Job Chapter 35

Elihu Accuses Job of Self Righteousness

In Job 35 Elihu intensifies his confrontation of Job. His tone is sharp, prosecutorial, and confident. He believes he has identified the core problem, what he perceives to be Job’s self justification before God. Yet as the text unfolds, it becomes clear that Elihu, like the other friends, partially understands truth about God’s transcendence, but fails to grasp the relational depth of God’s dealings with man.

Job 35:1–3
“Elihu spake moreover, and said,
Thinkest thou this to be right, that thou saidst, My righteousness is more than God’s?
For thou saidst, What advantage will it be unto thee? and, What profit shall I have, if I be cleansed from my sin?”

Elihu begins with a direct challenge, “Thinkest thou this to be right?” He does not open with comfort, nor with careful inquiry, but with accusation. He believes Job has crossed a theological line. In Elihu’s view, Job has effectively claimed moral superiority over God by insisting on his own righteousness while questioning divine justice.

Elihu’s charge is serious. “My righteousness is more than God’s” is not a direct quotation from Job, but Elihu’s interpretation of Job’s lament. Job never explicitly claimed superiority over God. Rather, Job maintained his integrity and struggled to reconcile his suffering with his understanding of God’s justice. Yet in the intensity of his grief, Job had indeed asked what profit there was in righteousness if the righteous suffer as the wicked. Earlier Job said, “It is all one; therefore I said it, He destroyeth the perfect and the wicked” (Job 9:22). Elihu interprets such statements as theological rebellion.

Elihu accuses Job of cold spiritual calculation, as though Job were saying that righteousness yields no benefit. In Job’s agony, he had asked, “Wherefore do the wicked live, become old, yea, are mighty in power?” (Job 21:7). Job’s struggle was not disbelief in God’s justice, but confusion regarding how that justice was operating in his case. Elihu, however, reduces Job’s wrestling to pride.

There is an important theological distinction here. To question God in suffering is not the same as exalting oneself above God. The Psalms contain similar cries. “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Psalm 22:1). Yet that lament is not rebellion, but covenant faith crying out for understanding. Elihu does not seem to recognize this nuance.

Elihu’s Appeal to God’s Transcendence

Job 35:4–8
“I will answer thee, and thy companions with thee.
Look unto the heavens, and see; and behold 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 of thine hand?
Thy wickedness may hurt a man as thou art; and thy righteousness may profit the son of man.”

Elihu broadens his address. He will answer not only Job, but also “thy companions.” Though he criticizes the three friends, his theology here substantially overlaps with theirs. His central argument is the transcendence of God. He directs Job to “Look unto the heavens.” The imagery emphasizes distance. The clouds are higher than man. God is exalted above human affairs.

This is true in one sense. Scripture consistently affirms God’s greatness and exaltation. “For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him” (Psalm 103:11). “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” (Isaiah 55:8–9). God is infinitely above man in essence, wisdom, and power.

Elihu reasons from that transcendence. If man sins, he cannot diminish God. If man is righteous, he cannot enrich God. God does not gain from human obedience, nor does He lose from human rebellion in a way that alters His essential being. Elihu’s logic is philosophically sound in terms of divine aseity. God is self existent and self sufficient. “The God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things” (Acts 17:24–25).

Yet Elihu’s application is incomplete. He moves from divine independence to divine detachment. He implies that human righteousness or wickedness affects only other humans, not God in any meaningful way. That conclusion presses too far. While God does not need man, Scripture clearly teaches that God is personally engaged with His creation.

The Old Testament repeatedly shows that human sin grieves God. “But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them” (Isaiah 63:10). The language of “vexed” or grieved indicates relational involvement. In the New Testament we read, “And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption” (Ephesians 4:30). If human conduct could not in any sense affect God relationally, such language would be meaningless.

Likewise, Scripture teaches that righteousness glorifies God. “Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples” (John 15:8). God is not enriched in His being, but He is glorified in His purposes when His people walk in obedience.

Elihu therefore presents a half truth. He rightly affirms divine transcendence, but he fails to integrate divine immanence. God is above man, yet not indifferent to man. He is self sufficient, yet relational. He is sovereign, yet personally engaged in covenant dealings.

There is also a subtle pastoral danger in Elihu’s reasoning. If righteousness neither profits God nor matters ultimately, then what incentive remains for faithfulness? If suffering cannot be meaningfully connected to divine purpose, despair follows. Scripture avoids that conclusion by affirming both God’s transcendence and His covenant faithfulness. “The LORD is high above all nations, and his glory above the heavens” (Psalm 113:4), yet also, “The LORD is nigh unto all them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth” (Psalm 145:18).

Elihu’s speech in this section reveals the tension of the book. He speaks many correct theological propositions, but without the tenderness and fullness that the final revelation of God will provide. He sees the height of the clouds, but not yet the heart of the covenant Lord who will ultimately answer Job out of the whirlwind.

