Giobbe 19:26 Commento

This chapter is Job's answer to Bildad's discourse in the foregoing chapter. Though his spirit was grieved and much heated, and Bildad was very peevish, yet he gave him leave to say all he designed to say, and did not break in upon him in the midst of his argument; but, when he had done, he gave him a fair answer, in which, I. He complains of unkind usage. And very unkindly he takes it. 1. That his comforters added to his affliction (Job 19:2-7). 2. That his God was the author of his affliction (Job 19:8-12). 3. That his relations and friends were strange to him, and shy of him, in his affliction (Job 19:20-22). II. He comforts himself with the believing hopes of happiness in the other world, though he had so little comfort in this, making a very solemn confession of his faith, with a desire that it might be recorded as an evidence of his sincerity (Job 19:23-27). III. He concludes with a caution to his friends not to persist in their hard censures of him (Job 19:28, Job 19:29) If the remonstrance Job here makes of his grievances may serve sometimes to justify our complaints, yet his cheerful views of the future state, at the same time, may shame us Christians, and may serve to silence our complaints, or at least to balance them.

INTRODUCTION TO JOB 19 This chapter contains Job's reply to Bildad's second speech, in which he complains of the ill usage of his friends, of their continuing to vex him, and to beat, and bruise, and break him in pieces with their hard words, and to reproach him, and carry it strange to him, Job 19:1; which he thought was very cruel, since, if he was mistaken, the mistake lay with himself, Job 19:4; and if they were determined to go on at this rate, he would have them observe, that his afflictions were of God, and therefore should take care to what they imputed them, since he could not get the reasons of them, or his cause to be heard, though he vehemently and importunately sought it, Job 19:5; and then gives an enumeration of the several particulars of his distress, all which he ascribes to God, Job 19:8; and he enlarges upon that part of his unhappy case, respecting the alienation of his nearest relations, most intimate acquaintance and friends, from him, and their contempt of him, and the like treatment he met with from his servants, and even young children, Job 19:13; all which, with other troubles, had such an effect upon him as to reduce him to a mere skeleton, and which he mentions to move the pity of these his friends, now conversing with him, Job 19:20; and yet after all, and in the midst of it, and which was his great support under his trials, he expresses his strong faith in his living Redeemer, who should appear on the earth in the latter day, and be his Saviour, and in the resurrection of the dead through him, which he believed he should share in, and in all the happiness consequent on it; and he wishes this confession of his faith might be written and engraven, and be preserved on a rock for ever for the good of posterity, Job 19:23; and closes the chapter with an expostulation with his friends, dissuading them from persecuting him any longer, since there was no reason for it in himself, and it might be attended with bad consequences to them, Job 19:28.

Whom I shall see for myself,.... For his pleasure and profit, to his great advantage and happiness, and to his inexpressible joy and satisfaction, see Psa 17:15; and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; or "a stranger" (h); these very selfsame eyes of mine I now see with will behold this glorious Person, God in my nature, and not the eyes of another, of a strange body, a body not my own; or as I have seen him with my spiritual eyes, with the eyes of faith and knowledge, as my living Redeemer, so shall I see him with my bodily eyes after the resurrection, and enjoy uninterrupted communion with him, which a stranger shall not; one that has never known anything of him, or ever intermeddled with the joy of saints here, such shall not see him hereafter, at least with pleasure; like Balaam, they may see him, but not nigh, may behold him, but afar off: though "my reins be consumed within me"; or "in my bosom"; though; this word may be left out, and be read, my reins are consumed within me; or, "within my bosom" (i); and both being the seat of the affections and desires, may signify his most earnest and eager desire after the state of the resurrection of the dead; after such a sight of God in his flesh, of the incarnate Redeemer, he believed he should have, insomuch that it ate up his spirits, as the Psalmist says, zeal for the house of God ate up his, Psa 69:9; it was not the belief of restoration of health, and to his former outward happiness, and a deliverance from his troubles, and a desire after that, which is here expressed; for he had no faith in that, nor hope, nor expectation of it, as appears by various expressions of his; but much greater, more noble, more refined enjoyments, were experienced by him now, and still greater he expected hereafter; and his words concerning these were what he wished were written, and printed, and engraven; which, if they only respected outward happiness, he would never have desired; and though he had not his wish in his own way, yet his words are written and printed in a better book than he had in his view, and will outlast engravings with an iron pen on sheets of lead, or marble rocks. The Vulgate Latin version seems to incline to this sense, "this here is laid up in my bosom,'' that is, of seeing God in my flesh; so the Tigurine version, rather as a paraphrase than a version, "which is my only desire". (h) "alienus", Pagninus, Montanus, Junius & Tremellius, Piscator, Mercerus; "extraneus", Drusius. (i) "in sinu meo", Pagninus, Montanus, &c.

“He will raise up my body that endures these sufferings, for it is the Lord who caused them.” Did Job know the doctrine of resurrection? I believe so, and the doctrine concerning the resurrection of the body, unless he says here that the resurrection that he speaks about is the deliverance from the afflictions that pressed him. That is why, Job says, even after my deliverance, I want my afflictions to be immortal. This is an extremely wise way to keep always before one’s eyes the punishments of God even after they have gone.… “For it is the Lord,” he says, “who caused these sufferings.” Job is correct in saying that the Lord will be the actual cause of his change. “He strikes,” Job says, “and he heals.”

