26<\/strong>. and<\/em> though after my skin<\/em> worms destroy<\/em> ] See trans. above. The word destroy<\/em> means to break off<\/em>, strike down or off, as branches from a tree (Isa 10:34<\/span>). The words literally run, and after my skin which they have destroyed<\/em> even this<\/em> (probably pointing to himself). The indeterminate construction which they have destroyed<\/em> is equivalent to our passive, which has been destroyed<\/em>. The Heb. construction must be given somewhat freely in English, as above. The words “worms” and “body” have nothing corresponding in the original.<\/p>\n yet in my flesh<\/em> ] Better, as above, and without my flesh<\/strong>. The margin, out of<\/em> (or, from<\/em>) my flesh<\/em>, suggests the explanation how such opposite senses may be arrived at. The Heb. prep. from<\/em> has the same ambiguity as from<\/em> in English. When Regan in Lear<\/em> 11. 1 says,<\/p>\n “Our father he hath writ, so hath our sister,<\/p>\n Of differences, which I best thought it fit<\/p>\n To answer from our home,”<\/p>\n her words most naturally perhaps suggest the meaning that she thought it best to answer at<\/em> 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<\/em> 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<\/em> his flesh; or that he shall see God, (when) away from his flesh, i. e. without<\/em> 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<\/span>, away from<\/em> (=without) spot<\/em>; Job 21:9<\/span>, margin; Job 28:4<\/span>, they hang (far) away from men<\/em>, they swing; cf. Gen 27:39<\/span>, away from (without) the fatness; Num 15:24<\/span>, 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<\/em> what condition precisely, but after<\/em> what events Job shall see God.<\/p>\n shall I see God<\/em> ] 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<\/span>), but he shall yet behold Him. To see<\/em> 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<\/span> seq<\/em>., 8 seq<\/em>., ch. Job 24:1<\/span> seq<\/em>.).<\/p>\n And though – <\/B>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,<\/P> And though with this skin this body be wasted away,<\/P> Yet in my flesh shall I see God.<\/P> Dr. Good renders it,<\/P> And, after the disease hath destroyed my skin,<\/P> That in my flesh I shall see God.<\/P> 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,<\/P> Et quum post cutem meam hoc fuerit consumptum,<\/I><\/P> Tamen absque carne mea videbo Deum.<\/I><\/P> 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,<\/P> Though they tear and devour this my skin,<\/P> Yet in my living body shall I see God.<\/P> 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<\/span>; Job 7:5<\/span>. 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.<\/P> Worms – <\/B>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 <\/span> naqaphu<\/I> from <\/span> naqaph<\/I>, means to cut, to strike, to cut down (compare the notes at Job 1:5<\/span>, 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.<\/P> This body – <\/B>The word body is also supplied by the translators. The Hebrew is simply <\/span> zo’th<\/I> – 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.<\/P> Yet in my flesh – <\/B>Hebrew From my flesh – <\/span> mbasary<\/I>. 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 <\/span> (b<\/I>) – 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.<\/P> Shall I see God – <\/B>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.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 26<\/span>. And<\/B><\/I> though <\/B>after my skin<\/B><\/I> worms <\/B>destroy this<\/B><\/I> body<\/B>] My<\/I> skin<\/I>, which is now almost all that remains of my former self, except the bones; see Job 19:20<\/span>. They destroy this <\/I>– not body. nikkephu zoth,<\/I> they<\/I>-diseases and affliction, destroy THIS wretched composition of misery and corruption.<\/P> <\/P> Yet in my flesh shall I see God<\/B><\/I>] 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<\/I>; my Kinsman<\/I>, who shall partake of my flesh and blood, in order that he may ransom the lost inheritance.