Chapter 28 of Job is an interlude. The narrator has a chapter to express his admiration and awe for God. When I read this chapter I tend to think the Book of Job may have been meant as a stage drama. Perhaps the jumbled text found in chapters 24 to 27 is not an accidental editing error but a dramatic effect sought by the author to emphasize the chaos that was reaching a crescendo. Perhaps the interlude in chapter 28 was meant to be spoken by a chorus. I do not know.

What I do see, however, is that in chapters 29 through 31 Job is fully engulfed by chaos. He is still questioning and he still has some condemning verses. But the majority of the text is focused on anguish and chaos. The dissonance is high and there are clear indications of conflict. Perhaps, having failed to find tranquility, Job is now seeking compromise. The tabulation I have on the concepts I see expressed is summarized in the table shown below. I find verses 31:13 to 15 especially interesting in that they express Job’s perspective that he and his slaves are all creatures alike. In my opinion, this is an expression of stage 5 or stage 6 of development. Job does not consider himself superior to any even if his role is different from their role.

Speaker	Seek	Deny	Mystery/Redemption	Plead/Anguish	Condemn	God is predictable
Job			29:6,10,12,13,14, 15,16	29:17
Job			29:20,21,22,23, 24,25		30:1
Job		30:2			30:2,4,5,6,7, 8,9
Job				30:10,11,12,13,14, 15,16,17,18,19,20, 21,22,23
Job			30:24
Job	30:25,25			30:26,27,28,29, 30,31
Job	31:1,2,3,4			31:6,8	31:10,12
Job	31:14,14,15,15			31:22,23,28,34, 35,35,35,37,40

In chapter 32 the narrator tells us that Job’s three friends are silenced and have no response for Job. Instead, Elihu now takes up the cause. The tabulation of the concepts I found in Elihu’s speech is in the table shown below . I had some difficulty with this speech. In chapter 33, for example, Elihu talks about the concept of redemption and yet he almost seems to imply that God is obligated to redeem. I marked those passages as “mystery” and link them with the concept of redemption.

Speaker	Seek	Deny	Mystery/Redemption	Plead/Anguish	Condemn	God is predictable
Elihu			32:6,7,8		32:9
Elihu				32:10,11,12	32:13,14,15
Elihu	32:16			32:17,18,19,20,21		32:22
Elihu			33:1,2,3,4,5,6,7, 8,9		33:12
Elihu			33:12,14,18,20,25, 26,27,28,30,31,32, 33
Elihu			34:3,4
Elihu	34:8					34:10,11,12
Elihu	34:13		34:15,16
Elihu	34:17,19					34:20,21,22,23,24,25, 28
Elihu		34:29				34:30
Elihu		34:32,33	34:33		34:35,36,37
Elihu		35:2	35:4,5
Elihu		35:6,6,7				35:8,9,12,13
Elihu					35:14,16
Elihu				36:2,3,4		36:5,6,7,9,10,11,12,13, 14,15,16
Elihu					36:17
Elihu			36:18
Elihu		36:19			36:20,21
Elihu		36:22,23	36:24,25,26,28
Elihu		36:29	36:30			36:31,32,33
Elihu			37:1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9, 10,11,12,13,14
Elihu		37:15,17,18	37:19
Elihu		37:20,20	37:21,22,23			37:24

Chapter 34 begins with remarks that are very similar to the ones made by Job’s friends earlier. I marked those earlier remarks as ridicule and associated them with condemnation. When Elihu speaks, however, I am inclined to believe that those words are intended as an appeal to Job to listen and learn. I may be mistaken in this assumption, but the theme of redemption and ransom appears multiple times. In verse 36:18, for example, I believe that Elihu says that the ransom will be paid more as a promise of what is possible than as a prediction of what is guaranteed to happen.

The distinction between redemption and obligation is subtle. Both require a bond of love. Then, in the case of obligation, we tune out the inconvenience. In the case of redemption, we acknowledge the price and consider it a demonstration of the love. Redemption is an aligning concept. Obligation is a burden.

I consider verse 37:13 to be a key demonstration of the theme of mystery. Here Elihu notes that the rain falls “for correction, or for his land, or for love…” The rain falls to teach the wayward, to nourish the land and because God love’s his people. Here is a key distinction between Elihu and the other three. Elihu does not have all the answers. He does his share of preaching regarding the Theology of Retribution. But he expends most of his effort in trying to get Job to align with him and in pointing Job towards the mystery of God. As Hartley notes, Elihu has two key points: God disciplines the wayward to cause them to return to the right path and God is always just (John E. Hartley, The Book of Job; William B. Eerdman’s Publishing; 1988; ISBN 0-8028-2528-1; page 427.)

Compare the graph shown below to the graph that I previously used to compared Job with Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar. Do you see the shift in direction. Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar focused on the Theology of Retribution and languished in obligation. Elihu focuses on the redemptive power in God and thus does better at trying to lead Job back to alignment. Perhaps this is why God calls Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar to repentance while Elihu is not rebuked by God.

PROBABLE LOCATIONS IN JOB 29 to 37

SPEAKER	ALIGN	CHAOS	SUBJUGATION	OBLIGATION
Job	29%	55%	16%	1%
Elihu	43%	10%	16%	30%

As for the dialogue between God and Job in chapters 38 through 42, I struggle with this. God asks leading questions which highlight Job’s weakness. When Eliphaz, Bildad or Zophar asked questions like the series from Zophar at the beginning of chapter 11, they speak to silence Job. They speak to deny that what Job says has value.

God begins his first speech to Job by asking who it is that has spoken without knowledge. We can tell from the context that Job realizes that he is the one being addressed. We know the question is rhetorical in that God already knows who Job is and knows everything there is to know about Job. But the question is whether or not that question is meant to deny the worth of Job or only to get Job’s attention. We can tell by the end result that God does not condemn Job. We can tell by the end result that God is not in conflict with Job. Indeed, Job is given the honor of praying to God on behalf of Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar and then Job is restored in status and wealth. But the distinction between alignment expressed as awe and obligation is difficult to prove. In my opinion, God asks rhetorical questions to heighten Job’s understanding of the magnitude of the gap between his knowledge and God’s knowledge. By doing this, God increases the sense of dissonance. By acting in love while expressing dissonance, God is calling Job back to alignment.

One verse that truly puzzled me was 38:15. In that verse God says that he is responsible for keeping the wicked in check. It is easy to see the Theology of Retribution in this verse. And yet, this is in line with what we saw earlier with Satan. Satan is free to roam about, and yet Satan is held in check by God. There is no conflict. There is no condemnation or obligation. Just information about how the system works. We are on a guided tour conducted by the architect that designed the system.

The end result is that Job is quieted and leaves chaos for tranquility. He is then awed and transformed. And later he is restored to alignment with God. If Job is an example for us, then here is the formula.

The best exit from chaos is to tranquility. From tranquility we can try for transformation. And then we can seek alignment. For Job, the result of alignment is prosperity. But that is not always the case.