BIBLIOTHECA SACRA 156 (April-June 1999):
143-59
Copyright ©
1999 by
ELIHU'S THEOLOGY
AND HIS VIEW OF SUFFERING
Larry
J. Waters
The Book of Job is essentially about
God's relationship with
humankind, specifically with a man named Job, and
it revolves
around two questions. The first question is introduced
through the
accusations of Satan (1:9-11; 2:4-5): Why do people
worship
God?1 Satan suggested that the motivation for Job's
worship and
righteousness was "self-focused
aggrandizement (Job 1:9-11)."2
Elihu3
sought to show that Satan's thesis-that "all religious in-
terest is ultimately grounded
in self-interest, or worse, in merce-
nary commitment"4--is false.
The second question asks, How should people respond or react
to God when He is silent and seemingly unconcerned
about their
problems? Therefore Elihu's
theology is primarily related to Job's
reaction to God, and the misunderstanding of the
three antago-
nists and Job regarding their
relationship to Him. Specifically
Job
questioned the operation of God's justice and ultimately God's
own integrity, whereas the three questioned Job's
claim of inno-
cence and asserted God's
right to exercise His freedom in the use
of retributive justice. These two attributes,
God's justice and
sovereignty, were emphatically defended by Elihu.
Larry
J. Waters is Professor of Bible Exposition,
International School of Theology-
Asia,
1 See Roy B. Zuck, "A Theology of the Wisdom Books and the Song of
Songs," in A
Biblical Theology of the
Old Testament,
ed. Roy B. Zuck (Chicago: Moody. 1991),
219-32.
Many observations in this article are drawn from this
study, but will not be
noted hereafter unless directly quoted.
2 Ibid.,
219.
3 For a discussion of the
authenticity of Elihu's speeches,
see Larry J. Waters,
"The
Authenticity of the Elihu Speeches in Job
32-37," Bibliotheca Sacra 156
(January-March
1999): 28-41.
4 D. A.
Rapids: Baker, 1990), 160.
144
BIBLIOTHECA SACRA /
April-June 1999
ELIHU'S VIEW OF SUFFERING RELATIVE
TO
THE THEOLOGY
OF GOD
In
response to these two questions Elihu spoke first of
God's
sovereignty. God is greater than man (33:12); He is
sovereign in
His
decisions and actions (34:14-15, 29), in His rule over indi-
viduals, nations, and the earth
(33:14-18, 29-30; 34:13-15, 21-25;
37:13), and in His greatness (36:22, 26). His sovereignty is
demonstrated in His creative work
(32:22; 33:4, 6; 34: 14) and His
control of nature, including the cycles of
evaporation (36:27-33),
rain (36:28; 37:6), the clouds, lightning, and
thunder (36:29-33;
37:2-5,
11-12, 15-16), the cold, snow, and ice (37:6-10), extreme
heat (37:16-18), and animals (37:8).
Elihu
explained the relationship between the sovereignty of
God
and suffering by emphasizing that Job's life was under the
control of the sovereign Creator God, who
sustains life (34:13-15).
Since
God's decisions, actions, and dominion are autonomous,
neither Job nor the three had the right to
question God or presume
on Him. However, Job and the three assumed that
everything in
God's
universe ought to be explained to them (30:20) or known by
them (15:8-10; 20:4). As a result Elihu declared, in essence,
"There
are some things you [Job and the three] will not under-
stand, for you are not God."5 There
will always remain some
mysteries to suffering; therefore when believers
suffer, they must
maintain faith in the Lord.
A second attribute Elihu defended is God's "infinity, for He
cannot be understood (36:26; 37:5, 15-16), seen by man
(34:29),"6
or limited by space. A third attribute is God's
eternality (36:26,
29),
for He cannot be dated or limited by time. Elihu's
purpose in
emphasizing these three attributes was to move Job
and the three
from a focus on themselves and the problems
surrounding under-
served suffering to the infinite God whose purposes
are eternal
and who knows exactly what He is doing. Before Elihu's inter-
vention the debate had been
anthropocentric and not theocentric.
Elihu rectified that situation and injected a
recognition of the di-
vine into the discussion. Another purpose Elihu had in mind was
to get Job and the three to understand that God is
not limited in the
way He deals with the suffering of humankind. God
acts when,
where, and how He has sovereignly
decreed. This is not to dis-
courage prayer or a humble, submissive, and
righteous lifestyle,
but rather to encourage a life of faith and trust.