And I shall be again encompassed with my skin. But see, I hear of the resurrection, but it is the effect of the resurrection that I am searching out. For I believe that I shall rise again, but I wish that I might hear what kind of person; since it is a thing I ought to know, whether I shall rise again perhaps in some other subtle or ethereal body, or in that body wherein I shall die. But if I shall rise again in an ethereal body, it will no longer be myself, who rise again. For how can that be a true resurrection, if there may not be true flesh? so that plain reason suggests, that if it shall not be true flesh, assuredly it will not be a true resurrection; for neither can it be rightly termed a resurrection, when it is not what fell that rises again. But in this too for us, O blessed Job, do thou remove these clouds of misgiving, and whereas through the grace of the Holy Spirit vouchsafed thee thou hast begun to speak to us of the hope of our resurrection, shew in plain words if our flesh shall really rise again. It follows, And I shall be again encompassed with my skin. Whereas the 'skin' is expressly named, all doubt of a true resurrection is removed; in that our body will not, as Eutychius the Bishop of Constantinople wrote, in that gloriousness of the resurrection be impalpable, and more subtle than the wind and air: for in that gloriousness of the resurrection our body will be subtle indeed by the efficacy of a spiritual power, but palpable by the reality of its nature; whence also our Redeemer, when the disciples doubted of His resurrection, shewed them His hands and feet, and offered His bones and flesh to be touched, saying, Handle Me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see Me have. And when, being placed in the city of Constantinople, I brought before Eutychius this testimony of truth from the Gospel, he said, 'For this reason the Lord did this, that He might take away all doubt of the resurrection from the hearts of the disciples.' To whom I said; 'This is a very extraordinary thing that you assert, that doubting should arise to ourselves from the same quarter, whence the hearts of the disciples were cured of doubting.' For what can be said worse than that that is made doubtful to us relating to His true flesh, whereby His disciples were restored anew to faith from all doubting? For if He is declared not to have had that, which He manifested; from the same source, from whence the faith of His disciples is confirmed, ours is destroyed. And he further added, saying, 'He had that body which He shewed a palpable body; but after the hearts of those that handled it were confirmed, all that in the Lord which was capable of being handled, was reduced into a certain subtle quality.' To which same I answered, saying; 'It is written, Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more, death hath no more dominion over Him. If then there was aught in the Body which was capable of being altered after His resurrection, contrary to the truly spoken declaration of Paul, the Lord after His resurrection returned into death; and what fool even would venture to say this, save he that denies the true resurrection of His flesh?' Then he objected to me, saying, 'Whereas it is written; Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, by what means is it to be supposed that the flesh truly rises again?' To whom I say; 'In Holy Writ flesh is named in one way according to nature, and in another way according to sin or corruption.' For there is flesh according to nature, as where it is written, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. And, The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. But there is flesh according to sin, as where it is written, My Spirit shall not always abide in those men, for that they are flesh. And as the Psalmist saith; For He remembered that they were but flesh, a wind that passeth away, and cometh not again. Whence too Paul said to the disciples; But ye are not in the flesh, but in the spirit. For it was not that these persons were not in the flesh, to whom he was sending letters, but for that they had subdued the motions of carnal passions, henceforth, free through the efficacy of the Spirit, they 'were not in the flesh.' Therefore in respect to what Paul says, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, he would have flesh to be understood as applied to sin, not flesh as applied to nature. Hence directly afterwards that he was speaking of flesh after sin he makes plain, by adding; Neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Therefore in that glory of the heavenly kingdom there will be flesh according to nature, but not flesh according to the desire of the passions; in that the sting of death being overcome, it will reign in eternal incorruptibility.' To which words the same Eutychius directly answered that he assented, yet still he denied that the body could rise again a palpable body. Who in the treatise too which he had written concerning the resurrection, had put in the testimony of the Apostle Paul, when he says; That which thou sowest is not quickened except it die. And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain. Being eager to shew this, that the flesh will either be impalpable, or will not be itself identically, seeing that the holy Apostle, when treating of the glory of the resurrection, says that 'it was not sown the body that it shall be.' But the answer to this is soon made. For the Apostle Paul, when he says, Thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, is telling us of what we see; viz. that the grain, which is sown without a stalk or leaves, springs up with a stalk and leaves; so that he, in heightening the glory of the resurrection, did not say that what it was is wanting to it, but that what it was not is present: but this man, whereas he denies the real body to rise again, does not say that what was wanting is there, but that what it was is wanting. Upon this, then, we being led on in long disputing on this point, we began to recoil from one another with the greatest animosity, when the Emperor Tiberius Constantine, of religious memory, bringing myself and him to a private audience, learnt what dispute was being carried on between us, and weighing the statement of both sides, and by his own allegations as well disproving that same book which he had written concerning the resurrection, determined that it ought to be consumed in the flames. Upon our leaving whom, I was seized with a grievous sickness, while to that same Eutychius sickness and death shortly followed. And when he was dead, because there was well nigh no one who followed his statements, I held back from prosecuting what I had commenced, lest I should seem to be darting words at his ashes, but while he was still alive, and I sick of violent fever, I if any of my acquaintance went to him for the sake of greeting him, as I learnt from their relation, he used to take hold on the skin of his hand before their eyes, saying, 'I confess that we shall all rise again in this flesh;' which as they themselves avowed he was before wont altogether to deny. But let us, laying aside these considerations, minutely search out in the words of blessed Job, if there will be a true resurrection, and the true body in that resurrection; for, lo, we are no longer able to doubt of the hope of the resurrection, in that he says, And that I shall rise at the last day from the earth. Moreover he has removed all doubting of the true renewal of the body, in that he says, And I shall be again encompassed with my skin. And he still further adds, with the view of removing the misgivings of our thought; And in my flesh shall I see God. Mark, he owns the resurrection, 'the skin,' 'the flesh,' in explicit words. What is there left then, by which our mind should have occasion to doubt? If this holy man then before the fact of the Lord's resurrection, believed in the flesh being destined to be brought back to its entire state, what will be the guilt of our doubting, if the true resurrection of the flesh not even after the proof of our Redeemer obtains credit? For if after the resurrection there will not be a palpable body, surely another person rises again than dies: which is profane to say; viz. to believe that it is I who die, and another that doth rise again. Wherefore I entreat thee, blessed Job, add how thou art minded, and remove from us all ground of scruple on this point.

