The passion For authority - Chambers, Oswald

Job 32–37

In Elihu the passion for authority is represented. The average man in jobs condition is apt to break away from all authority. A lesser man than job would have become a sophist and said that every man is a law unto himself, i. E. , his own inner consciousness is sufficient law. Job was not of this order, neither was Elihu. The passion for authority is a noble one, but Elihu missed out the fact that authority to be worthy arises out of the nature of a superior moral integrity, and not simply from one who happens to be higher up in the scale than ourselves. Elihu comes with the idea that because god has said a thing, therefore it is authoritative: job wants to know what kind of god it was who said it, is he a being whose character does not contradict the moral basis of life? Author- ity must be of a moral, not a superstitious character. Elihus contention is, because god has said so, that is sufficient; or, because the creed says so, there- fore it must be blindly accepted. To be without any authority is to be lawless, but to have only an internal authority is as bad as having a blind external authority; the two must meet together somehow.

1. The inspiration of autocratic authority ( job 32)

autocratic authority means to rule by right of insistence, not necessarily by right of personal integrity. Napoleon said of Jesus Christ that he had succeeded in making every human soul an appendage of his own because he had the genius of holiness. Other men exercised authority by coercive means, Jesus Christ never did, his authority was worthy. He

Proved himself worthy not only in the domain of god, which we do not know, but in the domain of man, which we do know; he is worthy there, conse-quently he prevails to open the book (see revelation 5). Authority to be lasting must be of the same order as that of Jesus Christ, not the authority of autocracy or coercion, but the authority of worth, to which all that is worthy in a man bows down. It is only the unworthy in a man that does not bow down to worthy authority.

The superior conceit of shyness ( job 32:122)

And Elihu the son of barachel the buzite answered and said, i am young, and ye are very old; wherefore i was afraid, and durst not shew you mine opinion. . . . Behold, i waited for your words; i gave ear to your reasons, while ye searched out what to say. Yea, i attended unto you, and behold, there was none of you that convinced job, or that answered his words. ( job 32:6, 1112) there is a fine apparent modesty about Elihu. He says, i waited for you to speak, but all i have listened to has made me angry, because job has justified himself at the expense of god, and you have stopped short without challenging him in the right way, and now i will speak. Then was kindled the wrath of Elihu . . . Against job was his wrath kindled, because he justified himself rather than god. ( job 32:2) elihu exhibits the superior conceit of shyness. There is quite possibly a superior conceit in a shy or quiet

Man. A man may keep silent not because he is really modest, but he does not intend to speak until he gets a proper audiencei do not intend to bring out my notion of things until people are prepared to listen; i do not wish what i say to go into the mere rush of ordinary conversation, so i shall wait for a suit- able opportunity. This does not altogether diagnose elihu, but he certainly exhibits this characteristic. Elihu says that the inspiration of authority comes from god simply because he is god, and not from any sense of right in himself. Job stands up against this; he says, in effect, i will not accept any author- ity on the ground of superstition; i must know the moral ingredient in the authority. This is the element Elihu loses sight of altogether.

2. The insistence of autocratic authority ( job 33)

The spiritual consciousness of submission behold, in this thou art not just: i will answer thee, that god is greater than man. Why dost thou strive against him? For he giveth not account of any of his matters. ( job 33:1213)

The antagonism of the friends in battling for their creed was an indication that they were getting shaky regarding it. But elihu is not shaky, he does not accept the creed of the other three, he has a notion of his own based on the conception of autocratic authority, viz. , that no man has any right to enquire whether god is good; it is a question of his supreme authority, and submission is the only line to take. It is dangerous to be conscious of submission to a spiritual power. The difference between fatalism and faith lies just here. Fatalism means, my numbers up; i have to bow to the power whether i like it or not; i do not know the character of the power, but it is greater than i am, and i must submit. The submission of faith is that i do know the character of the power, and this was the line job tookthough he slay me, yet i will trust the fact that his character is worthy. This is the attitude of faith all throughi submit to one whose character i know but whose ways are obscured in mystery just now. We do know the character of god, if we are Christians, because we have it revealed to us in Jesus christen that hath seen me hath seen the father. Anything that contradicts the man- ifestation given in and through the lord Jesus Christ cannot be true of god. Therefore we know that the character of god is noble and true and right, and any authority from god is based, not on autocracy or mere blind power, but on worthiness which every- thing in me recognises as worthy, therefore i submit. Elihu was moved with indignation because job said, i cannot submit to the fact that god has decreed such things as you say; you must give me room to

