Job 19:16-29 | KD | STEP | I call to my servant and he answereth not, I am obliged to entreat him with my mouth. 17 My breath is offensive to my wife, And my stench to my own brethren. 18 Even boys act contemptuously towards me; If I will rise up, they speak against me. 19 All my confidential friends abhor me, And those whom I loved have turned against me. 20 My bone cleaveth to my skin and flesh, And I am escaped only with the skin of my teeth. His servant, who otherwise saw every command in his eyes, and was attent upon his wink, now not only does not come at his call, but does not return him any answer. The one of the home-born slaves (vid., on ), who stood in the same near connection to Job as Eliezer to Abraham, is intended here, in distinction from גרי ביתי, Job 19:15. If he, his master, now in such need of assistance, desires any service from him, he is obliged ( fut . with the sense of being compelled, as e.g., , ) to entreat him with his mouth. התחנּן, to beg חן of any one for one’s self (vid., supra , p. 365), therefore to implore, supplicare; and בּמו־פּי here (as ; ) as a more significant expression of that which is loud and intentional (not as , in contrast to that which proceeds from the heart). In , רוּחי signifies neither my vexation (Hirz.) nor my spirit = I (Umbr., Hahn, with the Syr.), for רוח in the sense of angry humour (as ) does not properly suit the predicate, and Arab. rûḥy in the signification ipse may certainly be used in Arabic, where rûḥ (perhaps under the influence of the philosophical usage of the language) signifies the animal spirit-life ( Psychol . S. 154), not however in Hebrew, where נפשׁי is the stereotype form in that sense. If one considers that the elephantiasis, although its proper pathological symptom consists in an enormous hypertrophy of the cellular tissue of single distinct portions of the body, still easily, if the bronchia are drawn into sympathy, or if (what is still more natural) putrefaction of the blood with a scorbutic ulcerous formation in the mouth comes on, has difficulty of breathing ( ) and stinking breath as its result, as also a stinking exhalation and the discharge of a stinking fluid from the decaying limbs is connected with it (vid., the testimony of the Arabian physicians in Stickel, S. 169f.), it cannot be doubted that Jer. has lighted upon the correct thing when he transl. halitum meum exhorruit uxor mea . רוחי is intended as in , and it is unnecessary to derive זרה from a special verb זיר, although in Arab. the notions which are united in the Hebr. זוּר .r, deflectere and abhorrere (to turn one’s self away from what is disgusting or horrible), are divided between Arab. zâr med . Wau and Arab . ḏâr med . Je (vid., Fürst’s Handwörterbuch ). In the meaning of חנּותי is specially questionable. In , חנּות is, like שׁמּות, , an infinitive from חנן, formed after the manner of the Lamed He verbs. Ges. and Olsh. indeed prefer to regard these forms as plurals of substantives (חנּה, שׁמּה), but the respective passages, regarded syntactically and logically, require infinitives. As regards the accentuation, according to which וחנותי is accented by Rebia mugrasch on the ultima , this does not necessarily decide in favour of its being infin., since in the 1 praet . סבּתי, which, according to rule, has the tone on the penultima , the ultima is also sometimes (apart from the perf. consec. ) found accented (on this, vid., on , and Ew. §197, a ), as סבּוּ, קוּמה, קוּמי, also admit of both accentuations. If וחנותי is infin., the clause is a nominal clause, or a verbal one, that is to be supplemented by the v. fin. זרה; if it is first pers. praet., we have a verbal clause. It must be determined from the matter and the connection which of these explanations, both of which are in form and syntax possible, is the correct one. The translation, “I entreat (groan to) the sons of my body,” is not a thought that accords with the context, as would be obtained by the infin. explanation: my entreating (is offensive); this signif. (prop. to Hithp . as above) assigned to Kal by von Hofmann ( Schriftbew . ii. 2, 612) is at least not to be derived from the derivative חן; it might be more easily deduced from נחנתּ, , which appears to be a Niph . like נחם, נאנח, from חנן, but might also be derived from ננחתּ = נאנחתּ by means of a transposition (vid., Hitz.). In the present passage one might certainly compare Arab. ḥnn , the usual word for the utterance and emotion of longing and sympathy, or also Arab. chnn , fut. i (with the infin. noun chanı̂n ), which occurs in the signifn. of weeping, and transl.: my imploring, groaning, weeping, is offensive, etc. Since, however, the X. form