There were other men who said that men will rise by resuming not an earthly body, but some kind of heavenly body. To exclude this he then says, "I will be surrounded again with my own skin." He expressly says this because he had said above (v.20) that only the skin had remained around his bones. In this way of speaking he assigns the explanation (ratio) of the resurrection, namely, that the soul does not always remain divested of its very own skin. Again there were some who said that the soul will resume the same body it had put aside, but according to the same condition, so that it would need food and drink and would exercise the other fleshly works of this life. But he excludes this saying then, "and in my flesh I shall see God." For it is clear that the flesh of man is corruptible according to the state of the present life. As Wisdom says, "The body which is corrupted weighs down the spirit." (9:15) and so no one can see God while living in this mortal flesh, but the flesh which the soul will resume in the resurrection will certainly be the same in substance, but will have incorruptibility by a divine gift, according to what is said by Paul, "This corruptible must put on incorruption." (1 Cor.15:53) Therefore, that flesh will be of this latter condition because it in no way will impede the soul from being able to see God, but rather will be completely subject to the soul.

The worth of a poor upright man. Riches preserve friends. False witnesses. False friends. A king's wrath. The foolish son. The prudent wife. Slothfulness. Pity for the poor. The fear of the Lord. The spendthrift son. Obedience to parents.

And though after my skin worms destroy this body - My skin, which is now almost all that remains of my former self, except the bones; see Job 19:20. They destroy this - not body. נקפו זאת nikkephu zoth, they - diseases and affliction, destroy This wretched composition of misery and corruption. Yet in my flesh shall I see God - Either, I shall arise from the dead, have a renewed body and see him with eyes of flesh and blood, though what I have now shall shortly moulder into dust, or, I shall see him in the flesh; my Kinsman, who shall partake of my flesh and blood, in order that he may ransom the lost inheritance.

JOB'S REPLY TO BILDAD. (Job 19:1-29) How long, &c.--retorting Bildad's words (Job 18:2). Admitting the punishment to be deserved, is it kind thus ever to be harping on this to the sufferer? And yet even this they have not yet proved.

Rather, though after my skin (is no more) this (body) is destroyed ("body" being omitted, because it was so wasted as not to deserve the name), yet from my flesh (from my renewed body, as the starting-point of vision, Sol 2:9, "looking out from the windows") "shall I see God." Next clause [Job 19:27] proves bodily vision is meant, for it specifies "mine eyes" [ROSENMULLER, 2d ed.]. The Hebrew opposes "in my flesh." The "skin" was the first destroyed by elephantiasis, then the "body."

26 And after my skin, thus torn to pieces, And without my flesh shall I behold Eloah, 27 Whom I shall behold for my good, And mine eyes shall see Him and no other - My veins languish in my bosom. 28 Ye think: "How shall we persecute him?" Since the root of the matter is found in me - 29 Therefore be ye afraid of the sword, For wrath meeteth the transgressions of the sword, That ye may know there is a judgment! If we have correctly understood על־עפר,Job 19:25, we cannot in this speech find that the hope of a bodily recovery is expressed. In connection with this rendering, the oldest representative of which is Chrysostom, מבּשׂרי is translated either: free from my flesh = having become a skeleton (Umbr., Hirz., and Stickel, in comm. in Iobi loc. de Gole, 1832, and in the transl., Gleiss, Hlgst., Renan), but this מבשׂרי, if the מן is taken as privative, can signify nothing else but fleshless = bodiless; or: from my flesh, i.e., the flesh when made whole again (viz., Eichhorn in the Essay, which has exercised considerable influence, to his Allg. Bibl. d. bibl. Lit. i. 3, 1787, von Clln, BCr., Knapp, von Hofm., (Note: Von Hofmann (Schriftbeweis, ii. 2, 503) translates: "I know, however, my Redeemer is living, and hereafter He will stand forth which must have been יעמד instead of יקום] upon the earth and after my skin, this surrounding (נקּפוּ, Chaldaism, instead of נקּפוּת after the form עקּשׁוּת), and from my flesh shall I behold God, whom I shall behold for myself, and my eyes see [Him], and He is not strange.") and others), but hereby the relation of Job 19:26 to Job 19:26 becomes a contrast, without there being anything to indicate it. Moreover, this rendering, as מבשׂרי may also be explained, is in itself contrary to the spirit and plan of the book; for the character of Job's present state of mind is, that he looks for certain death, and will hear nothing of the consolation of recovery (Job 17:10-16), which sounds to him as mere mockery; that he, however, notwithstanding, does not despair of God, but, by the consciousness of his innocence and the uncharitableness of the friends, is more and more impelled from the God of wrath and caprice to the God of love, his future Redeemer; and that then, when at the end of the course of suffering the actual proof of God's love breaks through the seeming manifestation of wrath, even that which Job had not ventured to hope is realized: a return of temporal prosperity beyond his entreaty and comprehension. On the other hand, the mode of interpretation of the older translators and expositors, who find an expression of the hope of a resurrection at the end of the preceding strophe or the beginning of this, cannot be accepted. The lxx, by reading יקים instead of יקום, and connecting יקים עורי נקפו זאת, translates: ἀναστήσει δὲ (Cod. Vat. only ἀναστῆσαι) μου τὸ σῶμα (Cod. Vat. τὸ δέρμα μου) τὸ ἀναντλοῦν μοι (Cod. Vat. om. μοι) ταῦτα, - but how can any one's skin be said