The fourth and fifth attributes
defended by Elihu are God's
5 Ibid.,
173-74.
6 Zuck, "A
Theology of the Wisdom Books and the Song of Songs," 221.
Elihu's
Theology and His View of Suffering 145
justice (34:12, 17; 36:3, 23; 37:23) and
holiness (34:10; 36:23). He is
perfectly just and holy when He judges sin
(34:11), punishes sin-
ners (v. 26), destroys the
powerful (v. 24), acts impartially (v. 19),
summons death (v. 20; 36:6), disciplines
oppressive rulers (36:7),
judges godless kings (34:30), and censures flattery
(32:22). Elihu
spent the greater part of his defense in affirming
God's justice.
The
three antagonists' faulty theology and Job's insistence that
God
was neither exercising justice in the lives of others or in his
own
life (10:3; 12:6; 19:6-7; 21:7-15, 17-28; 24:12; 27:2) called into
question God's justice and holiness. If Job's
suffering were un-
justly allowed by God, or if God's work could be
reduced to a quid
pro quo system, then God is no different from the
false gods of the
ancient Near East. Elihu
maintained that God does not punish or
reward on the basis of human terms (34:33). Therefore
the
proposition that God acts unjustly or that He is
controlled by
human logic is unacceptable. According to Elihu suffering has
many purposes, all of which fall under the
governance of the jus-
tice and holiness of God. To
think otherwise diminishes God to "a
god" and exaggerates suffering beyond its
importance and pro-
motes it to the prime factor of life, with all things
revolving
around its existence or absence (i.e., compensation
theology).7
God's omniscience was also cited by Elihu. This sixth at-
tribute affirms that God is aware of every
movement of a person
(34:21)
and knows all that is in one's heart (v. 23). God sees the
deeds of sinners and they cannot hide from Him (vv.
22, 25;
35:15).
He is also cognizant of the righteous and their needs
(36:7), for He is "perfect in
knowledge" (36:4; 37:16). The silence
of God was a major obstacle for Job, because it
implied that God
was unaware of his suffering or that He was distant
and detached
(
ery area of a person's life
and is aware of even inner moti-
vations. Even in suffering, God
does not detach Himself from
His
creation but is at work in that suffering to attract the sufferer
to Himself (36:15-16). Since God is omniscient and
aware of
Job's
suffering, He is also aware that it is undeserved. Therefore
any apparent inaction or silence on God's part did
not imply Job's
isolation or God's ignorance and hostility.
The seventh attribute emphasized by Elihu was omnipotence.
God
is referred to as the omnipotent Creator (34:19; 35:10; 36:3),
the Almighty Gods (32:8; 33:4; 34:10, 12; 35:13;
37:23), and the
7 The terms
"compensation" and "compensation theology" are defined
later.
a luck points out that yDiWa is used thirty-one
times in Job (including six times by
Elihu) and only seventeen times in the rest of the
Old Testament (ibid., 221-22).
Also
see R. Laird Harris, "The Book of Job and Its Doctrine of God," in
Sitting with
146
BIBLIOTHECA SACRA /
April-June 1999
"mighty" One (34:17; 36:5). Twice, Elihu
declared that God is
"exalted in power" (36:22; 37:23). Rabbi Kushner insists
that God
is unable to prevent human suffering.9 This idea,
however, was
unacceptable to Elihu,
Job, and the three, because "God's power
was not questioned; only His fairness."1o
Though Job did not
doubt the power of God, he did deny God's willingness
to use it on
Job's
behalf, and he even accused God of using His power
against
him (
"God's
essence is 'power' and not 'justice;' he bends justice and
rules with raw power (19:6f)."11 For Elihu, to imply that God's al-
lowance of Job's suffering was
an action independent of His na-
ture was an attack on God's
justice. Elihu insisted that God's
power was working for Job, not against him, even in
his suffer-
ing and losses. Elihu wanted Job to put aside his preoccupation
with his own vindication and righteousness and to
realize that
God
alone had the power to deliver him (36:22-24; cf. 40:8-14).12
The
eighth attribute Elihu noted is God's love and mercy.
