And I shall be clothed again with my skin, and in my flesh I will see my God.

“"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.”

“And after my skin, they have cut into this Yet they do not pay heed to my Redeemer, but after the plague of my skin, they cut, strike, and pierce. This vexation and persecution that I mentioned, which is to me like one cutting into my skin, like (Isa. 10:34): “And the thickets of the forests shall be cut off (ונקף).” and from my flesh I see judgments. judgment Heb. אלוה, an expression of judgment and chastisements.”

“Job, answering, said: How long do you afflict my soul, etc. In these opening words Baldad seems to have intended two things: first, to refute Job for folly and pride and fury, by which he intended to afflict him just as his other friends did; and therefore he says, How long do you afflict my soul? Second, to confirm his own opinion that the adversities of the present life come upon men for their sins — an opinion which he had pursued at length by enumerating various adversities without adducing any other proof; and as to this Job adds, and bruise me with words, that is, you wear me out with words, you do not convince me with proofs. Now it is tolerable if someone speaks once against his friend, but if a man multiplies words of this kind it seems to be a sign of settled malice; hence he adds, behold, ten times you have confounded me, both by speaking yourselves and by hearing me with a certain indignation. Now before this reply Job is found to have spoken five times, if we begin from where he said, Let the day perish in which I was born, and his friends are found to have answered him five times; but at least out of shame, even if not out of friendship, they ought to have ceased afflicting one already afflicted; hence he adds, and are you not ashamed to oppress me, namely, weighing me down both with reproaches and with the length of your words. Among the other reproaches, Baldad seems to have taxed him with ignorance, when he said, understand first, and so let us speak — an ignorance which ought to have been tolerated by friends and excused on that account, and ought not to have been thrown in his face, especially in a time of adversity; and therefore he adds, and if indeed I have been ignorant, my ignorance shall be with myself, as if to say: it burdens no one but me, and so it was not your business, amid my adversities, to reproach me with ignorance; and therefore he adds, but you rise up against me, namely, displaying your own excellence, and you argue against me with my reproaches, that is, with things that pertain to me alone and burden no others. Having premised these things pertaining to the refutation of his friends, he proceeds to pursue his principal proposal, intending to show that what they said is false — that present adversities always come on account of past sins. From this supposition he immediately, from the very outset, draws out an absurdity, saying, at least now understand that God has not afflicted me with an equal judgment, as if to say: if adversities do not come except for sins, then God's judgment is not equitable, by which he has afflicted me grievously when I have not sinned grievously; and he says at least now, because up to this point he had not enumerated his adversities so particularly as now. Now he says that he is not only afflicted by adversities but also hemmed in by them so that he cannot find a way of escape; hence there follows, and has encompassed me with his scourges, because, namely, these very scourges have cut off the way of remedies; and he begins to pursue this in the following order. Now a remedy can be found in adversities, first through human help, and this in two ways: in one way, in the very deed, as when someone is violently oppressed by another and receives aid from a third party; and to exclude this he says, behold, I will cry out suffering violence, and no one will hear, as if to say: if I should cry out against those who oppress me violently, no one would hear so as to bring help. In another way, after the deed, as when someone who has suffered an injury complains to a judge who restores and vindicates him by sentence; and excluding this he adds, I will cry aloud, and there is none to judge, that is, if I should cry out complaining, there would be no judge present to free me by his judgment. Second, a remedy in adversities is found in the man himself who escapes the adversities, and this in two ways: in one way through power, and this he excludes, saying, he has hedged in my path round about, and I cannot pass, as if to say: he has placed so many obstacles in the way of my progress that I cannot remove them. In another way through prudence, and to exclude this he adds, and he has set darkness in my path, namely, so that I cannot see how I ought to proceed. Then, the remedies having been excluded, he goes on to add the adversities, beginning from the external goods which he lost. Among these he first places the loss of honor and glory, when he says, he has stripped me of my glory, because whereas before he had been held in honor and reverence, then even the younger men mocked him in time, as is said below in chapter 30. Second, he places the loss of dignity, when he adds, and has taken the crown from my head, because he who before sat as it were a king with the army standing about him, as is said below in chapter 29, now sitting on a dunghill scraped his sores with a potsherd, as was said above in chapter 2. Third, he places the loss of external goods when he says, he has destroyed me on every side, namely, all his external goods having been laid waste, and I perish, the adversity enduring, because there is no hope of recovery; hence