“So these three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram: against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than God. Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job.” We saw earlier that the purpose of the book of Job was the great debate, “Should a truly righteous man suffer, or not?” We saw that Job answered No, and Zophar answered No. Who then is this Elihu? And what does he represent in this ‘parable’? Well, let us see. In every debate there is a subject debated, and after each speaker in turn has presented his side of the matter from his standpoint, then comes one to sum up, to summarize all that is said, and to give an overview. This is the foundation of Elihu, as we will see. He is left to give us a concise summing up at the end of the great debate. We said earlier that the debate was, in fact, over somewhere around chapter 25 or 26, because Job is allowed the last word, and from 26 to 31 Job speaks. Now even Job falls silent, and chapter 32 shows us that these three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes. Should a truly righteous man suffer, or not? What is your answer? Only our Lord puts it another way – “Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory?” Yes, Lord. For without Your suffering for us we are lost, condemned, and without hope. In that sense only can the answer be Yes. But apart from Christ, the answer must be No. So we see that the sufferings of Christ are not to be regarded as ‘normal’ but abnormal. “Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite, of the kindred of Ram.” This description of Elihu tells us all we need to know. He is shown to be angry, which none of the others were, and that proves that he is not a judge – judgment depends on an unbiased, disinterested, calm, judicial manner, for the wrath of God follows the Judgment – not a judge but an extension of the debate itself. His name is good, Elihu, and means a man of God in truth. He is shown by genealogy, to establish his position. “Elihu the son of Barachel” means he is begotten of contention, “the Buzite” simply implying speech. But the genealogy is “of the kindred of Ram,” or authority, to show he is properly authorized to play this part, for his words are incorporated into the scripture of truth. It is a lengthy and full description so that we will not be likely to get it wrong. We see his kindred, his genealogy, his name and his character. We observe that his words are added on to the words of the debate after the three men ceased to answer, and after Job has had the last word, as it were, but the words of Elihu are obviously a part of the debate itself rather than an independent judgment; an extension, an appendix to the previous words, without altering the debate or resuming it in any way. Therefore we can conclude that, as no debate is complete without a summary, this is the summary. Should a truly righteous man suffer, or not? What in the end is the final conclusion, what is the sum of the words of the speakers, what may we take home with us? This is the importance of the words of Elihu. We should be careful not to regard him as merely a “Johnny-come-lately” to the debate, a fourth speaker where three were ample, an unnecessary and useless appendage, but as an authority fully authorized to teach us of Christ. “Against Job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than God. Also against his three friends was his wrath kindled, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job.” The wrath of Elihu is distributed equally, although shown in separate parts because the reasons are different. Elihu is angry with Job because Job could only justify Job, rather than God. The conclusion we must come to therefore, as Elihu leads us, is that man cannot be justified before God through his own righteousness. If the New Testament is looked at as the conclusion or summing up of the Old Testament, we should discover the same thing – man cannot be justified before God by his own righteousness. How then may man be justified? By the righteousness of Christ, who rose from the dead for our justification. This is New Testament teaching; the doctrine of the apostles; the words of all men of God in truth; the scripture. Our Lord’s parable shows that to be justified we must first acknowledge that we are sinners, rather than cling to our own so-called righteousness. Job’s boils speak of corruption of the flesh, for even Job had to be taught this doctrine. But Elihu is also wrathful against the three friends of Job, because they had found no answer, and yet had condemned Job. The conclusion we are led to see is that our Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar do not have the answer. If Christ were merely a teacher of new doctrine then His death would have been normal, and if Christ were merely an insurrectionist He could have expected to be crucified by the Romans in Jerusalem. But Elihu is angry with such a conclusion, and would lead us to see that that is not the answer, for it condemns the Innocent. It is upon the authority of scripture, the scripture of truth, the New Testament, that we can state categorically that Christ was the Son of God, perfect, sinless, faultless, holy – and our conclusion is that He died, the Just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, and all men of God in truth will agree with that. “Now Elihu had waited till Job had spoken, because they were elder than he.” The authority is no less great because it is younger in time. The New Testament is newer than the Old, but it displays nevertheless the authority of “the kindred of Ram.” It waits till the ‘elder’ has spoken, but it is the words of men of God in truth. (Not that Elihu by himself represents the New Testament, but only the conclusions.) Christ comes in the fulness of time, after all the prophets have spoken, from Abel onwards. Indeed there is a pause after the words of the ‘elder,’ which is only implied here, before the ‘younger’ speaks. “I am young, and ye are very old,” says Elihu, “wherefore I was afraid, and durst not shew you mine opinion.” After the Resurrection, Christ begins at Moses and all the prophets, to show things concerning Himself to the disciples. ‘The New is in the Old contained; the Old is by the New explained.’ In other words, the New is not new, but only younger. The God of the Old is the God of the New, changeless, eternal, fulfilling His own will. And Jesus Christ is not new, but the same yesterday, today, and forever. “Thy throne, O God, is from everlasting to everlasting; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Thy kingdom.” That is God speaking to the Son, in Hebrews. We tend to cling to the New Testament and relegate the Old Testament to oblivion, because it appears to us that the God of the New Testament is a far kindlier figure than the God of the Old. Absolute nonsense! It is the same God, from eternity to eternity. The only difference is that we see God in the person of Jesus Christ, and God seems less remote – more human, in fact! Our Lord said, “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father,” and, “I and my Father are one.” But what we are seeing is God manifest in flesh, as though the God of Job had stepped into our midst. But away back in the beginning the Word was with God, and the Word was God – and the Word became flesh, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, according to Elihu. Listen now to Elihu. “I said, Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom. But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.” We see therefore that it is not merely the Old Testament which is inspired of the Almighty but the younger or New Testament which has the Spirit of God, too. And that the true wisdom and understanding is to be found in the New as well as in the Old. Indeed, Elihu goes on to say, “Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment. Therefore I said, Hearken to me…” It is as one says, “That they without us should not be made perfect” (or complete). The words of Elihu are necessary words, rather than only additional words, to give us complete or perfect understanding of the matter. Christ is not merely another Word, but the Word from the beginning, the Word without which all that the prophets had spoken was incomplete, imperfect, found false. He is the completion of prophecy, the fulfillment of the law, the last Word. But He is the first and the last; the ‘Our Father’ and the Amen; the Alpha and Omega, or as we would say, the ‘A’ and the ‘Z.’ Elihu goes on to say, “Behold, there was none of you that convinced Job, or that answered his words.” Up till Christ came, righteousness was an individual matter, and the perfect life was a matter of keeping the law of God perfectly. The whole of the Old Testament could not have convinced Job otherwise, neither could the voice of experience or any other, for the thing was normal in Job’s day. But Elihu tells us in verse 19, “Behold, my belly is as wine which hath no vent; it is ready to burst like new bottles.” It is the younger, the New Testament, which contains the new wine. This indeed, according to John, is the ‘first’ miracle that Jesus did. He transforms the ‘water’ of the Old Testament into the ‘wine’ of the New, that we may feast, and be wed to Him, and see His glory. How perfect he is! And this conclusion we are led into by the words of the men of God in truth. As Elihu prepares to speak, he ends chapter 32 by saying, “ Let me not, I pray you, accept any man’s person, neither let me give flattering titles unto man. For I know not to give flattering titles; in so doing my maker would soon take me away.” This is the last piece of knowledge we have concerning Elihu. He was impartial. His wrath, as we said once, is equally distributed, and his words, as we now see, will be impartial in that they will not show Job up in any favorable light, or his three friends either. This is a characteristic of Elihu. We find it so as we turn to the gospels. Christ is presented factually, impartially, as evidence is presented before a judge, so that we have no excuse to return to the question, “What think ye of Christ?” unless we cannot read or write. What a pity that those who claim to represent Christ on earth, the modern Elihus, so misrepresent Him that we get a false picture of Him! Surely they must at least have read the book? Only men of God in truth have this faculty of representing Christ to us without fear or favor, leaving us to judge for ourselves. And if any say, O Lord, how great Thou art! remember, it is not by any means a flattering title, but a factual phrase. His name shall be called Wonderful, the Mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. Not a flattering title among them, but the words of men of God in truth. Peter calls Him the Lord of Glory. John calls Him the King of Kings. Paul refers to Him as the One in whom is hid all the treasures of the Godhead. Others have said He is our great High Priest, our Saviour, our Lord and our God, our Messiah, our Redeemer, our Atonement, our all in all. But not a ‘flattering title’ can be found in the whole of the New Testament, nor in the Old Testament for that matter, for holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. It is a characteristic of God to be impartial. It is a characteristic of every man of God in truth to be impartial. It is the mark of Elihu. It is equally true of Christ.