<\/P> <\/p>\n 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. <\/P> And though<\/B> (which particle, as it is oft elsewhere, is here to be understood, as the opposition of the next branch showeth) <\/P> after my skin<\/B> (which either now is, or suddenly will be, consumed by sores or worms) they<\/I> (i.e. the destroyers<\/I>, or devourers<\/I>, as is implied in the verb; such impersonal speeches being usual in the Scripture; as Gen 1:26<\/span>; Luk 12:20<\/span>; 16:9<\/span>, 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<\/I>, or cut off<\/I>, or devour this<\/I>, 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<\/I> 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 <\/P> this body, <\/B>because it did scarce deserve that name. <\/P> Yet; <\/B>for the particle and is oft used adversatively; or then<\/I>, as it is oft rendered. <\/P> In my flesh, <\/B>Heb. out of my flesh<\/I>, or with<\/I> (as the particle mem<\/I> is used, Son 1:2<\/span>; 3:9<\/span>; Isa 57:8<\/span>) my flesh<\/I>, i.e. with eyes of flesh<\/I>, as Job himself calls them, Job 10:4<\/span>; 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. <\/P> Shall I see God; <\/B>the same whom he called his redeemer<\/I> Job 19:25<\/span>, 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<\/span>, might very well be seen with his bodily eyes. Nor is this understood of a simple seeing<\/I> of him; for so even they that pierced him shall see him, Rev 1:7<\/span>; but of seeing him with delight and comfort, as that word is oft understood, as Gen 48:11<\/span>; Job 42:16<\/span>; Psa 128:5<\/span>; Isa 53:11<\/span>; of that glorious and beatifying vision of God which is promised to all Gods people, Psa 16:11<\/span>; 17:15<\/span>; Mat 5:8<\/span>; 1Co 13:12<\/span>; 1Jo 3:2<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n 26.<\/B> 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<\/I> my flesh (from my renewed body,<\/I> as thestarting-point of vision, So 2:9<\/span>,”looking out from<\/I> the windows”) “shall I seeGod.” Next clause [Job 19:27<\/span>]proves bodily<\/I> vision is meant, for it specifies “mineeyes” [ROSENMULLER,2d ed.]. The Hebrew<\/I> opposes “in<\/I> my flesh.”The “skin” was the first destroyed by elephantiasis, thenthe “body.”<\/P><\/p>\n And though after my skin [worms] destroy this [body]<\/strong>,…. 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,<\/p>\n Job 19:20<\/span>; 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:<\/p>\n yet in my flesh shall I see God<\/strong>: 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.<\/p>\n f “e carne mea”, Tigurine version, Mercerus, Piscator, Cocceius, Schmidt, Schultens; so Gussetius, p. 446. g “Suidas in voce” , & Sept. in ch. xlii. 17.<\/p>\n 26 And after my skin, thus torn to pieces,<\/p>\n And without my flesh shall I behold Eloah,<\/p>\n 27 Whom I shall behold for my good,<\/p>\n And mine eyes shall see Him and no other – <\/p>\n My veins languish in my bosom.<\/p>\n 28 Ye think: “How shall we persecute him?”<\/p>\n Since the root of the matter is found in me – <\/p>\n 29 Therefore be ye afraid of the sword,<\/p>\n For wrath meeteth the transgressions of the sword,<\/p>\n That ye may know there is a judgment!<\/p>\n If we have correctly understood , Job 19:25<\/span><\/em>, 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,<\/em> 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<\/em>. i. 3, 1787, von Clln, BCr., Knapp, von Hofm., <\/p>\n (Note: Von Hofmann ( Schriftbeweis<\/em>, 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.”)<\/p>\n and others), but hereby the relation of Job 19:26<\/span><\/em> to Job 19:26<\/span><\/em> 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<\/span>), 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/em> only ) ( Cod. Vat.<\/em> ) ( Cod. Vat.<\/em> om.<\/em> ) , – but how can any one’s skin be said to awake (Italic: super terram resurget cutis mea <\/em>), <\/p>\n (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.<\/em> 1840, i., and Ewald in d. Theol. Jahrbb.,<\/em> 1843, iv.)<\/p>\n and whence does the verb obtain the signification exhaurire <\/em> or exantlare ?<\/em> Jerome’s translation is not less bold: Scio enim quod redemptor meus vivit et in novissimo die de terra surrecturus sum ,<\/em> as though it were , not , and as though could signify in novissimo die <\/em> (in favour of which Isa 9:1<\/span> 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 <\/p>\n (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.)<\/p>\n seems to require to be translated, not intumuit <\/em>) 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<\/span><\/em> with Jerome: et rursum circumdabor pelle mea <\/em> (after which Luther: and shall then be surrounded with this my skin); for can as Niph.<\/em> not signify circumdabor ,<\/em> and as Piel<\/em> does not give the meaning cutis mea circumdabit <\/em> ( scil. me<\/em>), since cannot be predicate to the sing.<\/em> . In general, cannot be understood as Niph.,<\/em> but only as Piel;<\/em> the Piel<\/em> niqap, however, signifies not: to surround, but: to strike down, e.g., olives from the tree, Isa 17:6<\/span>, or the trees themselves, so that they lie felled on the ground, Isa 10:34<\/span>, comp. Arab. nqf <\/em>, 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.