he adds, and he has taken away my hope like a tree torn up: for a tree, as long as it clings to the earth by its roots, has hope, if its branches are cut off, of growing green again; but if its roots are torn out of the ground, it must necessarily dry up and perish; so too he himself, his roots as it were torn out, had no hope of recovering temporal prosperity. Now the root of hope is twofold: one on the side of divine help, the other on the side of human help. The root of hope that is on the side of divine help seemed to have been torn out by this, that God seemed to be gravely angry with him, according to the opinion of those who located divine punishment solely in the adversities of this life; hence he says, his fury is enraged against me, which he says to designate the vehemence of the anger: for fury is inflamed anger. Now the more vehement fury is, the sooner it is wont to pass, and so hope can remain for the future concerning one who is angry; but if anger passes over into hatred, then no hope at all seems to remain; and to signify this he adds, and thus he has treated me as his enemy: for no remedy is hoped for from an enemy. Now he places a sign of divine anger and hatred when he adds, his robbers have come together at once: he calls the Sabeans and the Chaldeans and the demons robbers, who had laid waste his goods all at once as if by agreement; and he calls them God's robbers, as though this had happened by divine ordinance, just as Job's friends also said. Now these aforesaid robbers plundered Job publicly, without any reverence or fear; hence he adds, and they have made themselves a way over me, as if to say: they have plundered me just as an enemy who is found on the road plunders. They also assailed him universally and persistently, and as to this he adds, and they have besieged, namely persistently, round about, that is, universally in every respect, my tabernacle, that is, the goods of my household. Then he shows that the root of hope which is on the side of human help has been torn out, showing that he could expect no help from those from whom it seemed most likely, and he enumerates first those who are separated from him in the dwelling of the house, beginning with his brothers, saying, he has made my brothers to be far from me, namely so that they either are unwilling or unable to bring me help; then he sets down familiar friends, when he adds, and my acquaintances have withdrawn from me like strangers, namely, not bringing me help; and as to blood relations, or those joined by any other tie of kinship, he adds, my kinsmen have forsaken me, not bringing help; and as to those with whom he had at some time associated, he adds, and they who knew me, namely formerly as a familiar friend, have now in my tribulation forgotten me, namely, not caring about me. After these he goes on to enumerate the members of his household, saying, the tenants of my house, namely those who used to be accustomed to serve me, and my maidservants have held me as a stranger, namely, not caring about my afflictions, and I was as a stranger in their eyes, namely, utterly despising me. Then, concerning the disobedience of his servants, he adds, I called my servant, and he did not answer me; and he adds also a proud contempt: I entreated him with my own mouth, that is, I had to deal with him not by command but by entreaties, because he despised me. Then he enumerates the persons most closely joined to him, namely his wife and children. Now the presence of a husband is wont to be most pleasing to a wife, unless perhaps he is rendered horrible by some grave corruption; and to signify this he adds, my wife has abhorred my breath, namely on account of the stench of the ulcers by which he was rendered horrible to her. Now it belongs to children to fulfill the parent's will at his mere nod; but it comes from a great contempt of the parent that the father, to whom reverence ought to be shown by the son, should have to entreat the son suppliantly; and to show this he adds, and I begged the sons of my own body. But this seems to be against what was said above in chapter 1, verse 19, that his sons and daughters were crushed by the collapse of the house; but it can be said that some little ones had remained who had not been present at that feast, or perhaps some children of his sons, who, imputing the death of their own parents to their own sins, held Job himself in contempt for it because of his sins. After he has said, therefore, that he was despised by his household and by outsiders, he next shows that he was despised also by fools and by the wise. Now it is proper to fools to despise those whom they see in miseries, because they think only earthly goods are to be honored; and therefore he says, even fools also despised me, namely while present in their sight, and when I had withdrawn from them they spoke against me, namely, pronouncing with their mouth what they were afraid to say in my presence. Then he also says he was despised by wise men whom he had once held as intimates, hence he says, they that were once my counselors have abhorred me, namely, whom I used to admit to my counsel on account of their wisdom, and he whom I loved most has turned against me: and perhaps he says this on account of one of them who was present, who was opposing him more grievously. Thus, then, the adversities pertaining to external things having been set forth, he adds concerning the wasting away of his own body, saying, my bone has cleaved to my skin, my flesh being consumed, because, namely, on account of the severity of his sickness his flesh had been consumed so that his skin cleaved to his bones. But because the lips are fleshy parts which cleave to the teeth as