Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Job 19:26
And [though] after my skin [worms] destroy this [body], yet in my flesh shall I see God:
26. and though after my skin worms destroy ] See trans. above. The word destroy means to break off, strike down or off, as branches from a tree (Isa 10:34). The words literally run, and after my skin which they have destroyed even this (probably pointing to himself). The indeterminate construction which they have destroyed is equivalent to our passive, which has been destroyed. The Heb. construction must be given somewhat freely in English, as above. The words “worms” and “body” have nothing corresponding in the original.
yet in my flesh ] Better, as above, and without my flesh. The margin, out of (or, from) my flesh, suggests the explanation how such opposite senses may be arrived at. The Heb. prep. from has the same ambiguity as from in English. When Regan in Lear 11. 1 says,
“Our father he hath writ, so hath our sister,
Of differences, which I best thought it fit
To answer from our home,”
her words most naturally perhaps suggest the meaning that she thought it best to answer at home, her home being the place from which the answer was sent. Her meaning, however, is that she thought it best to answer when she was away from home. Similarly when Job says, from (or, out of) my flesh shall I see God, the meaning may be, that (looking) from his flesh he shall see God, i. e. as A. V. in his flesh; or that he shall see God, (when) away from his flesh, i. e. without his flesh. The context and general scope of the passage decides for the latter sense. For a similar use of the Heb. prep. see ch. Job 11:15, away from (=without) spot; Job 21:9, margin; Job 28:4, they hang (far) away from men, they swing; cf. Gen 27:39, away from (without) the fatness; Num 15:24, marg. The whole expression “after this my skin has been destroyed and without my flesh” means “when I have died under the ravages of my disease.” The words do not express in what condition precisely, but after what events Job shall see God.
shall I see God ] The connexion is, But I know that my Redeemer liveth, and he who shall be after me shall stand upon the dust, and I shall see God. The last words explain who Job’s Redeemer or Goel is, and who He is who remaineth or shall come after him, viz. God. After his skin is destroyed and without his flesh he shall see God. Before death he shall not see Him, for he shall die under His afflicting hand (cf. ch. Job 23:14), but he shall yet behold Him. To see God is to see Him reconciled and in peace, for this is implied in seeing Him at all, because now He hides. His face (ch. Job 23:3 seq., 8 seq., ch. Job 24:1 seq.).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And though – Margin, Or, after I shall awake, though this body be destroyed, yet out of my flesh shall I see God. This verse has given not less perplexity than the preceding. Noyes renders it,
And though with this skin this body be wasted away,
Yet in my flesh shall I see God.
Dr. Good renders it,
And, after the disease hath destroyed my skin,
That in my flesh I shall see God.
Rosenmuller explains it, And when after my skin (scil. is consumed and destroyed) they consume (scil. those corroding, or consuming, that is, it is corroded, or broken into fragments) this, that is, this structure of my bones – my body (which he does not mention, because it was so wasted away that it did not deserve to be called a body) – yet without my flesh – with my whole body consumed, shall I see God. He translates it,
Et quum post cutem meam hoc fuerit consumptum,
Tamen absque carne mea videbo Deum.
The Hebrew is literally, and after my skin. Gesenius translates it, After they shall have destroyed my skin, this shall happen – that I will see God. Herder renders it,
Though they tear and devour this my skin,
Yet in my living body shall I see God.
The fair and obvious meaning, I think, is that which is conveyed by our translation. Disease had attacked his skin. It was covered with ulcers, and was fast consuming; compare Job 2:8; Job 7:5. This process of corruption and decay he had reason to expect would go on until all would be consumed. But if it did, he would hold fast his confidence in God. He would believe that he would come forth as his vindicator, and he would still put his trust in him.
Worms – This word is supplied by our translators. There is not a semblance of it in the original. That is, simply, they destroy; where the verb is used impersonally, meaning that it would be destroyed; The agent by which this would be done is not specified. The word rendered destroy naqaphu from naqaph, means to cut, to strike, to cut down (compare the notes at Job 1:5, for the general meaning of the word), and here means to destroy; that is, that the work of destruction might go on until the frame should be wholly wasted away. It is not quite certain that the word here would convey the idea that he expected to die. It may mean that he would become entirely emaciated, and all his flesh be gone. There is nothing, however, in the word to show that he did not expect to die – and perhaps that would be the most obvious and proper interpretation.