His
provision for His creation, Elihu
pointed out, shows that He is
gracious and merciful (37:13). He gives life to
humanity (34:14-
15),
He forgives and restores (33:26-30; 36:10), He delivers suf-
ferers in their suffering,
speaks during oppression, and seeks
intimacy with sufferers during their distress
(36:15-16). Elihu
also invited Job to consider God's merciful love, as
seen in the
actions of nature. When Job's wife suggested
that he "curse God
and die," Job replied, "Shall we indeed
accept good from God and
not accept adversity?" (2:9-10). Elihu assumed that suffering was
as much a gift from God as prosperity. Elihu also recognized that
Job's
occupation with his former blessings had clouded his mind
to the lessons and intimacies related to hardship
and adversity
(33:24,
26; 36:15; 37:13b-14). The "fellowship of God is enriching,
and. ..that fellowship may
be found in adversity no less than in
prosperity."13 Suffering is
therefore the channel through which
Job: Selected Studies on
the Book of Job,
ed. Roy B. luck (
1992), 154-55.
9 Kushner says, "God
would like people to get what they deserve in life, but He
cannot always arrange it. Forced to choose between a
good God who is not totally
powerful, or a powerful God who is not totally
good, the author of the book of Job
chooses to believe in God's goodness"
(Harold S. Kushner, When Bad Things Hap-
pen to Good People [
10 Philip Yancey,
"Riddles of Pain: Clues from the Book of Job," Christianity To-
day,
11 Dorothee Soelle,
Suffering (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 114.
12 Elmer B. Smick, "Semeiological
Interpretation of the Book of Job,"
Theological Journal 48 (1986): 147.
13 H. H. Rowley, "The
Intellectual versus the Spiritual Solution," in The Dimen-
sions of Job: A Study and Selected
Elihu's Theology and His View
of Suffering 147
God
dispenses His grace and love in a remarkable way and
where His attributes are more clearly manifest to the
sufferer.
ELIHU'S VIEW OF SUFFERING RELATIVE
TO
THE THEOLOGY OF HUMANITY
Job
held traditional views regarding the origin and nature of hu-
mans. He acknowledged God as the Creator and
Sustainer of life
(
ple are by nature frail (
24;
10:2; 16:11; 21:7, 16, 28; 24:6; 27:7, 13; 29:17; 31:3), godless
(
admitted that sin could occur in one's heart (1:5;
31:7, 9) or
thoughts (31:1). Chapters 29-31 reveal that Job
had a healthy re-
spect for the consequences of
sin and attempted to live righ-
teously. Generally he agreed
with his three verbal opponents that
suffering is evidence of sinful behavior, but he
also observed that
contrary to the claim of compensation theology
not all sinners
suffer and not all righteous people are exempt from
affliction
(21:7-15,
17-18; 24:1-17).
Elihu
described God's relationship to people in several ways.
First,
he depicted this relationship generally. Elihu spoke
of God
as the Creator of humankind (32:22; 33:4, 6;
34:19; 35:10), and the
Authority over and Owner of human beings (33:6). Elihu
main-
tained that human life is
sustained by God (33:4; 34:20). He re-
garded people as formed from
clay (33:6), made of flesh and bones
(33:21;
34:15), lower than God (33:12; 36:23, 26), and destined to
return to dust (34:10). People cannot condemn God
(34:17, 29), see
God
(34:29; 35:14), or understand Him (36:26) or His ways in na-
ture (36:29; 37:15-16).14
Elihu also said that human beings are
spiritual creatures (32:8, 18; 33:3; 34:14; 37:1,
24). Concerning
wisdom and spiritual knowledge, Elihu
affirmed that wisdom
does not come from age (32:4-5, 9) or human nature
(32:5, 12-13;
36:29;
37:19), but from God alone (32:8, 19-20; 33:3-4, 15-16, 29-
30;
36:10-13; 37:7, 14-15). True wisdom cannot be attained
through tradition or effort, but is a gift from
God. Therefore Job
should entrust his situation to the authority of his
Creator.
Second,
Elihu said God is intimately involved in the lives of
human beings. God did not abandon humans when He
created
them (34:14-15). He is actively involved in the
conduct of His
people, and their ways are not hidden from Him
(34:21-22). God
communicates with people through
dreams, visions, pain, and
14 See Zuck,
"A Theology of the Wisdom Books and the Song of Songs," 226-28, 230-
31.