to awake (Italic: super terram resurget cutis mea), (Note: Stickel therefore maintains that this ἀνιστάναι of the lxx is to be understood not of being raised from the dead, but of being restored to health; vid., on the contrary, Umbreit in Stud. u. Krit. 1840, i., and Ewald in d. Theol. Jahrbb., 1843, iv.) and whence does the verb נקף obtain the signification exhaurire or exantlare? Jerome's translation is not less bold: Scio enim quod redemptor meus vivit et in novissimo die de terra surrecturus sum, as though it were אקום, not יקום, and as though אחרון could signify in novissimo die (in favour of which Isa 9:1 can only seemingly be quoted)! The Targ. translates: "I know that my Redeemer liveth, and hereafter His redemption will arise (become a reality) over the dust (into which I shall be dissolved), and after my skin is again made whole (thus (Note: In this signification, to recover, prop. to recover one's self, אתּפח is used in Talmudic; vid., Buxtorf, פוח and תפח. The rabbinical expositors ignore this Targum, and in general furnish but little that is useful here.) אתּפח seems to require to be translated, not intumuit) this will happen; and from my flesh I shall again behold God." It is evident that this is intended of a future restoration of the corporeal nature that has become dust, but the idea assigned to נקפו ot is without foundation. Luther also cuts the knot by translating: (But I know that my Redeemer liveth), and He will hereafter raise me up out of the ground, which is an impossible sense that is word for word forced upon the text. There is just as little ground for translating Job 19:26 with Jerome: et rursum circumdabor pelle mea (after which Luther: and shall then be surrounded with this my skin); for נקּפוּ can as Niph. not signify circumdabor, and as Piel does not give the meaning cutis mea circumdabit (scil. me), since נקפו cannot be predicate to the sing. עורי. In general, נקפו cannot be understood as Niph., but only as Piel; the Piel niqap, however, signifies not: to surround, but: to strike down, e.g., olives from the tree, Isa 17:6, or the trees themselves, so that they lie felled on the ground, Isa 10:34, comp. Arab. nqf, to strike into the skull and injure the soft brain, then: to strike forcibly on the head (gen. on the upper part), or also: to deal a blow with a lance or stick. (Note: Thus, according to the Turkish Kamus: to sever the skull from (Arab. ‛n) the brain, i.e., so that the brain is laid bare, or also e.g., to split the coloquintida or bitter cucumber, so that the seeds are laid bare, or: to crack the bones and take out the marrow, cognate with Arab. nqb, for the act of piercing an egg is called both naqaba and naqafa-l-beidha. In Hebrew נקף coincides with נגף, not with נקב.) Therefore Job 19:26, according to the usage of the Semitic languages, can only be intended of the complete destruction of the skin, which is become cracked and broken by the leprosy; and this was, moreover, the subject spoken of above (Job 19:20, comp. Job 30:19). For the present we leave it undecided whether Job here confesses the hope of the resurrection, and only repel those forced misconstructions of his words which arbitrarily discern this hope in the text. Free from such violence is the translation: and after this my skin is destroyed, i.e., after I shall have put off this my body, from my flesh (i.e., restored and transfigured), I shall behold God. Thus is מבשׂרי understood by Rosenm., Kosegarten (diss. in Iob, xix. 1815), Umbreit (Stud. u. Krit. 1840, i.), Welte, Carey, and others. But this interpretation is also untenable. For, 1. In this explanation Job 19:26 is taken as an antecedent; a praepos., however, like אחר or עד, used as a conj., has, according to Hirzel's correct remark, the verb always immediately after it, as Job 42:7; Lev 14:43; whereas Sa1 20:41, the single exception, is critically doubtful. 2. It is not probable that the poet by עורי should have thought of the body, which disease is rapidly hurrying on to death, and by בשׂרי, on the other hand, of a body raised up and glorified. 3. Still more improbable is it that בשׂר should be so used here as in the church's term, resurrectio carnis, which is certainly an allowable expression, but one which exceeds the meaning of the language of Scripture. בשׂר, σάρξ, is in general, and especially in the Old Testament, a notion which has grown up in almost inseparable connection with the marks of frailty and sinfulness. And 4. The hope of a resurrection as a settled principle in the creed of Israel is certainly more recent than the Salomonic period. Therefore by far the majority of modern expositors have decided that Job does not indeed here avow the hope of the resurrection, but the hope of a future spiritual beholding of God, and therefore of a future life; and thus the popular idea of Hades, which elsewhere has sway over him, breaks out. Thus, of a future spiritual beholding of God, are Job's words understood by Ewald, Umbreit (who at first explained them differently), Vaihinger, Von Gerlach, Schlottmann, Hlemann (Schs. Kirchen- u. Schulbl. 