This body – The word body is also supplied by the translators. The Hebrew is simply zo’th – this. Perhaps he pointed to his body – for there can be no doubt that his body or flesh is intended. Rosenmuller supposes that he did not mention it, because it was so emaciated that it did not deserve to be called a body.
Yet in my flesh – Hebrew From my flesh – mbasary. Herder renders this, In my living body. Rosenmuller, absque carne mea – without my flesh; and explains it as meaning, my whole body being consumed, I shall see God. The literal meaning is, from, or out of, my flesh shall I see God. It does not mean in his flesh, which would have been expressed by the preposition (b) – but there is the notion that from or out of his flesh he would see him; that is, clearly, as Rosenmuller has expressed it, tho my body be consumed, and I have no flesh, I shall see him. Disease might carry its fearful ravages through all his frame, until it utterly wasted away, yet; he had confidence that he would see his vindicator and Redeemer on the earth. It cannot be proved that this refers to the resurrection of that body, and indeed the natural interpretation is against it. It is, rather, that though without a body, or though his body should all waste away, he would see God as his vindicator. He would not always be left overwhelmed in this manner with calamities and reproaches. He would be permitted to see God coming forth as his Goal or Avenger, and manifesting himself as his friend. Calmly, therefore, he would bear these reproaches and trials, and see his frame waste away, for it would not always be so – God would yet undertake and vindicate his cause.
Shall I see God – He would be permitted to behold him as his friend and avenger. What was the nature of the vision which he anticipated, it is not possible to determine with certainty. If he expected that God would appear in some remarkable manner to judge the world and to vindicate the cause of the oppressed; or that he would come forth in a special manner to vindicate his cause; or if he looked to a general resurrection, and to the trial on that day, the language would apply to either of these events.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 26. 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. 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.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The style of this and other poetical books is concise and short, and therefore many words are to be understood in some places to complete the sense. The meaning of the place is this, Though my skin is now in a great measure consumed by sores, and the rest of it, together with this body, shall be devoured by the worms; which may seem to make my case quite desperate. Heb.
And though (which particle, as it is oft elsewhere, is here to be understood, as the opposition of the next branch showeth)
after my skin (which either now is, or suddenly will be, consumed by sores or worms) they (i.e. the destroyers, or devourers, as is implied in the verb; such impersonal speeches being usual in the Scripture; as Gen 1:26; Luk 12:20; 16:9, where the actions are expressed, but the persons or things acting are understood. And by the destroyers he most probably designs the worms, which do this work in the grave) destroy, or cut off, or devour this, i.e. all this which you see left of me, this which I now point to, all this which is contained within my skin, all my flesh and bones, this which I know not what to call, whether a living body, or a dead carcass, because it is between both; and therefore he did not say
this body, because it did scarce deserve that name.
Yet; for the particle and is oft used adversatively; or then, as it is oft rendered.
In my flesh, Heb. out of my flesh, or with (as the particle mem is used, Son 1:2; 3:9; Isa 57:8) my flesh, i.e. with eyes of flesh, as Job himself calls them, Job 10:4; or with bodily eyes; my flesh or body being raised from the grave, and restored and reunited to my soul. And this is very fitly added, to show that he did not speak of a mental or spiritual, but of a corporeal vision, and that after his death.
Shall I see God; the same whom he called his redeemer Job 19:25, i.e. Christ; of which see the note there; who being God-man, and having taken flesh, and appearing in his flesh or body with and for Job upon the earth, as was said Job 19:25, might very well be seen with his bodily eyes. Nor is this understood of a simple seeing of him; for so even they that pierced him shall see him, Rev 1:7; but of seeing him with delight and comfort, as that word is oft understood, as Gen 48:11; Job 42:16; Psa 128:5; Isa 53:11; of that glorious and beatifying vision of God which is promised to all Gods people, Psa 16:11; 17:15; Mat 5:8; 1Co 13:12; 1Jo 3:2.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
26. Rather, though after my skin(is no more) this (body) is destroyed (“body” beingomitted, because it was so wasted as not to deserve the name), yetfrom my flesh (from my renewed body, as thestarting-point of vision, So 2:9,”looking out from the windows”) “shall I seeGod.” Next clause [Job 19:27]proves bodily vision is meant, for it specifies “mineeyes” [ROSENMULLER,2d ed.]. The Hebrew opposes “in my flesh.”The “skin” was the first destroyed by elephantiasis, thenthe “body.”
