widow's heart to sing for joy.” Elihu’s warning would apply to a tyrant, not to Job.
“When he giveth quietness, who then can make trouble? and when he hideth his face, who then can behold him?” This affirms divine sovereignty over both peace and distress. Isaiah 45:7 declares, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” God alone determines the ultimate outcome of events. Whether “against a nation, or against a man only,” His authority is absolute. National calamity and individual suffering alike fall under His providence.
The final purpose clause is striking. “That the hypocrite reign not, lest the people be ensnared.” Elihu argues that divine judgment preserves moral order. If God did not remove corrupt rulers, society would collapse into deception and entrapment. Psalm 75:7 affirms, “But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another.” God’s interventions prevent the permanent triumph of hypocrisy.
Elihu’s theology in this section is orthodox and powerful. God is omniscient, sovereign, just, and protective of the oppressed. The moral structure of the universe rests upon His righteous governance. Yet the weakness lies in the assumption that every calamity is a visible act of punitive justice. The Book of Job demonstrates that suffering may occur within God’s sovereignty for purposes beyond immediate retribution. To equate all affliction with direct moral recompense is to oversimplify providence.
The danger in Elihu’s reasoning becomes clear. If every act of God is equated with visible justice in a simplistic sense, then the category of mystery disappears. Yet Scripture affirms both divine righteousness and divine inscrutability. Romans 11:33 declares, “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” God always does right, but His ways are not always immediately transparent.
B. Elihu’s strong advice for Job
1. Job 34:31–33, Elihu, What Job should have said
“Surely it is meet to be said unto God, I have borne chastisement, I will not offend any more: That which I see not teach thou me: if I have done iniquity, I will do no more. Should it be according to thy mind? he will recompense it, whether thou refuse, or whether thou choose; and not I: therefore speak what thou knowest.”
Elihu now shifts from defending God’s justice to prescribing Job’s proper response. He essentially composes a prayer of repentance that he believes Job should have uttered. “I have borne chastisement, I will not offend any more.” Elihu assumes that Job’s suffering is divine chastening for specific wrongdoing. Therefore, in his mind, the proper posture is immediate confession and submission.
Scripture certainly affirms the value of humble repentance. Proverbs 28:13 declares, “He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.” Likewise Psalm 32:5 states, “I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin.” Elihu’s model prayer reflects biblical humility in form.
He continues, “That which I see not teach thou me.” This is an appropriate petition. Psalm 19:12 says, “Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults.” A godly man should be willing to ask God for illumination regarding hidden sin. Elihu’s error is not in the content of the prayer but in his presumption that Job has refused such a spirit. Job had already expressed a willingness to be examined. In Job 13:23 Job said, “How many are mine iniquities and sins? make me to know my transgression and my sin.” Job was not resistant to conviction, he simply denied that his present calamity was punishment for specific wickedness.
Elihu presses further, “Should it be according to thy mind? he will recompense it, whether thou refuse, or whether thou choose; and not I.” He challenges what he perceives as Job’s demand that God operate according to human expectations. The rhetorical force is strong. God does not adjust His justice to human preference. Isaiah 40:13–14 declares, “Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment?” God’s judgments are not subject to human veto.
Yet again, Elihu overstates his case. Job never claimed authority to dictate divine policy. He sought explanation, not sovereignty. His cry was the cry of perplexed faith, not arrogant rebellion. Elihu, young and zealous, mistakes lament for defiance.
“You must choose, and not I: therefore speak what thou knowest.” Elihu presses Job toward decision. His tone carries urgency and even pressure. He insists that Job must admit guilt and submit without further argument. It is painful to observe this sternness directed at a man whom God Himself had called upright. In Job 1:8 the LORD declared, “Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?” Elihu does not know the heavenly prologue. His counsel, though sincere, is misapplied.
2. Job 34:34–37, Job’s multiplied sins invite God’s judgment
“Let men of understanding tell me, and let a wise man hearken unto me. Job hath spoken without knowledge, and his words were without wisdom. My desire is that Job may be tried unto the end because of his answers for wicked men. For he addeth rebellion unto his sin, he clappeth his hands among us, and multiplieth his words against God.”
Elihu now appeals to consensus. “Let men of understanding tell me.” He claims that wise observers agree with him. According to Elihu, “Job hath spoken without knowledge, and his words were without wisdom.” This echoes earlier accusations. Yet Job’s struggle was not ignorance of God’s character but confusion about God’s dealings.
Job had affirmed God’s greatness repeatedly. In Job 12:13 he declared, “With him is wisdom and strength, he hath counsel and understanding.” In Job 26:14 he said, “Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of him? but the thunder of his power who can understand?” These are not the words of a man ignorant of divine majesty.
Elihu’s harshest statement follows. “My desire is that Job may be tried unto the end because of his answers for wicked men.” He wishes that Job’s suffering continue until he repents. This is a severe and troubling wish. It reveals how fully Elihu has embraced the retribution framework. In his reasoning, greater suffering will produce greater repentance.
Scripture does teach that chastening can produce righteousness. Hebrews 12:11 says, “Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.” However, chastening assumes genuine guilt requiring correction. In Job’s case, the heavenly record demonstrates that his suffering was not corrective punishment but a test permitted within divine sovereignty.
Elihu intensifies his accusation. “For he addeth rebellion unto his sin.” According to Elihu, Job’s initial hidden sin brought suffering, and his complaints have compounded the offense. “He clappeth his hands among us” suggests defiant mockery. Elihu interprets Job’s persistence in defending his integrity as insolent applause against wise counsel. “And multiplieth his words against God” accuses Job of compounding guilt through speech.
Yet the narrative context refutes this assessment. In Job 1:22 Scripture records, “In all this Job sinned not, nor charged God foolishly.” Even after deeper affliction, Job 2:10 says, “In all this did not Job sin with his lips.” While Job’s later speeches contain sharp lament, they do not amount to high-handed rebellion. They are the groans of a righteous sufferer seeking understanding.
Elihu’s error illustrates a critical theological danger. When suffering is automatically equated with punishment, compassion is replaced by suspicion. His zeal for divine justice leads him to wish further affliction upon an innocent man. Proverbs 17:15 warns, “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.” Though Elihu intends to defend righteousness, he edges dangerously close to condemning the just.
He concludes the chapter with severity exceeding that of Job’s three friends. His logic is consistent within his framework, yet the framework itself is incomplete. He assumes that visible suffering corresponds directly to moral failure. The Book of Job exists to dismantle that oversimplification while upholding God’s justice.