Say that your credal exposition of god is wrong. By your creed you prove me to be wrong where i know i am right; therefore if the facts i do know are dis- proved by you, how can i accept your explanation of the facts i do not know? Elihu says god does not explain himself, and you have no right to try and find him out, it is sufficient to know that the autocratic authority of the omnipotent has spoken, therefore you must submit. Jobs sufferings have produced in him this attitudei want to know where what you call the supreme authority of the almighty gets hold on the moral line of things, where it agrees, in part at least, with what i understand as worthy. The same thing occurs in matters of religious controversy. Am i going to submit to the authority of a church, or a book or to the authority of a person? If i submit to the authority of a person it must be dem- onstrated that that person is greater than i am on the worthy line, the line which is recognised as worthy by the majority of sane humanity; if he is greater there, then i will bow down to his authority at once.

3. The indictment of autobiographic antagonism ( job 3435)

(a) the suffering chastisement of sinfulness ( job 34:3537)

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 sums up the autobiographic side, the subjective side. The great phase at present is the sophistic conception that a man is a law unto himself. Elihu is in advance of that: he says there is an authority other than myself. Job is looking for an authority, and he gives his own subjective experiences as the reason for disbelieving the presentation of god which has been given. On the ground of what he was going through, he was indignant at this presentation. Elihu says, your experiences are explainable on the line that you are a sinful man, not a hypocrite, as the others have said, but sinful, and god is chastising you. You have spoken rashly and wildly, and this is the way god is answering. This kind of view presents a conception not really based on facts, but which easily melts down any opposition by its sentimental presentation.

(b) the sentimental conception of the supreme ( job 35:1011)

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 the heaven?

There is no pretence about elihu; he says some sub- lime things, but in his tirade against experience he introduces a line that stirs up human sympathies without the basis of facts underneath. The sentimental line stirs up a conception of things which over- looks both the actual and the real facts and sweeps a man off his feet. It is all very well to have experi- ences, but there must be a standard for measuring them, and a standard more worthy than my own on the line on which i know i am worthy. The standard for christian experience is not the experience of another christian, but god himself. Be ye there- fore perfect, even as your father which is in heaven is perfect. If you are my disciple, says Jesus, the standard by which you are to measure your experiences as a regenerated saint is the character of god. They took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. The apostles bore a strong family likeness to Jesus Christ, their experience and their character were being brought up to gods standard. There must be an authority which is internal as well as external. The tendency nowadays is to have no authority at all. A man says, i will have no church, no bible, no god, nothing but my own self-realisation. This is the modern phase of sophistic religion. Every bit of morality a man has demands that there should be, not a coercive or autocratic authority, but a worthy authority. Elihu is speaking to job on the subjective line as though job were saying that there was no authority whatever binding upon him; whereas job is getting at the right relationship to the real standard, and his protest is against a presentation of the standard which is not worthy.

4. The interpretation of absolute authority ( job 3637)

Elihu also proceeded, and said, suffer me a little, and i will shew thee that i have yet to speak on gods behalf. ( job 36:12)

If one may say it reverently, almighty god is nothing but a mental abstraction unless he becomes concrete and actual, because an ideal has no power unless it can be realised. The doctrine of the incarnation is that god did become actual, he manifested him- self on the plane of human flesh, and Jesus Christ is the name not only for god and man in one, but the name of the personal saviour who makes the way back for every man to get into a personal relation- ship with god. Jesus Christ declares that he is the exclusive way to the father. . . Neither knoweth any man the father, save the son, and he to whom- soever the son will reveal him. Any theology which ignores jesus christ as the supreme authority ceases to be christian theology. I am the way, said jesus, not the road we leave behind us, but the way we stay in: no man cometh unto the father, but by me. On the ground of his absolute, not coercive, authority, every man recognises sooner or later that jesus christ stands easily first.