148
BIBLIOTHECA SACRA / April-June
1999
mediators (33:15-22, 26-29; 36:9-10, 15). God
opens the ears of
people to communicate His will and plan (33:16; 36:10,
16), and
draws people to Himself (36:16). Elihu
stated that God gives joy in
life (35:10) and that He promotes or demotes people
justly and
I fairly (34:30; 36:7, 11). Therefore God was
active in Job's suffer-
ing and struggle. The Lord
was not Job's enemy (
desired a deeper relationship with Job
(33:26-30).
Third, Elihu
described God's relationship with the righteous.
God’s
might and power, he said, are involved in carrying out His
plans and purposes for the righteous (36:5-7). God's
relationship
with them is unparalleled (vv. 5-6), and He is aware
of all that
happens to them (v. 7a). God does not oppress
the righteous or do
violence to righteousness (37:23b). Nothing
happens to the righ-
teous of which God is
unaware; in this the righteous can be secure.
God
was involved in the life of Job and had a special interest in
him as one of His righteous ones. Contrary to Job's
accusations,
God
was not oppressing him or doing violence to him .(37:23).
Un-
like readers who know the events of the prologue, Elihu accepted
this truth by faith and encouraged Job to do the
same. In reality the
only enemy Job had to fear was himself, and suffering
was re-
vealing that to him (34:35, 37;
35:16; cf. 38:2; 40:2, 8). Job's suffer-
ing was more than Satan's
insinuation against him. He was suf-
fering to vindicate more than
himself. He was vindicating God's
trust in him. Elihu was
saying that when suffering comes unde-
servedly, one should not react
as Job did with accusation and self-
defense. Instead the sufferer should "face
it with trust [for] if he
could know the cause, he too might find that he was
serving God
and was honored in his very agony."15
Fourth, Elihu
described God's relationship with the wicked.
Elihu recognized that people are sinners (33:17, 27;
34:22-27, 30;
35:12-13,
15; 36:9-10, 13-14), and are therefore held accountable
to God (32:22; 33:26; 34:11, 30; 35:15; 36:10-12).
For Elihu people
are unable to deliver themselves and therefore need
God's inter-
vention and involvement
(33:23-32; 36:15; 37:13). Even those who
are mighty are ultimately subject to God (34:24).
He knows their
works (v. 25) and will overthrow them (vv. 25-26),
because they
have turned from following Him and have not regarded
His
ways (v. 27). They also cause the poor to cry out to
God (v. 28).
Furthermore
God does not value an evil or proud person (35:12-
13).
Ultimately they are removed from their place (32:22;
34:24)
and another is promoted above them (34:24).
Especially pertinent
to Job was the issue of pride (33:17; 35:12) and
his accusation that
God
does not punish the wicked (21:7-16; cf. 35:12; 36:6).
15 Rowley, "The Intellectual versus the
Spiritual Solution," 124.
Elihu's Theology and His View
of Suffering 149
The
point Elihu was making is that God's retributive
justice
is still in effect regardless of the charges
brought against it by a
faulty theology or false accusations. People are
accountable to
God and are totally dependent on His grace for
deliverance.
ELIHU'S VIEW OF SUFFERING RELATIVE
TO
THE THEOLOGY OF
RETRIBUTION
For
most ancient peoples, the quintessential principle of life was
that God (or the gods) rule with predictive, moral,
and com-
pensative order.16 It
was generally believed that the sovereign
God/gods
ruled His/their world, and that when necessary
He/they
would intervene in human history to reward the good and
punish the wicked. Of course the Scriptures teach that
God will
ultimately punish the wicked and reward the
righteous.17 It would
seem that moral order in the world was and continues
to be "one of
those requirements of the human mind which God cannot
fail to
satisfy without appearing unjust."18
A belief held generally throughout
the ancient world19 was
"that there is an exact correspondence between one's behavior
and
one's destiny," and this principle "is
known as the doctrine of re-
tribution."20 Generally in this
view there was no room for the suf-
fering of the righteous or the
blessing of the wicked.21
Eichrodt
asserts that a "deeply rooted belief in retribution"
was found in Israel.22 Eichrodt's theology of the Old Testament
16 Rene Girard writes,
"The idea of retribution [is] an essential aspect of every
system of mythological representation [and it]
dominates primitive religion" (Job:
The Victim of His People [
17 Jerome D. Quinn, "The Scriptures of
Merit," in Justification by Faith, ed. H.
George
Anderson, T. Austin Murphy, and Joseph A. Burgess (
burg, 1985), 84.