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And though after my skin [worms] destroy this [body],…. Meaning not, that after his skin was wholly consumed now, which was almost gone, there being scarce any left but the skin of his teeth,
Job 19:20; the worms in his ulcers would consume what was left of his body, which scarce deserved the name of a body, and therefore he points to it, and calls it “this”, without saying what it was; but that when he should be entirely stripped of his skin in the grave, then rottenness and worms would strip him also of all the rest of his flesh and his bones; by which he expresses the utter consumption of his body by death, and after it in the grave; and nevertheless, though so it would be, he was assured of his resurrection from the dead:
yet in my flesh shall I see God: he believed, that though he should die and moulder into dust in the grave, yet he should rise again, and that in true flesh, not in an aerial celestial body, but in a true body, consisting of flesh, blood, and bones, which spirits have not, and in the same flesh or body he then had, his own flesh and body, and not another’s; and so with his fleshly or corporeal eyes see God, even his living Redeemer, in human nature; who, as he would stand upon the earth in that nature, in the fulness of time, and obtain redemption for him, so he would in the latter day appear again, raise him from the dead, and take him to himself, to behold his glory to all eternity: or “out of my flesh” f, out of my fleshly eyes; from thence and with those shall I behold God manifest in the flesh, my incarnate God; and if Job was one of those saints that rose when Christ did, as some say g, he saw him in the flesh and with his fleshly eyes.
f “e carne mea”, Tigurine version, Mercerus, Piscator, Cocceius, Schmidt, Schultens; so Gussetius, p. 446. g “Suidas in voce” , & Sept. in ch. xlii. 17.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
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 , 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, 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 , if the 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 instead of ] upon the earth and after my skin, this surrounding ( , Chaldaism, instead of after the form ), 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 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 instead of , and connecting , translates: ( Cod. Vat. only ) ( Cod. Vat. ) ( Cod. Vat. om. ) , – but how can any one’s skin be said to awake (Italic: super terram resurget cutis mea ),
(Note: Stickel therefore maintains that this 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 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 , not , and as though 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, is used in Talmudic; vid., Buxtorf, and . The rabbinical expositors ignore this Targum, and in general furnish but little that is useful here.)
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 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 can as Niph. not signify circumdabor , and as Piel does not give the meaning cutis mea circumdabit ( scil. me), since cannot be predicate to the sing. . In general, 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 coincides with , not with .)
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 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 or , 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 1Sa 20:41, the single exception, is critically doubtful. 2. It is not probable that the poet by should have thought of the body, which disease is rapidly hurrying on to death, and by , on the other hand, of a body raised up and glorified. 3. Still more improbable is it that 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. , , 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 is a praepos., and used in the same way as the Arabic bada is sometimes used: after my skin, i.e., after the loss of it (comp. Job 21:21, , after he is dead). 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 , 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 , Arab. w – dlk bd ‘n , idque postquam , and moreover would require the words to be arranged ), commonly however taken together with (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 of is the negative : 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; 2Sa 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 ( , 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 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. 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 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 ( ). It would be expressed in Arabic exactly as it is here: culaja (or, dual, culataja ) tadhubu , 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 , 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 , 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 ( , prop. pursue him, comp. Jdg 7:25), and (so that) the root of the matter (treated of) is found in me ( , not , 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 of the rage of the friends against Job (Umbr., Schlottm., and others), or 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 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 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.” , for which the Keri is . An ancient various reading (in Pinkster) is (instead of ). The lxx shows how it is to be interpreted: ( Cod. Alex. – ) , . According to Cod. Vat. the translation continues ( , comp. Job 29:5, where is translated by ); according to Cod. Alex. ( from ). Ewald in the first edition, which Hahn follows, considers, as Eichhorn already had, as a secondary form of ; Hlgst. wishes to read 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: (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. ; by Symm., Theod., . is = once in the book of Job, as probably also once in the Pentateuch, Gen 6:3. or 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., ), signifies the judging, the judgment. Why the Keri substitutes , which does not occur elsewhere in the signification judicium , for the more common , is certainly lost to view, and it shows only that the reading shdwn was regarded in the synagogue as the traditional. 