(a) the supreme character of the sublime ( job 36:2226)

behold, god exalteth by his power: who teacheth like him? ( job 36:22)

jobs contention is that he has proved by experience that what he has been told about god cannot be true, because, he says, when you try to explain the facts i know in the light of the one whom you call god, you have to deny those facts; therefore i must con- clude that your exposition of god is wrong. Elihu goes back to the position that it is no use trying to find out whether god is worthy; it is sufficient to know that he is supreme, a being who issues his orders without the remotest regard to moral right; and the man who dares to try and discover whether the authority of god is morally right is a blasphemer and a dangerous man. Voltaires scurrilous talk about god was mainly tremendous indignation at the presentation of god then prevailing.

There is always a tendency to produce an absolute authority; we accept the authority of the church, or of the bible, or of a creed, and often refuse to do any more thinking on the matter; and in so doing we ignore the essential nature of Christianity which is based on a personal relationship to Jesus Christ, and works on the basis of our responsibility. On the ground of the redemption i am saved and god puts his holy spirit into me, then he expects me to react on the basis of that relationship. I can evade it by dumping my responsibility on to a church, or a book or a creed, forgetting what Jesus said ye search the scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me; and ye will not come to me, that ye may have life (john 5:3940, RV). The only way to understand the scriptures is not to accept them blindly, but to read them in the light of a personal relationship to Jesus Christ. If we insist that a man must believe the doctrine of the trinity and the inspiration of the scriptures before he can be saved, we are putting the cart before the horse. All that is the effect of being a christian, not the cause of it; and if we put the effect first we produce difficulties because we are putting thinking before life. Jesus says, come unto me, and if you want to know whether my teaching is of god, do his will. A scientist can explain the universe in which common-sense men live, but the scientific explanation is not first; life is first. The same with theology; theology is the systematising of the intellectual expression of life from god; it is a mighty thing, but it is second, not first. 78 baffled to fight better

(b) the sorrowful condemnation of sanity ( job 37:2324)

Touching the almighty, we cannot find him out: he is excellent in power, and in judgement, and in plenty of justice; he will not afflict. Men do therefore fear him: he respecteth not any that are wise of heart. Elihu condemns job sorrowfully, but absolutely; he declares that not only has job made shipwreck of his faith, but he has become defiant in silencing the friends. Job will not accept anything blindly, he says, i must see that it does not contradict what i know. The apostle paul speaks of the foolishness of god as pitted against the wisdom of men, and the wisdom of men when it saw jesus christ said, that cannot be god. When the judaic ritualists saw jesus christ, they said, you are a blasphemer; you do not express god at all. Anna and simeon were the only two of the descendants of abraham who recognised who jesus was, hence the condemnation of the other crowd. If two who had lived a life of communion with god could detect jehovah as the babe of bethlehem within the symbolism, the others who did not recognise him are to be condemned. They did not see him because they had become blinded on the line of absolute authority, the line of symbolism or creed, and when that which was symbolised appeared, they could not see him.

Every phase of this book, with the exception of jobs own utterances, takes up the challenge of Satan no man, no matter how good he is, loves you for your own sake. You call job perfect, but touch the things you have given him, destroy his blessings, and he will curse you to your face. Jobs blessings were destroyed, and yet he clings to it, i dont know the reason why i suffer; the reason you give is not the one, god alone can explain it to me, and i will wait for him. Part of the gamble was that god must keep out of sight, and that job must not be aided, and he was not. The exposition of jobs sufferings must be given in the light of this preface, which was never made known to him. Job never knew that Satan and Jehovah had made a battleground of his soul.

The problem in the book of job represents the problem of the whole world. No matter what a mans experiences may be, whether slight or terrific, there is something in this book which gives him an indication as to why the redemption was necessary, and also a line of explaining the otherwise inexplicable things of human experience