of the Arab. chnn ( istachanna ) signifies to give forth an offensive smell (esp. of the stinking refuse of a well that is dried up); and besides, since the significatn. foetere is supported for the root חן (comp. צחן) by the Syriac chanı̂no (e.g., meshcho chanı̂no , rancid oil), we may also translate: “My stinking is offensive,” etc., or: “I stink to the children of my body” (Rosenm., Ew., Hahn, Schlottm.); and this translation is not only not hazardous in a book that so abounds in derivations from the dialects, but it furnishes a thought that is as closely as possible connected with . The further question now arises, who are meant by בטני לבני. Perhaps his children? But in the prologue these have utterly perished. Are we to suppose, with Eichhorn and Olshausen, that the poet, in the heat of discourse, forgets what he has laid down in the prologue? When we consider that this poet, within the compass of his work, - a work into which he has thrown his whole soul, - has allowed no anachronism, and no reference to anything Israelitish that is contradictory to its extra-Israelitish character, to escape him, such forgetfulness is very improbable; and when we, moreover, bear in mind that he often makes the friends refer to the destruction of Job’s children (as ; ; ), it is altogether inconceivable. Hence Schröring has proposed the following explanation: “My soul a substitution of which Hahn is also guilty is strange to my wife; my entreaty does not even penetrate to the sons of my body, it cannot reach their ear, for they are long since in Sheôl.” But he himself thinks this interpretation very hazardous and insecure; and, in fact, it is improbable that in the division, , where Job complains of the neglect and indifference which he now experiences from those around him, בטני בני should be the only dead ones among the living, in which case it would moreover be better, after the Arabic version, to translate: “My longing is for, or: I yearn after, the children of my body.” Grandchildren (Hirz., Ew., Hlgst. Hahn) might be more readily thought of; but it is not even probable, that after having introduced the ruin of all of Job’s children, the poet would represent their children as still living, some mention of whom might then at least be expected in the epilogue. Others, again (Rosenm. Justi, Gleiss), after the precedent of the lxx (υἱοὶ παλλακίδων μου), understand the sons of concubines (slaves). Where, however, should a trace be found of the poet having conceived of his hero as a polygamist, - a hero who is even a model of chastity and continence ( )? But must בטני בני really signify his sons or grandsons? Children certainly are frequently called, in relation to the father, בטנו פרי (e.g., ), and the father himself can call them בטני פרי (Mic 6:7); but בטן in this reference is not the body of the father, but the mother’s womb, whence, begotten by him, the children issue forth. Hence “son of my body” occurs only once ( ) in the mother’s mouth. In the mouth of Job even (where the first origin of man is spoken of), בטני signifies not Job’s body, but the womb that conceived him (vid., ); and thus, therefore, it is not merely possible, but it is natural, with Stuhlm., Ges., Umbr., and Schlottm., to understand בטני בני of the sons of his mother’s womb, i.e., of her who bare him; consequently, as אמּי בני, , of natural brethren (brothers and sisters, sorores uterinae ), in which sense, regarding וחנותי according to the most natural influence of the tone as infin., we transl.: “and my stinking is offensive (supply זרה) to the children of my mother’s womb.” It is also possible that the expression, as the words seem to be taken by Symmachus (υἱοὺς παιδῶν μου, my slaves’ children), and as they are taken by Kosegarten, in comparison with the Arab. btn in the signification race, subdivision (in the downward gradation, the third) of a greater tribe, may denote those who with him belong in a wider sense to one mother’s bosom, i.e., to the same clan, although the mention of בטני בני in close connection with אשׁתי is not favourable to this extension of the idea. The circle of observation is certainly widened in , where עוילים are not Job’s grandchildren (Hahn), but the children of neighbouring families and tribes; עויל (vid., ) is a boy, and especially (perh. on account of the similarity in sound between מעוּל and עוּל) a rude, frolicsome, mischievous boy. Even such make him feel their contempt; and if with difficulty, and under the influence of pain which distorts his countenance, he attempts to raise himself (אקוּמה, lxx ὅταν ἀναστῶ, hypothetical cohortative, as ; ), they make him the butt of their jesting talk (דּבּר בּ, as ).