1853, Nos. 48, 50, 62), Knig (Die Unsterblichkeitsidee im B. Iob, 1855), and others, also by the Jewish expositors Arnheim and Lwenthal. This rendering, which is also adopted in the Art. Hiob in Herzog's Real-Encyclopdie, does not necessitate any impossible misconstruction of the language, but, as we shall see further on, it does not exhaust the meaning of Job's confession. First of all, we will continue the explanation of each expression אחר is a praepos., and used in the same way as the Arabic ba‛da is sometimes used: after my skin, i.e., after the loss of it (comp. Job 21:21, אחריו, after he is dead). נקּפוּ is to be understood relatively: which they have torn in pieces, i.e., which has been torn in pieces (comp. the same use of the 3 pers., Job 4:19; Job 18:18); and זאת, which, according to Targ., Koseg., Stickel de Gole, and Ges. Thes., ought to be taken inferentially, equivalent to hoc erit (this, however, cannot be accepted, because it must have been וזאת אחר וגו, Arab. w-ḏlk b‛d 'n, idque postquam, and moreover would require the words to be arranged אחר נקפו עורי), commonly however taken together with עורי (which is nevertheless masc.), is understood as pointing to his decayed body, seems better to be taken adverbially: in this manner (Arnheim, Stickel in his translation, von Gerl., Hahn); it is the acc. of reference, as Job 33:12. The מן of מבּשׂרי is the negative מן: free from my flesh (prop. away, far from, Num 15:25; Pro 20:3), - a rather frequent way of using this preposition (vid., Job 11:15; Job 21:9; Gen 27:39; Sa2 1:22; Jer 48:45). Accordingly, we translate: "and after my skin, which they tear to pieces thus, and free from my flesh, shall I behold Eloah." That Job, after all, is permitted to behold God in this life, and also in this life receives the testimony of his justification, does not, as already observed, form any objection to this rendering of Job 19:26 : it is the reward of his faith, which, even in the face of certain death, has not despaired of God, that he does not fall into the power of death at all, and that God forthwith condescends to him in love. And that Job here holds firm, even beyond death, to the hope of beholding God in the future as a witness to his innocence, does not, after Job 14:13-15; Job 16:18-21, come unexpectedly; and it is entirely in accordance with the inner progress of the drama, that the thought of a redemption from Hades, expressed in the former passage, and the demand expressed in the latter passage, for the rescue of the honour of his blood, which is even now guaranteed him by his witness in heaven, are here comprehended, in the confident certainty that his blood and his dust will not be declared by God the Redeemer as innocent, without his being in some way conscious of it, though freed from this his decaying body. In Job 19:27 he declares how he will behold God: whom I shall behold to me, i.e., I, the deceased one, as being for me (לי, like Psa 62:2; Psa 118:6), and my eyes see Him, and not a stranger. Thus (neque alius) lxx, Targ., Jerome, and most others translate; on the other hand, Ges. Thes., Umbr., Vaih., Stick., Hahn, and von Hofm. translate: my eyes see Him, and indeed not as an enemy; but זר signifies alienus and alius, not however adversarius, which latter meaning it in general obtains only in a national connection; here (used as in Pro 27:2) it excludes the three: none other but Job, by which he means his opponents, will see God rising up for him, taking up his cause. ראוּ is praet. of the future, therefore praet. propheticum, or praet. confidentiae (as frequently in the Psalms). His reins within him pine after this vision of God. Hahn, referring to Job 16:13, translates incorrectly: "If even my reins within me perish," which is impossible, according to the syntax; for Psa 73:26 has כלה in the sense of licet defecerit as hypothetical antecedent. The Syriac version is altogether wrong: my reins (culjot) vanish completely away by reason of my lot (בּחקּי). It would be expressed in Arabic exactly as it is here: culâja (or, dual, culatâja) tadhûbu, my reins melt; for in Arab. also, as in the Semitic languages generally, the reins are considered as the seat of the tenderest and deepest affections (Psychol. S. 268, f), especially of love, desire, longing, as here, where כּלה, as in Psa 119:123 and freq., is intended of wasting away in earnest longing for salvation. Having now ended the exposition of the single expressions, we inquire whether those do justice to the text who understand it of an absolutely bodiless future beholding of God. We doubt it. Job says not merely that he, but that his eyes, shall behold God. He therefore imagines the spirit as clothed with a new spiritual body instead of the old decayed one; not so, however, that this spiritual body, these eyes which shall behold in the future world, are brought into combination with the present decaying body of flesh. But his faith is here on the direct road to the hope of a resurrection; we see it germinating and struggling towards the light. Among the three pearls which become visible in the book of Job above the waves of conflict, viz., Job 14:13-15; Job 16:18-21; Job 19:25-27, there is none more costly than this third. As in the second part of Isaiah, the fifty-third chapter is outwardly and inwardly the middle and highest point of the 3 x 9 prophetic utterances, so the poet of the book of Job has adorned the middle of his work with this confession of his hero, wherein he himself plants the flag of victory above his own grave. Now in Job 19:28 Job turns towards the friends. He who comes forth on his side as his advocate, will make Himself felt by them to be a judge, if they continue to persecute the suffering servant of God (comp. Job 13:10-12). It is not to be translated: for then ye will say, or: forsooth then will ye say. This would be כי אז תאמרו, and certainly imply that the opponents will experience just the same theophany, that therefore it will be on the earth. Oehler (in his Veteris Test. sententia de rebus post mortem futuris, 1846) maintains this instance against the interpretation of this confession of Job of a future beholding; it has, however, no place in the text, and Oehler rightly gives no decisive conclusion. (Note: He remains undecided between a future spiritual and a present beholding of God: harum interpretationum utra rectior sit, vix erit dijudicandum, nam in utramque partem facile potest disputari.) For Job 19:28, as is rightly observed by C. W. G. Kstlin (in his Essay, de immortalitatis spe, quae in l. Iobi apparere dicitur, 1846) against Oehler, and is even explained by Oetinger, is the antecedent to Job 19:29 (comp. Job 21:28.): if ye say: how, i.e., under what pretence of right, shall we