18 Edouard
Dhorme, A Commentary on the
Book of Job (Nashville: Nelson, 1984),
cxxviii.
19 Robert Gordis states that the doctrine "was universally
accepted throughout
the ancient Near East, from the Nile to the
darity was joined to that of lex talionis ('measure for
measure') and became a car-
dinal principle in the legal
system of the ancient Babylonians, Assyrians, and Hit-
tites" (The Book of God and Man [Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1965), 137).
20 David J. A. Clines, Job 1-20,
Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1989),
xxxix. Edward W. Glenny
states it this way: "Retribution theology holds that there
is an automatic connection between a person's
deeds and state of being" ("How Well
Do
You Know God? The Dangers of Retribution Theology," Searching Together 23
[Spring
1995): 14). Glenny's use of the word
"automatic" would move his definition
into the category of compensation theology.
21 Shimon Bakon, "God and Man on Trial," Jewish Bible Quarterly 21 (1993): 22.
22 Walter Eichrodt considered retribution as one of the
characteristic peculiari-
ties that mark the Israelite religion: "Hence
in
uncertainty about the principle of God's dealings
with men; but the Israelite is cer-
150
BIBLIOTHECA SACRA /
April-June 1999
was instrumental in popularizing the term
"retribution." The
term is so entrenched within present-day Old
Testament theology
that it seems advisable to retain that term to
represent the biblical
principle of retribution or retribution theology.
The terms "com-
pensation" and
"compensation theology," on the other hand, des-
ignate the misconception of
the biblical principle of retribution.23
RETRIBUTION
THEOLOGY
"Retribution"
or "retribution theology" may be defined as de-
served reward or punishment that comes to an obedient
or offend-
ing party when a divine
requirement, agreement, verbal
promise, or covenant is kept or broken. That
there could be verbal
requirements or verbal agreements
between God and people is
clearly indicated by (a) the sacrifices Job
offered (Job 1:5 and
42:8);
(b) the phrases regarding God's "path," "command,"
"words of His mouth," in
list of virtues in chapter 31; (d) Elihu's insistence that God is in-
volved in individual human
life (33:14-30; 34:14-15, 21-22, 25,
29;
36:5-12, 31; 37:13); and (e) God's speeches and the epilogue
(chaps. 38-42).
Negatively, retribution is
punishment for breaking a con-
tract or covenant (verbal or written) that was
relation ally or
legally binding on two parties. Positively,
retribution is reward
for keeping the commands and requirements of that
same con-
tract or agreement. Retribution resulted from
disobedience or
obedience, anticipated by the offending or obedient
party, when
the verbal agreement, command, or covenant was
broken or kept.
It
was therefore fair and Just both legally and morally.
However, the traditional wisdom of
Job's day saw the concept
of retribution as a fixed systematic formula for
judging the con-
dition of a nation or the life
of an individual.24 Therefore it lim-
tain that God in his turn
will act toward him in accordance with those principles
of law with which he himself is well
acquainted" (Theology of the Old
Testament,
Old
Testament Library, trans. J. A. Baker [
The
certainty of the Israelite, however, often turned to uncertainty when the for-
mula did not follow the
expected course. Koch points out that It may have been
Gunkel who first recognized that from the beginning of
a belief in retribution (Klaus Koch, "Is
There a Doctrine of Retribution in the Old
Testament?"
in Theodicy in the Old Testament, ed.
James L. Crenshaw [Philadel-
phia: Fortress, 19831, 57).
23 This is done with full
awareness that the terms "retribution" and "compensa-
tion" could also be
used interchangeably. However,. it
seems preferable to use the
term "compensation" to represent the wrong
doctrine, the wrong understanding,
the misapplication, or the "hyperdoctrine" of retribution, while maintaining that
the term "retribution" represents the
biblical principles related to reward and
"punishment from God.
24
Roland E. Murphy states, "The book's most positive teaching is at the same
time
negative. the
application to Job of the traditional theory of divine retribution is not
Elihu's Theology and His View
of Suffering 151
ited God to predetermined
actions in dealing with people's re-
sponses to Him. People
"seek an explanation of suffering in
cause and effect. . . . They look backwards for a
connection be-
tween prior sin and present
suffering."25
However, according to the
Scriptures, within the true princi-
ple of retribution there is
room for exceptions to a fixed formula
for the working out of God's justice in the lives
of His people.26
"God's
actions can at times suspend all dogmatic statements and
theories about God's own inner workings."27
This is not to say
that He is capricious or that the principle of
retribution contradicts
His
justice and freedom to act, but it does explain why people have
attempted to develop fixed formulas by which to
try to explain or
predict God's actions.28 Even so,
retribution theology remains a
tenet of God's justice and righteousness and does not
violate God's
mercy, love, and grace toward His people (37:13).