‏ Job 19:16-29

Job 19:16-20 16 I call to my servant and he answereth not,

I am obliged to entreat him with my mouth. 17 My breath is offensive to my wife,

And my stench to my own brethren. 18 Even boys act contemptuously towards me;

If I will rise up, they speak against me. 19 All my confidential friends abhor me,

And those whom I loved have turned against me. 20 My bone cleaveth to my skin and flesh,

And I am escaped only with the skin of my teeth.

His servant, who otherwise saw every command in his eyes, and was attent upon his wink, now not only does not come at his call, but does not return him any answer. The one of the home-born slaves (vid., on Gen 14:14), ^{▼▼The (black) slaves born within the tribe itself are in the present day, from their dependence and bravery, accounted as the stay of the tribe, and are called fadâwîje, as those who are ready to sacrifice their life for its interest. The body-slave of Job is thought of as such as יליד בית.} who stood in the same near connection to Job as Eliezer to Abraham, is intended here, in distinction from גרי ביתי, Job 19:15. If he, his master, now in such need of assistance, desires any service from him, he is obliged (fut. with the sense of being compelled, as e.g., Job 15:30, Job 17:2) to entreat him with his mouth. התחנּן, to beg חן of any one for one’s self (vid., supra, p. 365), therefore to implore, supplicare; and בּמו־פּי here (as Psa 89:2; Psa 109:30) as a more significant expression of that which is loud and intentional (not as Job 16:5, in contrast to that which proceeds from the heart). In Job 19:17, רוּחי signifies neither my vexation (Hirz.) nor my spirit = I (Umbr., Hahn, with the Syr.), for רוח in the sense of angry humour (as Job 15:13) does not properly suit the predicate, and Arab. rûḥy in the signification ipse may certainly be used in Arabic, where rûḥ (perhaps under the influence of the philosophical usage of the language) signifies the animal spirit-life (Psychol. S. 154), not however in Hebrew, where נפשׁי is the stereotype form in that sense. If one considers that the elephantiasis, although its proper pathological symptom consists in an enormous hypertrophy of the cellular tissue of single distinct portions of the body, still easily, if the bronchia are drawn into sympathy, or if (what is still more natural) putrefaction of the blood with a scorbutic ulcerous formation in the mouth comes on, has difficulty of breathing (Job 7:15) and stinking breath as its result, as also a stinking exhalation and the discharge of a stinking fluid from the decaying limbs is connected with it (vid., the testimony of the Arabian physicians in Stickel, S. 169f.), it cannot be doubted that Jer. has lighted upon the correct thing when he transl. halitum meum exhorruit uxor mea. רוחי is intended as in Job 17:1, and it is unnecessary to derive זרה from a special verb זיר, although in Arab. the notions which are united in the Hebr. זוּר .r, deflectere and abhorrere (to turn one’s self away from what is disgusting or horrible), are divided between Arab. zâr med . Wau and Arab. ḏâr med . Je (vid., Fürst’s Handwörterbuch).

In Job 19:17 the meaning of חנּותי is specially questionable. In Psa 77:10, חנּות is, like שׁמּות, Eze 36:3, an infinitive from חנן, formed after the manner of the Lamed He verbs. Ges. and Olsh. indeed prefer to regard these forms as plurals of substantives (חנּה, שׁמּה), but the respective passages, regarded syntactically and logically, require infinitives. As regards the accentuation, according to which וחנותי is accented by Rebia mugrasch on the ultima, this does not necessarily decide in favour of its being infin., since in the 1 praet. סבּתי, which, according to rule, has the tone on the penultima, the ultima is also sometimes (apart from the perf. consec.) found accented (on this, vid., on Psa 17:3, and Ew. §197, a), as סבּוּ, קוּמה, קוּמי, also admit of both accentuations. ^{▼▼The ultima-accentuation of the form סבּותי is regular, is the Waw conv. praet. in fut. is added, as Exo 33:19, Exo 33:22; 2Ki 19:34; Isa 65:7; Eze 20:38; Mal 2:2; Psa 89:24. Besides, the penultima has the tone regularly, e.g., Jos 5:9; 1Sa 12:3; 1Sa 22:22; Jer 4:28; Psa 35:14; Psa 38:7; Job 40:4; Ecc 2:20. There are, however, exceptions, Deu 32:41 (שׁנותי), Isa 44:16 (חמותי), Psa 17:3 (זמתי), Psa 92:11 (בלתי), Psa 116:6 (דלותי). Perhaps the ultima-accentuation in these exceptional instances is intended to protect the indistinct pronunciation of the consonants Beth, Waw, or even Resh, at the beginning of the following words, which might easily become blended with the final syllable תי; certainly the reason lies in the pronunciation or in the rhythm (vid., on Psa 116:6, and comp. the retreating of the tone in the infin. חלותי (Psa 77:11). Looking at this last exception, which has not yet been cleared up, חנותי in the present passage will always be able to be regarded on internal grounds either as infin. or as 1 praet. The ultima-accentuation makes the word at first sight appear to be infin., whereas in comparison with זרה, which is accented on the penult., and therefore as 3 praet., וחנותי seems also to be intended as praet. The accentuation, therefore, leaves the question in uncertainty.}