prosecute him (נרדּף־לו, prop. pursue him, comp. Jdg 7:25), and (so that) the root of the matter (treated of) is found in me (בי, not בּו, since the oratio directa, as in Job 22:17, passes into the oratio obliqua, Ew. 338, a); in other words: if ye continue to seek the cause of my suffering in my guilt, fear ye the sword, i.e., God's sword of vengeance (as Job 15:22, and perhaps as Isa 31:8 : a sword, without the art. in order to combine the idea of what is boundless, endless, and terrific with the indefinite - the indetermination ad amplificandum described on Psa 2:12). The confirmatory substantival clause which follows has been very variously interpreted. It is inadmissible to understand חמה of the rage of the friends against Job (Umbr., Schlottm., and others), or חרב עונות of their murderous sinning respecting Job; both expressions are too strong to be referred to the friends. We must explain either: the glow, i.e., the glow of the wrath of God, are the expiations which the sword enjoins (Hirz., Ew., and others); but apart from עון not signifying directly the punishment of sin, this thought is strained; or, which we with Rosenm. and others prefer: glow, i.e., the glow of the wrath of God, are the sword's crimes, i.e., they carry glowing anger as their reward in themselves, wrath overtakes them. Crimes of the sword are not such as are committed with the sword - for such are not treated of here, and, with Arnh. and Hahn, to understand חרב of the sword "of hostilely mocking words," is arbitrary and artificial - but such as have incurred the sword. Job thinks of slander and blasphemy. These are even before a human tribunal capital offences (comp. Job 31:11, Job 31:28). He warns the friends of a higher sword and a higher power, which they will not escape: "that ye may know it." שׁדּין, for which the Keri is שׁדּוּן. An ancient various reading (in Pinkster) is ידעוּן (instead of תּדעוּן). The lxx shows how it is to be interpreted: θυμὸς γὰρ ἐπ ̓ ἀνόμους (Cod. Alex. - οις) ἐπελεύσεται, καὶ τότε γνώσονται. According to Cod. Vat. the translation continues ποῦ ἔστιν αὐτῶν ἡ ὕλη (שׂדין, comp. Job 29:5, where שׁדי is translated by ὑλώδης); according to Cod. Alex. ὅτι οὐδαμοῦ αὐτῶν ἡ ἴσχυς ἐστίν (שׁדין from שׁדד). Ewald in the first edition, which Hahn follows, considers, as Eichhorn already had, שׁדּין as a secondary form of שׁדּי; Hlgst. wishes to read שׁדּי at once. It might sooner, with Raschi, be explained: that ye might only know the powers of justice, i.e., the manifold power of destruction which the judge has at his disposal. But all these explanations are unsupported by the usage of the language, and Ewald's conjecture in his second edition: אי שׁדּכם (where is your violence), has nothing to commend it; it goes too far from the received text, calls the error of the friends by an unsuitable name, and gives no impressive termination to the speech. On the other hand, the speech could not end more suitably than by Job's bringing home to the friends the fact that there is a judgment; accordingly it is translated by Aq. ὅτι κρίσις; by Symm., Theod., ὅτι ἔστι κρίσις. שׁ is = אשׁר once in the book of Job, as probably also once in the Pentateuch, Gen 6:3. דּין or דּוּן are infinitive forms; the latter from the Kal, which occurs only in Gen 6:3, with Cholem, which being made a substantive (as e.g., בּוּז), signifies the judging, the judgment. Why the Keri substitutes דון, which does not occur elsewhere in the signification judicium, for the more common דין, is certainly lost to view, and it shows only that the reading shdwn was regarded in the synagogue as the traditional. דּין has everywhere else the signification judicium, e.g., by Elihu, Job 36:17, and also often in the book of Proverbs, e.g., Job 20:8 (comp. in the Arabizing supplement, ch. 31:8). The final judgment is in Aramaic רבּא דּינא; the last day in Hebrew and Arabic, הדּין יום, jaum ed-dı̂n. To give to "שׁדין, that there is a judgment," this dogmatically definite meaning, is indeed, from its connection with the historical recognition of the plan of redemption, inadmissible; but there is nothing against understanding the conclusion of Job's speech according to the conclusion of the book of Ecclesiastes, which belongs to the same age of literature. The speech of Job, now explained, most clearly shows us how Job's affliction, interpreted by the friends as a divine retribution, becomes for Job's nature a wholesome refining crucible. We see also from this speech of Job, that he can only regard his affliction as a kindling of divine wrath, and God's meeting him as an enemy (Job 19:11). But the more decidedly the friends affirm this, and describe the root of the manifestation as lying in himself, in his own transgression; and the more uncharitably, as we have seen it at last in Bildad's speech, they go to an excess in their terrible representations of the fate of the ungodly with unmistakeable reference to him: the more clearly is it seen that this indirect affliction of misconstruction must tend to help him in his suffering generally to the right relation towards God. For since the consolation expected from man is changed into still more cutting accusation, no other consolation remains to him in all the world but the consolation of God; and if the friends are to be in the right when they persist unceasingly in demonstrating to him that he must be a heinous sinner, because he is suffering so severely, the conclusion is forced upon him in connection with his consciousness of innocence, that the divine decree is an unjust one (Job 19:5). From such a conclusion, however, he shrinks back; and this produces a twofold result. The crushing anguish of soul which the friends inflict on him, by forcing upon him a view of his suffering which is as strongly opposed to his self-consciousness as to his idea of God, and must therefore bring him into the extremest difficulty of conscience, drives him to