to bones, therefore, to except these, he adds, and only my lips are left around my teeth, by which he seems covertly to intimate that, all the other functions of his members having ceased, only the function of speech remained to him. His adversities having thus been enumerated, he invites them to compassion, doubling the petition for mercy on account of the multitude of his miseries, saying, have pity on me, have pity on me, at least you, my friends, since I have been forsaken by others; now the cause of pitying is misery, which is the graver the more forcibly it is brought on; and therefore he adds, because the hand of the Lord has touched me: for he understood himself to have been struck by God. Now it does not seem fitting that a man should add affliction to one already afflicted; and therefore he adds, why do you persecute me as God does? As if to say: the persecution that comes from God is enough for me; but it would be more fitting for you to offer consolation instead. And how they were persecuting him he shows by adding, and are you filled with my flesh? Which properly pertains to detractors, who are said to feed on human flesh insofar as they take delight in the infirmities of others: for the flesh is the weaker part of an animal. Who will grant me that they may be written, etc. Job had said above that his hope had been taken away like that of a tree torn up, which indeed he said referring to the hope of recovering temporal prosperity, to which his friends had incited him in many ways; and that this hope was not to be held he had shown above at length by leading it to various absurdities. But now he openly discloses his intention, showing that he had not said the foregoing as one despairing of God, but because he bore a loftier hope concerning him, referred not indeed to present goods but to future ones. And because he was about to say great and wondrous and certain things, he shows beforehand his desire that the statement he was about to make might be perpetuated in the faith of those who come after; now we transmit our thoughts and words to posterity through the office of writing, and therefore he says, who will grant me that my words may be written — namely, those which I am about to say concerning the hope which I have fixed in God — lest they be blotted out by oblivion? Now things that are written in ink are wont to be effaced through length of time, and therefore, when we wish some writing to be preserved for a long time, we do not merely write it in the manner of ordinary script but by some impression, whether in leather, or in metal, or in stone; and because that which he was hoping for was not to come about in the near future but was reserved to be fulfilled at the end of time, therefore he adds, who will grant that they may be engraved in a book with an iron pen — as it were by some impression made in leather — or, if this is too little, by an impression made more strongly on a sheet of lead, or, if this too seems too little, that they may surely be carved with an iron pen into flint? Now what these words are, which he wished to be preserved with such great care, he shows by adding, for I know that my Redeemer lives, and he pointedly assigns this in the manner of a cause: for we are not careful to commit to memory those things which we do not hold as certain, and therefore he pointedly says, for I know, namely, through the certitude of faith. Now this hope concerns the glory of the future resurrection, regarding which he first assigns the cause when he says, my Redeemer lives. Here it must be considered that man, who had been constituted immortal by God, incurred death through sin, according to that saying of Romans 5:12, by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin, death — from which sin indeed the human race was to be redeemed through Christ, which Job foresaw through the spirit of faith. Now Christ redeemed us from sin through death, dying for us; but he did not die in such a way that death swallowed him up, because although he died according to his humanity, he could not die according to his divinity; and from the life of the divinity even the humanity was restored to life by rising again, according to that saying of 2 Corinthians, the last chapter, for although he was crucified out of our weakness, yet he lives by the power of God; and the life of Christ rising will be diffused to all men in the common resurrection, whence the Apostle adds in the same place: for we also are weak in him, but we shall live with him by the power of God in us; whence also the Lord says in Job 5:25 — the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they who hear shall live: for as the Father has life in himself, so has he given to the Son also to have life in himself. The primordial cause of human resurrection, therefore, is the life of the Son of God, which did not take its beginning from Mary, as the Ebionites said, but always was, according to that saying of Hebrews, the last chapter, Jesus Christ, yesterday and today, the same also forever; and therefore he pointedly does not say, my Redeemer will live, but lives. And from this cause he foretells the future resurrection, determining its time, when he adds, and on the last day I shall rise again from the earth, where it must be considered that certain persons, positing that the motion of the heavens and this present state of the world will endure forever, held that after certain revolutions of years, the stars returning to the same positions, dead men would be restored to life; but since a day is caused by the motion of the heavens, if the motion of the heavens should endure forever there would be no last day: and therefore, to remove the aforesaid error, he