Job 5 8

Job 5:8 kjv

I would seek unto God, and unto God would I commit my cause:

Job 5:8 nkjv

"But as for me, I would seek God, And to God I would commit my cause?

Job 5:8 niv

"But if I were you, I would appeal to God; I would lay my cause before him.

Job 5:8 esv

"As for me, I would seek God, and to God would I commit my cause,

Job 5:8 nlt

"If I were you, I would go to God
and present my case to him.

Job 5 verses

Job 5 8 Meaning

Eliphaz, responding to Job's lament, proposes that if he were in Job's dire circumstances, he would actively pursue and rely upon God. The verse suggests a path of turning to God for solace, intervention, and a presentation of one's case, implying a belief that seeking God leads to divine resolution of suffering, typical of the conventional wisdom of the time.

Job 5 8 Context

Job 5:8 is part of Eliphaz the Temanite's first speech (Job 4:1–5:27) delivered in response to Job's lament. Job had just cursed the day of his birth (Job 3), expressing deep anguish and confusion over his unmerited suffering. Eliphaz, presenting himself as a seasoned wise man and drawing upon conventional wisdom, seeks to offer comfort and explanation. His theological framework posits that God is just and does not punish the innocent. Therefore, if Job is suffering, it must be due to some sin, known or unknown. In this verse, Eliphaz prescribes what he believes is the proper response to suffering: turn to God, acknowledge one's sin, and seek restoration, suggesting that had Eliphaz been in Job's shoes, this is precisely what he would have done. His counsel, though seemingly pious, is founded on a flawed understanding of God's ways and Job's innocence, and acts as an accusation rather than genuine comfort. Historically, this conventional retribution theology was common in the Ancient Near East, where suffering was almost universally linked to divine displeasure or sin.

Job 5 8 Word analysis

• As for me (אֲנִי־, 'ănî-): The first person pronoun emphasizes Eliphaz's personal stance and advice, setting himself apart from Job's current course. It carries an implicit contrast: "You are lamenting, but I would do differently." This subtle rhetorical move aims to highlight Job's perceived spiritual inadequacy.
• I would seek (אֶדְרֹשׁ, 'eḏrōš): From the root דָּרַשׁ (darash), meaning "to seek," "inquire," "consult," "frequent," often implying an earnest, diligent pursuit or inquiry. It signifies not a casual glance but a determined turning to God, suggesting that active spiritual effort is required for divine intervention. In the ancient world, "seeking God" often involved prayer, sacrifice, and consulting divine oracles.
• God (אֵל, 'ēl): A general term for God, rather than the specific covenant name YHWH. In Eliphaz's context, 'El underscores God's mighty and sovereign power, consistent with His role as judge and sustainer.
• and to God (וְאֶל־אֱלֹהִים, wə'el-'ělōhîm): The repetition of "God" (using 'Elohim this time, another common term for God, often emphasizing His majestic power and plurality of attributes) emphasizes the singular focus of Eliphaz's suggested action. This isn't just seeking generally but specifically directing oneself toward the divine source of ultimate authority and help. The double mention intensifies the appeal.
• I would commit my cause (אֲשִׂים דָּבָר, 'āsîm ḏāḇār): Literally, "I would place my word/affair." The verb שִׂים (sim) means "to put," "set," or "place." דָּבָר (davar) means "word," "thing," "matter," or "cause." The phrase "place my word" in this context refers to presenting one's case, argument, or situation before God, much like a petitioner or plaintiff would lay out their grievance before a judge. This implies a surrender of the situation into God's hands and an appeal for divine judgment or intervention, believing God would rule justly. For Eliphaz, it suggests that Job should humbly confess and present his plight to God, expecting justice to follow, provided there is repentance. This echoes a common practice of presenting disputes to divine arbitration in ancient cultures.
• Words-group: I would seek God, and to God I would commit my cause: This complete phrase highlights Eliphaz's advice as a two-fold response to suffering: active seeking of God's presence and complete surrender of one's troubles to Him. It encapsulates the "conventional wisdom" theological framework, which taught that righteous behavior leads to blessing, and sin leads to suffering. Therefore, to resolve suffering, one must "seek God" (repent and appeal to Him) and "commit one's cause" (trust Him to intervene after one's assumed repentance). Eliphaz assumes Job's suffering is due to sin and not arbitrary, setting up a theological polemic against Job's cries of innocence and establishing the central tension of the book of Job concerning divine justice and suffering.

Job 5 8 Bonus section

The concept of "committing one's cause" (שִׂים דָּבָר) to God echoes ancient Near Eastern legal and dispute resolution practices. In these societies, individuals would often "lay their matter" before a king, judge, or even a deity through prayer and ritual, appealing for a just verdict or divine intervention. This highlights the intensely personal and legalistic nature of Eliphaz's understanding of Job's situation and God's interaction with humanity. He sees God as the ultimate arbiter, whom one must approach correctly to receive a favorable judgment. However, Eliphaz's perspective entirely omits the possibility of God's mysterious sovereignty or His use of suffering for purposes beyond immediate retribution.

Job 5 8 Commentary

Job 5:8 captures Eliphaz's counsel to Job, rooted in the prevailing conventional wisdom of his time. He advises Job to "seek God" and "commit his cause" to Him, implying that this is the righteous and effective path to resolution for his suffering. While "seeking God" and "trusting one's cause to Him" are biblically sound principles, Eliphaz applies them within a flawed theological framework that presumes Job's guilt. His counsel is based on the unproven premise that Job's calamities are a direct consequence of his sin, overlooking the possibility of innocent suffering. Thus, his advice, though seemingly pious, is in effect an accusation. It contrasts sharply with Job's actual spiritual state of integrity and becomes part of the escalating theological debate about divine justice in the book. Eliphaz posits that divine intervention and restoration are contingent upon the suffering individual's acknowledging presumed fault and earnestly seeking God's favor.