the mournful request, "Have pity upon, have pity upon me, O ye my friends" (Job 19:21); they shall not also pursue him whom God's hand has touched, as if they were a second divine power in authority over him, that could dispose of him at its will and pleasures; they shall, moreover, cease from satisfying the insatiable greed of their nature upon him. He treats the friends in the right manner; so that if their heart were not encrusted by their dogma, they would be obliged to change their opinion. This in Job's conduct is an unmistakeable step forward to a more spiritual state of mind. But the stern inference of the friends has a beneficial influence not merely on his relation to them, but also on his relation to God. To the wrathful God, whom they compel him to regard also as unjust, he cannot in itself cling. He is so much the less able to do this, as he is compelled the more earnestly to long for vindication, the more confidently he is accused. When he now wishes that the testimony which he has laid down concerning his innocence, and which is contemporaries do not credit, might be graven in the rock with an iron pen, and filled in with lead, the memorial in words of stone is but a dead witness; and he cannot even for the future rely on men, since he is so contemptuously misunderstood and deceived by them in the present. This impels his longing after vindication forward from a lifeless thing to a living person, and turns his longing from man below to God above. He has One who will acknowledge his misjudged cause, and set it right, - a Gol, who will not first come into being in a later generation, but liveth - who has not to come into being, but is. There can be no doubt that by the words chy n'l he means the same person of whom in Job 16:19 he says: "Behold, even now in heaven is my Witness, and One who acknowledges me is in the heights." The חי here corresponds to the גם עתה in that passage; and from this - that the heights of heaven is the place where this witness dwells - is to be explained the manner in which Job (Job 19:25) expresses his confident belief in the realization of that which he (Job 16:20) at first only importunately implores: as the Last One, whose word shall avail in the ages of eternity, when the strife of human voices shall have long been silent, He shall stand forth as finally decisive witness over the dust, in which Job passed away as one who in the eye of man was regarded as an object of divine punishment. And after his skin, in such a manner destroyed, and free from his flesh, which is even now already so fallen in that the bones may be seen through it (Job 19:20), he will behold Eloah; and he who, according to human judgment, has died the death of the unrighteous, shall behold Eloah on his side, his eyes shall see and not a stranger; for entirely for his profit, in order that he may bask in the light of His countenance, will He reveal himself. This is the picture of the future, for the realization of which Job longs so exceedingly, that his reins within him pine away with longing. Whence we see, that Job does not here give utterance to a transient emotional feeling, a merely momentary flight of faith; but his hidden faith, which during the whole controversy rests at the bottom of his soul, and over which the waves of despair roll away, here comes forth to view. He knows, that although his outward man may decay, God cannot, however, fail to acknowledge his inner man. But does this confidence of faith of Job really extend to the future life? It has, on the contrary, been observed, that if the hope expressed with such confidence were a hope respecting the future life, Job's despondency would be trifling, and to be rejected; further, that this hope stands in contradiction to his own assertion, Job 14:14 : "If man dies, shall he live again? All the days of my warfare would I wait, till my change should come;" thirdly, that Job's character would be altogether wrongly drawn, and would be a psychological caricature, if the thought slumbering in Job's mind, which finds utterance in Job 19:25-27, were the thought of a future vision of God; and finally, that the unravelling of the knot of the puzzle, which continually increases in entanglement by the controversy with the friends, at the close of the drama, is effected by a theophany, which issues in favour of one still living, not, as ought to be expected by that rendering, a celestial scene unveiled over the grave of Job. But such a conclusion was impossible in an Old Testament book. The Old Testament as yet knew nothing of a heaven peopled with happy human spirits, arrayed in white robes (the stola prima). And at the time when the book of Job was composed, there was also neither a positive revelation nor a dogmatic confession of the resurrection of the dead, which forms the boundary of the course of this world, in existence. The book of Job, however, shows us how, from the conflict concerning the mystery of this present life, faith struggled forth towards a future solution. The hope which Job expresses is not one prevailing in his age - not one that has come to him from tradition - not one embracing mankind, or even only the righteous in general. All the above objections would be really applicable, if it were evident here that Job was acquainted with the doctrine of a beholding of God after death, which should recompense the pious for the sufferings of this present time. But such is not the case. The hope expressed is not a finished and believingly appropriating hope; on the contrary, it is a hope which is first conceived and begotten under the pressure of divinely decreed sufferings, which make him appear to be a transgressor, and of human accusations which charge him with transgression. It is impossible for him to suppose that God should remain, as now, so hostilely turned from him, without ever again acknowledging him. The truth must at last break through the