Job 11 5

Job 11:5 kjv

But oh that God would speak, and open his lips against thee;

Job 11:5 nkjv

But oh, that God would speak, And open His lips against you,

Job 11:5 niv

Oh, how I wish that God would speak, that he would open his lips against you

Job 11:5 esv

But oh, that God would speak and open his lips to you,

Job 11:5 nlt

If only God would speak;
if only he would tell you what he thinks!

Job 11 verses

Job 11 5 Meaning

Zophar, one of Job's friends, expresses a fervent wish that God would directly intervene and speak to Job. His desire is rooted in the belief that if God were to reveal His mind, He would expose Job's hidden iniquity and folly, thus vindicating the friends' position that Job's suffering is a direct result of his sin. Zophar's plea implies a confidence that God's utterance would serve as a public rebuke to Job, validating the friends' narrow view of divine justice and retributive theology.

Job 11 5 Context

Job 11 is Zophar the Naamathite's first speech, following Eliphaz and Bildad. Like his friends, Zophar attributes Job's profound suffering to his presumed sin, adopting a strict, unyielding position of retributive justice. Zophar accuses Job of arrogant talk and mocks Job's claim to innocence. He frames God as supremely wise and powerful, contrasting divine knowledge with Job's foolishness. Zophar challenges Job to confess his "hidden" sins, promising that God would then restore him. Verse 5 is the climax of Zophar's immediate argument, expressing his deep conviction that if God were to only speak, the divine utterance would instantly expose Job as a hidden sinner, thus justifying all the suffering. This context highlights the friends' limited theological framework and their inability to comprehend suffering outside of a simple cause-and-effect relationship with sin.

Job 11 5 Word analysis

• But O that (וְאוּלַ֣י): This interjection expresses a strong wish, a fervent desire or longing. It suggests Zophar's frustration with Job's perceived impenitence and his yearning for God to settle the dispute. It conveys an emphatic hope rather than a mere possibility.
• God (אֱל֖וֹהַּ, Eloah): The singular form of the divine name, emphasizing God's uniqueness and supreme power. In the context of Job, Eloah frequently underscores God's sovereignty, justice, and absolute authority, which Zophar constantly upholds.
• would speak (יְמַלֵּ֑ל, yĕmallēl): From the root malal, meaning "to speak" or "utter." The Piel stem emphasizes a definitive, emphatic declaration. Zophar desires a clear, unmistakable pronouncement from God that would settle the argument decisively, expecting it to be condemnatory towards Job.
• and open (וְיִפְתַּח, vĕyiphtaḥ): From pataḥ, meaning "to open." In Hiphil stem here, it means to cause to open, or to begin to open. This signifies a deliberate, conscious action. The imagery evokes a judicial proceeding where the divine judge begins to state the case.
• his lips (שְׂפָתָיו, sĕpāthāyw): "Lips" is a dual noun, common for body parts that come in pairs. Metonymically, "to open one's lips" is a vivid idiom for beginning to speak, especially to declare something important, authoritatively, or condemnatorily.
• against you (עִמָּ֑ךְ, ʻimmāk): This Hebrew preposition ʻim usually means "with," but in contexts of conflict or confrontation, it functions as "against" or "in opposition to." Zophar envisions God speaking "with" or "to" Job but with the express purpose of rebuking or condemning him.

• "But O that God would speak": This phrase captures Zophar's deep yearning for divine intervention. It highlights his limited understanding of God's ways, believing God should operate on human terms of immediate, direct revelation to affirm Zophar's view of justice. This desire for God to speak serves as a challenge to Job's complaints against divine silence and his protestations of innocence.
• "and open his lips against you": This idiomatic expression reinforces the severity of the speech Zophar anticipates from God. It’s not a gentle counsel, but a definitive, public declaration meant to expose and shame Job. This reflects Zophar's belief in God's direct and observable punishment of sin. The polemic is evident: Zophar wants God to invalidate Job’s claim of innocence and align with the friends' accusations, seeing Job's complaints as an offense against God's character.

Job 11 5 Bonus section

Zophar's assumption that God, if He spoke, would validate the conventional wisdom of his age (perfect correlation between sin and suffering) is a central theme explored and subtly dismantled throughout the book of Job. The friends, in their certainty, attempt to box God into their preconceived notions of justice, making God accountable to their theological system rather than the other way around. Zophar’s desire for God to "open His lips" also highlights the profound human need for divine communication, especially in times of crisis and confusion. While Zophar errs in presuming the content of God's speech, the yearning for a direct word from the Almighty remains a universal human plea when grappling with inexplicable suffering and the perceived silence of heaven.

Job 11 5 Commentary

Zophar's fervent wish in Job 11:5 reveals the heart of the friends' theological struggle: their conviction that God's justice must be immediately discernible and strictly retributive according to human logic. Zophar yearns for God to speak because he believes such an utterance would unequivocally confirm Job's hidden sin, thus validating his suffering as deserved punishment. He implies that God's present silence or apparent non-intervention is the only reason Job remains unexposed. This verse is profoundly ironic in light of the book's resolution. God does eventually speak in Job 38-41, but not in the way Zophar anticipates. Instead of confirming Job's guilt, God challenges the friends' presumptuous claims about divine wisdom and justice, exposing their own ignorance rather than Job's iniquity. Zophar's call for God to "open His lips against Job" foreshadows the divine intervention, yet profoundly misrepresents its ultimate purpose and content. It underscores human beings' tendency to project their own limited understanding and expectations onto God's character and actions, especially concerning suffering.