<\/p>\n (Note: Thus, according to the Turkish Kamus: to sever the skull from (Arab. n <\/em>) 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 <\/em>, for the act of piercing an egg is called both naqaba <\/em> and naqafa – l – beidha <\/em>. In Hebrew coincides with , not with .)<\/p>\n Therefore Job 19:26<\/span><\/em>, 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<\/span>, comp. Job 30:19<\/span>). 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,<\/em> xix. 1815), Umbreit ( Stud. u. Krit.<\/em> 1840, i.), Welte, Carey, and others. But this interpretation is also untenable. For, 1. In this explanation Job 19:26<\/span><\/em> is taken as an antecedent; a praepos.,<\/em> however, like or , used as a conj.,<\/em> has, according to Hirzel’s correct remark, the verb always immediately after it, as Job 42:7<\/span>; Lev 14:43<\/span>; whereas 1Sa 20:41<\/span>, 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 ,<\/em> 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.<\/em> 1853, Nos. 48, 50, 62), Knig ( Die Unsterblichkeitsidee im B. Iob,<\/em> 1855), and others, also by the Jewish expositors Arnheim and Lwenthal. This rendering, which is also adopted in the Art. Hiob <\/em> in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopdie,<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n First of all, we will continue the explanation of each expression is a praepos.,<\/em> and used in the same way as the Arabic bada <\/em> is sometimes used: after my skin, i.e., after the loss of it (comp. Job 21:21<\/span>, , 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.,<\/em> Job 4:19<\/span>; Job 18:18<\/span>); and , which, according to Targ., Koseg., Stickel de Gole,<\/em> and Ges. Thes., <\/em> ought to be taken inferentially, equivalent to hoc erit<\/em> (this, however, cannot be accepted, because it must have been , Arab. w – dlk bd ‘n , idque postquam ,<\/em> and moreover would require the words to be arranged ), commonly however taken together with (which is nevertheless masc.<\/em>), 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.<\/em> of reference, as Job 33:12<\/span>. The of is the negative : free from my flesh (prop. away, far from, Num 15:25<\/span>; Pro 20:3<\/span>), – a rather frequent way of using this preposition (vid., Job 11:15<\/span>; Job 21:9<\/span>; Gen 27:39<\/span>; 2Sa 1:22<\/span>; Jer 48:45<\/span>). 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<\/span>: 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<\/span>; Job 16:18-21<\/span>, 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<\/span> he declares how he will behold God: whom I shall behold to me, i.e., I, the deceased one, as being for<\/em> me ( , like Psa 62:2<\/span>; Psa 118:6<\/span>), and my eyes see Him, and not a stranger. Thus ( neque alius <\/em>) lxx, Targ., Jerome, and most others translate; on the other hand, Ges. Thes.,<\/em> Umbr., Vaih., Stick., Hahn, and von Hofm. translate: my eyes see Him, and indeed not as an enemy; but signifies alienus <\/em> and alius <\/em>, not however adversarius <\/em>, which latter meaning it in general obtains only in a national connection; here (used as in Pro 27:2<\/span>) 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.<\/em> of the future, therefore praet. propheticum ,<\/em> or praet. confidentiae <\/em> (as frequently in the Psalms). His reins within him pine after this vision of God. Hahn, referring to Job 16:13<\/span>, translates incorrectly: “If even my reins within me perish,” which is impossible, according to the syntax; for Psa 73:26<\/span> has in the sense of licet defecerit <\/em> as hypothetical antecedent. The Syriac version is altogether wrong: my reins ( culjot <\/em>) vanish completely away by reason of my lot ( ). It would be expressed in Arabic exactly as it is here: culaja <\/em> (or, dual, culataja <\/em>) tadhubu <\/em>, 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<\/em>. S. 268, f<\/em>), especially of love, desire, longing, as here, where , as in Psa 119:123<\/span> and freq., is intended of wasting away in earnest longing for salvation.<\/p>\n 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<\/span>; Job 16:18-21<\/span>; Job 19:25-27<\/span>, 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.<\/p>\n Now in Job 19:28<\/span> 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<\/span>). 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,<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n (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 <\/em>.)<\/p>\n For Job 19:28<\/span>, as is rightly observed by C. W. G. Kstlin (in his Essay, de immortalitatis spe, quae in l. Iobi apparere dicitur,<\/em> 1846) against Oehler, and is even explained by Oetinger, is the antecedent to Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n