pointedly says, on the last day, and this agrees with the saying of the Lord, who says in John 6:40, I will raise him up on the last day. There were others who said that men will rise again resuming not earthly but certain celestial bodies; but to exclude this he adds, and again I shall be surrounded with my skin, which he says pointedly because he had said above that only the skin remained around his bones; and from this very manner of speaking he assigns the reason for the resurrection, namely, lest the soul should always remain stripped of its own garment. Again, there were others who said that the soul would resume the same body it had laid down, but under the same condition, namely so that it would need food and drink and would carry out the other fleshly works of this life; but this he excludes by adding, and in my flesh I shall see God. For it is manifest that the flesh of man, according to the state of the present life, is corruptible; but the body which is corrupted weighs down the soul, as is said in Wisdom 9:15, and therefore no one living in this mortal flesh can see God; but the flesh which the soul will resume in the resurrection will indeed be the same in substance, but will have incorruption by a divine gift, according to that saying of the Apostle in 1 Corinthians 15:53, this corruptible must put on incorruption; and therefore that flesh will be of such a condition that it will in no way impede the soul from being able to see God, but will be entirely subject to it. Not knowing this, Porphyry said that, in order for the soul to become blessed, every body must be fled from, as though it were the soul that would see God, not the man; and to exclude this he adds, whom I myself shall see, as if to say: not only my soul will see God, but I myself, who subsist from soul and body. And to show that the body too will in its own way be a partaker of that vision, he adds, and my eyes shall behold — not because the eyes of the body will see the divine essence, but because the eyes of the body will see God made man; they will also see the glory of God shining forth in the creature, according to Augustine at the end of the City of God. And so that man might be believed to be restored to see God the same not only in species but in number, he adds, and not another, namely in number, lest it be believed that he expects such a restoration of life as Aristotle describes in the second book of On Generation, saying that whatsoever things are of corruptible substance, when set in motion, are repeated the same in species, not the same in number. These things having thus been premised concerning the cause of the resurrection, its time and manner, and the glory of the one rising and the identity of the same, he adds, this my hope is laid up in my bosom, as if to say: my hope is not in earthly things, which you vainly promise, but in the future glory of the resurrection. He pointedly says, it is laid up in my bosom, to show that he held this hope not merely in words but hidden in his heart — not doubtful but most firm, not as something cheap but as something most precious: for what is hidden in the bosom is kept in secret, and is firmly preserved, and is reckoned dear. Thus, then, the loftiness of his hope which he had concerning God having been shown, he excludes their calumnies which they sought against him, as though he had cast aside hope in God and fear of him because he did not place his hope in temporal things; hence he adds, why then do you now say: let us persecute him, namely, as one despairing of God or not fearing God, and let us find a root of the matter against him — by disproving my words as though I had denied the providence of God? Which I do not deny, but assert, saying that rewards and punishments are prepared by God for men even after this life; and therefore he adds, flee then from the face of the sword, that is, of the divine vengeance reserved for you in the future life, although you flourish in temporal prosperity, since the sword is the avenger of iniquities, that is, the vengeance which he himself will properly bring after death; and know that there is a judgment, not only in this life but also after this life, in the resurrection of the good and the wicked.”

“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.”

“And I. Septuagint, “But he will raise up my body or skin, which has sustained these things. This now has been accomplished for me by the Lord; ( 27 ) which I know within myself, which my eyes have seen, and not another. For all things are accomplished in my bosom.” I am as fully convinced of this glorious event, (Haydock) as if it were past. (Calmet) — Hebrew, “and though, after my skin, worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God.” (Protestants, or in the margin, “After I shall awake, though this body be destroyed, yet out of,” &c. Various other interpretations are given. (Haydock) — But we had as well adhere to the Septuagint, Vulgate, &c. (Du Hamel) — God. Sixtus V and some other editions, add “Saviour.” (Calmet) — Job would see the Messias by the eyes of his posterity. (St. Augustine or Faustus, ser. 234. t. v. App.) (Sanctius) — He hoped also to see God face to face in glory (Calmet) though not by means of his corporeal eyes, (Haydock) and to be restored to favour, so that God would no longer turn his back on him, chap. xlii. 5. St. Gregory, when legate at Constantinople, convinced the patriarch Eutychius, by this text, that after the resurrection, our bodies would still be palpable, and not aerial only. (Calmet) — It contains an express profession of Job’s faith, on this head. We shall rise the same in substance. (Worthington)”

“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”