If וחנותי is infin., the clause is a nominal clause, or a verbal one, that is to be supplemented by the v. fin. זרה; if it is first pers. praet., we have a verbal clause. It must be determined from the matter and the connection which of these explanations, both of which are in form and syntax possible, is the correct one.

The translation, “I entreat (groan to) the sons of my body,” is not a thought that accords with the context, as would be obtained by the infin. explanation: my entreating (is offensive); this signif. (prop. to Hithp. as above) assigned to Kal by von Hofmann (Schriftbew. ii. 2, 612) is at least not to be derived from the derivative חן; it might be more easily deduced from נחנתּ, Jer 22:23, which appears to be a Niph. like נחם, נאנח, from חנן, but might also be derived from ננחתּ = נאנחתּ by means of a transposition (vid., Hitz.). In the present passage one might certainly compare Arab. ḥnn, the usual word for the utterance and emotion of longing and sympathy, or also Arab. chnn , fut. i (with the infin. noun chanı̂n), which occurs in the signifn. of weeping, and transl.: my imploring, groaning, weeping, is offensive, etc. Since, however, the X. form of the Arab. chnn (istachanna) signifies to give forth an offensive smell (esp. of the stinking refuse of a well that is dried up); and besides, since the significatn. foetere is supported for the root חן (comp. צחן) by the Syriac chanı̂no (e.g., meshcho chanı̂no , rancid oil), we may also translate: “My stinking is offensive,” etc., or: “I stink to the children of my body” (Rosenm., Ew., Hahn, Schlottm.); and this translation is not only not hazardous in a book that so abounds in derivations from the dialects, but it furnishes a thought that is as closely as possible connected with Job 19:17. ^{▼▼Supplementary: Instead of istachanna (of the stinking of a well, perhaps denom. from Arab. chnn, prop. to smell like a hen-house), the verb hhannana (with Arab. ḥ) = ‛affana, “to be corrupt, to have a mouldy smell,” can, with Wetzstein, be better compared with חנּותי; thence comes zêt mohhannin = mo‛affin, corrupt rancid oil, corresponding to the Syriac חנינא. Thus ambiguously to the sellers of walnuts in Damascus cry out their wares with the words: el - mohhannin maugûd, “the merciful One liveth,” i.e., I do not guarantee the quality of my wares. In like manner, not only can Arab. dâr inf. dheir (dhêr), to be offensive, be compared with זרה, but, with Wetzstein, also the very common steppe word for ”to be bad, worthless,” Arab. zrâ, whence adj. zarı̂ (with nunation zarı̂jun).}

The further question now arises, who are meant by בטני לבני. Perhaps his children? But in the prologue these have utterly perished. Are we to suppose, with Eichhorn and Olshausen, that the poet, in the heat of discourse, forgets what he has laid down in the prologue? When we consider that this poet, within the compass of his work, - a work into which he has thrown his whole soul, - has allowed no anachronism, and no reference to anything Israelitish that is contradictory to its extra-Israelitish character, to escape him, such forgetfulness is very improbable; and when we, moreover, bear in mind that he often makes the friends refer to the destruction of Job’s children (as Job 8:4; Job 15:30; Job 18:16), it is altogether inconceivable. Hence Schröring has proposed the following explanation: “My soul a substitution of which Hahn is also guilty is strange to my wife; my entreaty does not even penetrate to the sons of my body, it cannot reach their ear, for they are long since in Sheôl.” But he himself thinks this interpretation very hazardous and insecure; and, in fact, it is improbable that in the division, Job 19:13, where Job complains of the neglect and indifference which he now experiences from those around him, בטני בני should be the only dead ones among the living, in which case it would moreover be better, after the Arabic version, to translate: “My longing is for, or: I yearn after, the children of my body.” Grandchildren (Hirz., Ew., Hlgst. Hahn) might be more readily thought of; but it is not even probable, that after having introduced the ruin of all of Job’s children, the poet would represent their children as still living, some mention of whom might then at least be expected in the epilogue. Others, again (Rosenm. Justi, Gleiss), after the precedent of the lxx (υἱοὶ παλλακίδων μου), understand the sons of concubines (slaves). Where, however, should a trace be found of the poet having conceived of his hero as a polygamist, - a hero who is even a model of chastity and continence (Job 31:1)?