false appearance, and wrath again give place to love. That it should take place after his death, is only the extreme which his faith assigns to it. If we place ourselves on the standpoint of the poet, he certainly here gives utterance to a confession, to which, as the book of Proverbs also shows, the Salomonic Chokma began to rise in the course of believing thought; but also on the part of the Chokma, this confession was primarily only a theologoumenon, and was first in the course of centuries made sure under the combined agency of the progressive perception of the revelation and facts connected with redemption; and it is first of all in the New Testament, by the descent to Hades and the ascension to heaven of the Prince of Life, that it became a fully decided and well-defined element of the church's creed. If, however, we place ourselves on the standpoint of the hero of the drama, this hope of future vindication which flashes through the fierceness of the conflict, far from making it a caricature, (Note: If Job could say, like Tobia, Job 2:1-13 :17f., Vulg.: filii sanctorum sumus et vitam illam exspectamus, quam Deus daturus est his qui fidem suam nunquam mutant ab eo, his conduct would certainly be different; but what he expresses in Job 19:25-27 is very far removed from this confession of faith of Tobia.) gives to the delineation of his faith, which does not forsake God, the final perfecting stroke. Job is, as he thinks, meeting certain death. Why then should not the poet allow him to give utterance to that demand of faith, that he, even if God should permit him apparently to die the sinner's death, nevertheless cannot remain unvindicated? Why should he not allow him here, in the middle of the drama, to rise from the thought, that the cry of his blood should not ascend in vain, to the thought that this vindication of his blood, as of one who is innocent, should not take place without his being consciously present, and beholding with his own eyes the God by whose judicial wrath he is overwhelmed, as his Redeemer? This hope, regarded in the light of the later perception of the plan of redemption, is none other than the hope of a resurrection; but it appears here only in the germ, and comes forward as purely personal: Job rises from the dust, and, after the storm of wrath is passed, sees Eloah, as one who acknowledges him in love, while his surviving opponents fall before the tribunal of this very God. It is therefore not a share in the resurrection of the righteous (in Isa 26, which is uttered prophetically, but first of all nationally), and not a share in the general resurrection of the dead (first expressed in Dan 12:2), with which Job consoled himself; he does not speak of what shall happen at the end of the days, but of a purely personal matter after his death. Considering himself as one who must die, and thinking of himself as deceased, and indeed, according to appearance, overwhelmed by the punishment of his misdeeds, he would be compelled to despair of God, if he were not willing to regard even the incredible as unfailing, this, viz., that God will not permit this mark of wrath and of false accusation to attach to his blood and dust. That the conclusion of the drama should be shaped in accordance with this future hope, is, as we have already observed, not possible, because the poet (apart from his transferring himself to the position and consciousness of his patriarchal hero) was not yet in possession, as a dogma, of that hope which Job gives utterance to as an aspiration of his faith, and which even he himself only at first, like the psalmists (vid., on Psa 17:15; Psa 49:15, Psa 73:26), had as an aspiration of faith; (Note: The view of Bttcher, de inferis, p. 149, is false, that the poet by the conclusion of his book disapproves the hope expressed, as dementis somnium.) it was, however, also entirely unnecessary, since it is indeed not the idea of the drama that there is a life after death, which adjusts the mystery of the present, but that there is a suffering of the righteous which bears the disguise of wrath, but nevertheless, as is finally manifest, is a dispensation of love. If, however, it is a germinating hope, which in this speech of Job is urged forth by the strength of his faith, we can, without anachronistically confusing the different periods of the development of the knowledge of redemption, regard it as a full, but certainly only developing, preformation of the later belief in the resurrection. When Job says that with his own eyes he shall behold Eloah, it is indeed possible by these eyes to understand the eyes of the spirit; (Note: Job's wish, Job 19:23, is accomplished, as e.g., Jam 5:1 shows, and his hope is realized, since he has beheld God the Redeemer enter Hades, and is by Him led up on high to behold God in heaven. We assume the historical reality of Job and the consistence of his history with the rest of Scripture, which we have treated in Bibl Psychol. ch. 6 3, on the future life and redemption. Accordingly, one might, with the majority of modern expositors, limit Job's hope to the beholding of God in the intermediate state; but, as is further said above, such particularizing is unauthorized.) but it is just as possible to understand him to mean the eyes of his renewed body (which the old theologians describe as stola secunda, in distinction from the stola prima of the intermediate state); and when Job thinks of himself (Job 19:25) as a mouldering corpse, should he not by his eyes, which shall behold Eloah, mean those which have been dimmed in death, and are now again become capable of seeing? While, if we wish to expound grammatical-historically, not practically, not homiletically, we also dare not introduce the definiteness of the later dogma into the affirmation of Job. It is related to eschatology as the protevangelium is to soteriology; it presents only the first lines of the picture, which is