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 ; the last day in Hebrew and Arabic, , jaum ed – dn . To give to “ , 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 here corresponds to the 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 worked up in detail later on, but also an outline, sketched in such a way that every later perception may be added to it. Hence Schlottmann is perfectly correct when he considers that it is justifiable to understand these grand and powerful words, in hymns, and compositions, and liturgies, and monumental inscriptions, of the God-man, and to use them in the sense which “the more richly developed conception of the last things might so easily put upon them.” It must not surprise us that this sublime hope is not again expressed further on. On the one hand, what Sanctius remarks is not untrue: ab hoc loco ad finem usque libri aliter se habet Iobus quam prius ; on the other hand, Job here, indeed in the middle of the book, soars triumphantly over his opponents to the height of a believing consciousness of victory, but as yet he is not in that state of mind in which he can attain to the beholding of God on his behalf, be it in this world or in the world to come. He has still further to learn submission in relation to God, gentleness in relation to the friends. Hence, inexhaustibly rich in thought and variations of thought, the poet allows the controversy to become more and more involved, and the fire in which Job is to be proved, but also purified, to burn still longer.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
(26) And though after my skin.The word skin is probably put by the common metonymy of a part for the whole for body. After they have thus destroyed my skin, or after my skin hath been thus destroyedor, and after my skin hath been destroyedthis shall be: that even from my flesh I shall see Godreferring, probably, in the first instance, to his present personal faith, notwithstanding the corruption produced by his disease. I can and do still see God, whom I know as my Redeemer; but perhaps more probably put in contrast to this present knowledge as implying something yet to come, when the Redeemer stands at the last upon the earth, which also seems to be yet further expressed in the following verse.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
26. And after my skin That is, when my skin is no more. “After” can only be a preposition (See Hirtzel in loc.) If, as some prefer, it be read adverbially, we shall have, And after they have thus destroyed my skin. But there are greater difficulties in this than in the reading of the Authorized Version.
Destroy this So many and varied are the agencies that destroy the body that they are not enumerated. The Orientals, however, were of the opinion that worms were the principal cause of its destruction. They say according to Roberts that the life is first destroyed by them and afterwards the body. The word , in the Piel rendered destroy, in the Arabic ( nakafa) signifies to smash or crush the head. It is one of the most powerful words in the Semitic languages to express complete destruction.
This Though not expressed, the allusion is evidently to the body.
Yet “Yet” ( ) is adversative. (See Nordheimer, 2:294.)
In my flesh From my flesh. The word min, from, is supposed by some to mean without; apart from, and is thus given by Conant, Zockler in Lange, Ewald, etc. But Pusey and Perowne are right when they say that can no more, of itself, mean “without” than our word “from.” At the same time, the grammatical construction justifies the sense of in. Thus Rosenmuller, Kosegarten, Welte, Clarke, Carey, Noyes, Wordsworth, etc.: also the Vulgate, the Targum, (Walton’s rendering,) etc. The use of the word min, from, in the sense of in, is by no means alien to the Hebrew. This is especially the case in connexion with verbs of speaking, hearing, seeing, etc. The place from which the observer looks is invariably connected with the verb by the word from. A like remark holds good of the other senses. (GESENIUS, Thesaurus, p. 804.) Thus Sol. Song, (Son 2:9,) “he looketh forth at,” (literally, from,) “the windows.” Comp. 2Ch 6:21. Eastward, i.e., in the east, (Gen 2:8,) is literally from the east. Besides, Job freely uses at least five other prepositions to express without, either one of which would have been better to convey the idea of without than the min before us. For instance, (Hebrew text,) Job 4:11; Job 4:20-21; Job 6:6; Job 7:6; Job 8:11; Job 24:7; Job 24:10; Job 30:8; Job 30:28; Job 31:19; Job 31:39; Job 33:9; Job 34:6; Job 34:20; Job 38:2; Job 38:41; Job 39:16; Job 41:33. Thrice, indeed, elsewhere in Job, min occurs in a privative sense, (Job 3:19; Job 11:15; Job 21:9,) which, however, can hardly be regarded as parallel cases. If Job speaks of beholding God with his bodily eyes after that body has been destroyed, it must be from a new body. The subsequent beholding of God with his eyes, (“ mine eyes,”) identifies it with the body he then had, the body to which he had before pointed with the deictic this. The unbiased interpretation of this passage discloses substantially the elements of the doctrine of the resurrection, even though their full meaning may have been hidden from Job. See Excursus V.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Job 19:26 And [though] after my skin [worms] destroy this [body], yet in my flesh shall I see God:
Ver 26. And though after my skin worms destroy this body ] Here he pointeth again, as doth likewise David, when in Psa 34:6 , he saith, “This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him,” &c. So the ancient believers, when they came to that Article in the Creed, I believe the resurrection of the flesh, were wont to add, Etiam huius carnis, even of this flesh, pointing to some naked part of their body; or else alluding to that of the apostle, “This mortal must put on,” &c.