B. Self Righteous Job Should Expect No Answer from God

In this section Elihu advances his argument beyond accusation into theological explanation. He seeks to justify why God has not answered Job. His conclusion is pointed and severe. If God does not respond, the problem must lie with the one who cries out. Elihu therefore implies that Job’s silence from heaven is evidence of pride and insincerity.

God Does Not Answer the Proud

Job 35:9–12
“By reason of the multitude of oppressions they make the oppressed to cry: they cry out by reason of the arm of the mighty.
But none saith, Where is God 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, but none giveth answer, because of the pride of evil men.”

Elihu acknowledges a real human condition. Oppression produces cries. When men suffer under “the arm of the mighty,” they appeal for relief. Throughout Scripture, oppression is recognized as a grievous evil. “Because of the oppression of the poor, because of the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him” (Psalm 12:5). God is not indifferent to injustice.

Yet Elihu’s emphasis is different. He focuses not on the oppression itself, but on the heart of the one crying out. He says the problem is not that God is absent, but that men cry without repentance or reverence. “None saith, Where is God my maker.” They want relief, but not relationship. They want deliverance, but not submission.

This observation contains truth. Many cry to God only in distress, not in devotion. Scripture affirms that superficial religion is offensive to Him. “And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood” (Isaiah 1:15). Pride and hypocrisy hinder prayer.

Elihu also speaks of God as the One “who giveth songs in the night.” This is a rich theological phrase. It suggests that even in affliction, God grants comfort and inward strength. The Psalmist testified similarly, “The LORD will command his lovingkindness in the daytime, and in the night his song shall be with me, and my prayer unto the God of my life” (Psalm 42:8). Night, often symbolic of distress, is not beyond divine consolation.

Further, Elihu highlights the dignity of man. God “teacheth us more than the beasts of the earth.” Man is endowed with reason and moral awareness. “What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour” (Psalm 8:4–5). Unlike the animals, man can seek God consciously and intentionally.

Elihu’s conclusion follows: “There they cry, but none giveth answer, because of the pride of evil men.” Pride, he says, is the barrier. Scripture does affirm that pride invites divine resistance. “God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble” (James 4:6). A proud heart cannot expect covenant favor.

The problem in Elihu’s application is his assumption that Job belongs in this category. Job’s earlier declarations demonstrate not pride, but anguish. Job had said, “Behold, I cry out of wrong, but I am not heard: I cry aloud, but there is no judgment” (Job 19:7). He did not deny God’s existence, nor did he mock His authority. He wrestled with the apparent silence of heaven. Elihu collapses lament into arrogance.

God Does Not Hear Empty Words

Job 35:13–16
“Surely God will not hear vanity, neither will the Almighty regard it.
Although thou sayest thou shalt not see him, yet judgment is before him; therefore trust thou in him.
But now, because it is not so, he hath visited in his anger; yet he knoweth it not in great extremity:
Therefore doth Job open his mouth in vain; he multiplieth words without knowledge.”

Elihu continues with firm certainty. “Surely God will not hear vanity.” The term vanity implies emptiness, falsehood, or hollow speech. Scripture supports the principle. “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me” (Psalm 66:18). Prayer that flows from hypocrisy or rebellion is ineffective.

Elihu then rebukes Job’s complaint of divine hiddenness. Job had lamented, “Behold, I go forward, but he is not there; and backward, but I cannot perceive him” (Job 23:8). Elihu counters by saying that judgment is before God, and Job must simply trust and wait. The concept of waiting on God is thoroughly biblical. “Wait on the LORD: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart: wait, I say, on the LORD” (Psalm 27:14).

However, Elihu’s rebuke lacks pastoral sensitivity. He implies that Job’s continued lament proves emptiness. He suggests that God’s silence is evidence of Job’s guilt. He even argues that God’s restraint in judgment should silence Job. Because God has not punished him in full wrath, Job should be quiet. Elihu concludes bluntly, “Job openeth his mouth in vain; he multiplieth words without knowledge.”

There is irony in that accusation. Earlier in the book, the LORD said to Eliphaz, “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” (Job 42:7). While that statement addresses the three friends directly, it reveals that Job’s wrestling was not the reckless ignorance Elihu assumes. Job’s lament, though imperfect, was not empty vanity.

Elihu’s theology here is structurally correct in principle but flawed in diagnosis. It is true that God resists pride. It is true that empty religion gains no hearing. It is true that waiting upon the Lord is necessary. Yet it is false to assume that unanswered prayer automatically proves arrogance. Scripture contains examples of righteous sufferers who waited in silence before receiving explanation. “How long, O LORD? wilt thou forget me for ever? how long wilt thou hide thy face from me?” (Psalm 13:1). Such language is not pride, but faith seeking understanding.

This section reveals a recurring pattern in human reasoning. When divine providence is mysterious, men are tempted to simplify. Elihu simplifies Job’s suffering into a moral formula. If God has not answered, Job must be proud. Yet the unfolding narrative will show that heaven’s silence does not equal heaven’s indifference. God is neither inattentive nor unjust. His timing is sovereign, His purposes are higher, and His eventual revelation will transcend every human argument presented in these speeches.