COMPENSATION
THEOLOGY
"Compensation"
or "compensation theology" is a belief system
based on human observation, presumption, prejudice,
and dog-
matic traditional wisdom.
Compensation is an airtight reward-
and-punishment system related to
performance of the individual
within a set standard of assumed values. While there
is evidence
that God communicated certain requirements related
to the true
principle of retribution in the .Book of Job,
there is no. evidence
the book that God followed this concept of
compensation. God did
not agree to the assumptions of Satan, the three
counselors, or Job
himself. There is no evidence of mutual
agreement between the
relevant" (The Tree of Life: An Exploration
of Biblical Wisdom Literature, Anchor
Bible
Reference Library [
25 Francis
tament Commentaries (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1976), 68. As an example of
this principle Andersen points to the man who was
born blind "in order that the
works of God might be displayed in him" (John
9:3).
26 This is also true in
reverse. Righteous servants of God have suffered unde-
servedly, such as Joseph,
Elijah, David as a fugitive, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Daniel.
The
New Testament also gives examples, such as Jesus Himself, the apostle Paul,
the apostle Peter, and early-church believers.
27 Koch "Is There a Doctrine of Retribution in
the Old Testament?" 82. Richard
Rohr
says, "The Book of Job proclaims from the beginning that there is no
[fixed]
correlation between sin and suffering, between
virtue and reward. That logic is
hard for us to break. This book tries to break it,
so that a new logos, called grace,
can happen" (Job and the Mystery of Suffering
(New York: Crossroad, 1996), 33).
28 J. A. Loader says,
"The Book of Job has no objection to a connexion
(sic) of deed
and consequence, but indeed objects to a doctrine
of retribution into which reality
is forced" ("Relativity in Near Eastern
Wisdom,” In Studies in Wisdom Literature,
ed.
W. C. van Wyk [
152
BIBLIOTHECA SACRA /
April-June 1999
Lord
and Job, nor a verbal or written covenant that promised that
the righteous would always prosper and never
suffer. That is, Job
and his three companions had made an assumption,
but God had
not validated it. Therefore it was neither legally
nor morally
binding on the Lord.
The terms "compensation"
and "compensation theology" rep-
resent the fixed formula that became a distortion of
the true prin-
ciple of retribution. For
instance Job's accusers, holding to com-
pensation theology, communicated
the idea that God is somehow
under obligation to exact payment according to a
principle that
confines Him to the limitations of human
interpretation of how
good or bad a person is or acts.29
Therefore compensation theology is
presumptuous and preju-
dicial. It is presumptuous
toward the Lord in that it demands that
He
act in accord with traditional wisdom. It is
prejudicial toward
human beings in that it classifies their relationship
with God and
their righteousness on the basis of having or not
having material
prosperity. Job's suffering and the prosperity of
the wicked pro-
vide clear evidence to the contrary.30 In
contrast to compensation
theology, the biblical principle of retribution
is neither presump-
tuous (forcing assumptions
from human wisdom on the
sovereign God) nor prejudicial (favoring one
person over an-
other; 34:19). The proper application of retribution
theology
breaks down when wrong assumptions are placed on it.
It then be-
comes a different theology, namely, compensation
theology.
29 This may also be
referred to as "the traditional theory of retribution." J. Clinton
McCann
says, "By its rejection of the traditional theory of retribution, the Book
of
Job
reveals a God whose essence is love, and thus a God who suffers with, for. and
on account of humankind in the world"
("Wisdom's Dilemma: The Book of Job, the
Final
Form of the Book of Psalms, the Entire Bible," in Wisdom You Are My Sister:
Studies in Honor of
Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm., on the Occasion of His Eightieth
Birthday, ed. Michael L. Barre, Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 29
[
30 See, for example, Job's
remarks in Job 12 and 21.
Elihu's Theology and His View
of Suffering 153
ELIHU'S INSIGHTS INTO
SUFFERING