Worms destroy this body
Yet in my flesh
I shall see God
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
skin. Put by Figure of speech Synecdoche (of Part), App-6, for the whole body.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Job 19:26
Job 19:26
“And after my skin, even this body is destroyed, Then without my flesh shall I see God.”
This is a stupid error in our version, which fortunately, is rare enough in the ASV; but there is no doubt of it here. The proper rendition here is, “In my flesh, I shall see God,” as properly rendered in the KJV, the new RSV, and in the DOUAY. However, even without the testimony of other versions, the text, as we have it, even here (the ASV) contradicts their false rendition. The following verse reads, “Whom I shall see … And mine eyes shall behold.” Eyes are flesh, and without flesh would mean without eyes; and therefore the American Standard Version in this Job 19:26 is incorrect.
Why was such a stupid error as this committed by our translators. H. H. Rowley explains that the Hebrew words here may indeed mean either `in my flesh,’ or `without my flesh.” Since either rendition might be correct, the true reading must be determined by the context; and the translators of our version (American Standard Version) evidently had not read the next verse (Job 19:27) where Job’s eyes are mentioned; or if they read it, did not heed its positive and undeniable reference to one `in his flesh,’ not ‘without it.’ Besides that, “The idea of a non-corporeal posthumous existence of Job is unlikely to have been in his mind.” “Unlikely” here is too mild a word. It was an utter impossibility.
There are other examples of present-day radical and liberal scholars who deliberately choose the incorrect word in certain passages where multiple choices are actually available. For a common example of this, reference is here made to Vol. 11 of our New Testament Series, pp. 221,222.
Now, if the passage were rendered, `without this flesh’ the meaning would not have contradicted the truth. That “flesh” in which all of us shall see God, is not the old, worn-out body of our mortality, but a new body, as it shall please God to give us.
E.M. Zerr:
Job 19:26. Worms and body are not in the original as separate words. Skin is from a Hebrew word that is itself from another Hebrew word that means, “to be bare,” the idea being that about all of his fleshly being will have been destroyed after death. In flesh is rendered “without my flesh” in the R. V. I have examined Moffatt’s translation and others in the light of the lexicon and believe it to be correct. I request the reader to consult the same for the fuller information.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
And though: etc. Or, After I shall awake, though this body be destroyed, yet out of my flesh shall I see God. Psa 17:15
in my flesh: Psa 16:9, Psa 16:11, Mat 5:8, 1Co 13:12, 1Co 15:53, Phi 3:21, 1Jo 3:2, Rev 1:7
Reciprocal: Gen 3:19 – and Job 7:5 – flesh Job 14:10 – where is he Job 14:14 – shall he live Job 14:22 – his flesh Job 17:14 – to the worm Job 21:26 – the worms Job 24:20 – the worm Psa 138:7 – Though I walk Joh 5:28 – for Act 12:23 – and he Act 13:36 – and saw Act 24:15 – that 2Co 4:16 – though 2Co 5:1 – we know Phi 1:23 – with Heb 12:14 – no man
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Job 19:26. And though after my skin, &c. The style of this and other poetical books of the Scripture is concise and short, and therefore many words are to be understood in some places to complete the sense. The meaning here is, Though my skin be now, in a great measure, consumed by sores, and the rest of it, together with this body, shall be devoured by worms, which may seem to make my case quite desperate, yet in my flesh Hebrew, , mibbeshari, out of my flesh, or, with my flesh, that is, with eyes of flesh, or bodily eyes; my flesh, or body, being raised from the grave and reunited to my soul: (which is very fitly added, to show that he did not speak of a mental or spiritual, but of a corporeal vision, and that after his death:) shall I see God The same whom he called his Redeemer, (Job 19:25,) who having taken flesh, and appearing in his flesh or body, with and for Job upon the earth, might well be seen with his bodily eyes. Nor is this understood of a simple seeing of him, but of that glorious and beatifying vision of God which is promised to all Gods people.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
19:26 And [though] after my skin [worms] destroy this [body], yet {r} in my flesh shall I see God:
(r) In this Job declares plainly that he had a full hope, that both the soul and body would enjoy the presence of God in the last resurrection.