But must בטני בני really signify his sons or grandsons? Children certainly are frequently called, in relation to the father, בטנו פרי (e.g., Deu 7:13), and the father himself can call them בטני פרי (Mic 6:7); but בטן in this reference is not the body of the father, but the mother’s womb, whence, begotten by him, the children issue forth. Hence “son of my body” occurs only once (Pro 31:2) in the mother’s mouth. In the mouth of Job even (where the first origin of man is spoken of), בטני signifies not Job’s body, but the womb that conceived him (vid., Job 3:10); and thus, therefore, it is not merely possible, but it is natural, with Stuhlm., Ges., Umbr., and Schlottm., to understand בטני בני of the sons of his mother’s womb, i.e., of her who bare him; consequently, as אמּי בני, Psa 69:9, of natural brethren (brothers and sisters, sorores uterinae), in which sense, regarding וחנותי according to the most natural influence of the tone as infin., we transl.: “and my stinking is offensive (supply זרה) to the children of my mother’s womb.” It is also possible that the expression, as the words seem to be taken by Symmachus (υἱοὺς παιδῶν μου, my slaves’ children), and as they are taken by Kosegarten, in comparison with the Arab. btn in the signification race, subdivision (in the downward gradation, the third) of a greater tribe, may denote those who with him belong in a wider sense to one mother’s bosom, i.e., to the same clan, although the mention of בטני בני in close connection with אשׁתי is not favourable to this extension of the idea. The circle of observation is certainly widened in Job 19:18, where עוילים are not Job’s grandchildren (Hahn), but the children of neighbouring families and tribes; עויל (vid., Job 16:11) is a boy, and especially (perh. on account of the similarity in sound between מעוּל and עוּל) a rude, frolicsome, mischievous boy. Even such make him feel their contempt; and if with difficulty, and under the influence of pain which distorts his countenance, he attempts to raise himself (אקוּמה, lxx ὅταν ἀναστῶ, hypothetical cohortative, as Job 11:17; Job 16:6), they make him the butt of their jesting talk (דּבּר בּ, as Psa 50:20). Job 19:21-25 21 Have pity upon me, have pity upon me,

O ye my friends, For the hand of Eloah hath touched me. 22 Wherefore do ye persecute me as God,

And are never satisfied with my flesh? 23 Oh that my words were but written,

That they were recorded in a book, 24 With an iron pen, filled in with lead,

Graven in the rock for ever! 25 And I know: my Redeemer liveth,

And as the last One will He arise from the dust.

In Job 19:21 Job takes up a strain we have not heard previously. His natural strength becomes more and more feeble, and his voice weaker and weaker. It is a feeling of sadness that prevails in the preceding description of suffering, and now even stamps the address to the friends with a tone of importunate entreaty which shall, if possible, affect their heart. They are indeed his friends, as the emphatic רעי אתּם affirms; impelled towards him by sympathy they are come, and at least stand by him while all other men flee from him. They are therefore to grant him favour (חנן, prop. to incline to) in the place of right; it is enough that the hand of Eloah has touched him (in connection with this, one is reminded that leprosy is called נגע, and is pre-eminently accounted as plaga divina; wherefore the suffering Messiah also bears the significant name חוּרא דבי רבּי, “the leprous one from the school of Rabbi,” in the Talmud, after Isa 53:4, Isa 53:8), they are not to make the divine decree heavier to him by their uncharitableness. Wherefore do ye persecute me - he asks them in Job 19:22 - like as God (כּמו־אל, according to Saad. and Ralbag = כמו־אלּה, which would be very tame); by which he means not merely that they add their persecution to God’s, but that they take upon themselves God’s work, that they usurp to themselves a judicial divine authority, they act towards him as if they were superhuman (vid., Isa 31:3), and therefore inhumanly, since they, who are but his equals, look down upon him from an assumed and false elevation. The other half of the question: wherefore are ye not full of my flesh (de ma chair, with מן, as Job 31:31), but still continue to devour it? is founded upon a common Semitic figurative expression, with which may be compared our Germ. expression, “to gnaw with the tooth of slander” comp. Engl. “backbiting”. In Chaldee, אכל קרצוהי די, to eat the pieces of (any one), is equivalent to, to slander him; in Syriac, ochelqarsso is the name of Satan, like διάβολος. The Arabic here, as almost everywhere in the book of Job, presents a still closer parallel; for Arab. 'kl lḥm signifies to eat any one’s flesh, then (different from אכל בשׂר, Psa 27:2) equivalent to, to slander, ^{▼▼Vid., Schultens’ ad Prov. Meidanii, p. 7 (where “to eat his own flesh,” equivalent to “himself,” without allowing others to do it, signifies to censure his kinsmen), and comp. the phrase Arab. aclu - l - a‛râdhi in the signification arrodere existimationem hominum in Makkari, i. 541, 13.} since an evil report is conceived of as a wild beast, which delights in tearing a neighbour to pieces, as the friends do not refrain from doing, since, from the love of their assumption that his suffering must be the retributive punishment of heinous sins, they lay sins to his charge of which he is not conscious, and which he never committed. Against these uncharitable and groundless accusations he wishes (Job 19:23) that the testimony of his innocence, to which they will not listen, might be recorded in a book for posterity, or because a book may easily perish, graven in a rock (therefore not on leaden plates) with an iron style, and the addition of lead, with which to fill up the engraved letters, and render them still more imperishable. In connection with the remarkable fidelity with which the poet throws himself back into the pre-Israelitish patriarchal time of his hero, it is of no small importance that he ascribes to him an acquaintance not only with monumental writing, but also with book and documentary writing (comp. Job 31:35).

The fut., which also elsewhere (Job 6:8; Job 13:5; Job 14:13, once the praet., Job 23:3, noverim) follows מי־יתּן, quis dabat = utinam, has Waw consec. here (as Deu 5:26 the praet.); the arrangement of the words is extremely elegant, בּסּפר stands per hyperbaton emphatically prominent. כּתב and חקק (whence fut. Hoph. יחקוּ with Dag. implicitum in the ח, comp. Job 4:20, and the Dag. of the ק omitted, for יוּחקּוּ, according to Ges. §67, rem. 8) interchange also elsewhere, Isa 30:8. ספר, according to its etymon, is a book formed of the skin of an animal, as Arab. sufre, the leathern table-mat spread on the ground instead of a table. It is as unnecessary to read לעד (comp. Job 16:8, lxx, εἰς μαρτύριον) instead of לעד here, as in Isa 30:8. He wishes that his own declaration, in opposition to his accusers, may be inscribed as on a monument, that it may be immortalized, ^{▼▼לעד is differently interpreted by Jerome: evermore hewn in the rock; for so it seems his vel certe (instead of which celte is also read, which is an old northern name for a chisel) sculpantur in siliece must be explained.} in order that posterity may behold it, and, it is to be hoped, judge him more justly than his contemporaries. He wishes this, and is certain that his wish is not vain. His testimony to his innocence will not descend to posterity without being justified to it by God, the living God.

Thus is ואני ידעתּי connected with what precedes. yd`ty is followed, as in Job 30:23, Ps. 9:21, by the oratio directa. The monosyllable tone-word חי (on account of which go'aliy has the accent drawn back to the penult.) is 3 praet.: I know: my redeemer liveth; in connection with this we recall the name of God, חי העולם, Dan 12:7, after which the Jewish oath per Anchialum in Martial is to be explained. גּאל might (with Umbr. and others), in comparison with Job 16:18, as Num 35:12, be equivalent to גּאל הדּם: he who will redeem, demand back, avenge the shedding of his blood and maintain his honour as of blood that has been innocently shed; in general, however, g'l signifies to procure compensation for the down-trodden and unjustly oppressed, Pro 23:11; Lam 3:58; Psa 119:154. This Rescuer of his honour lives and will rise up as the last One, as one who holds out over everything, and therefore as one who will speak the final decisive word. To אחרון have been given the significations Afterman in the sense of vindex (Hirz., Ewald), or Rearman in the sense of a second [lit. in a duel,] (Hahn), but contrary to the usage of the language: the word signifies postremus, novissimus, and is to be understood according to Isa 44:6; Isa 48:12, comp. Job 41:4. But what is the meaning of על־עפר? Is it: upon the dust of the earth, having descended from heaven? The words may, according to Job 41:25 [Hebr., Engl. Job 41:33], be understood thus (without the accompanying notion, formerly supposed by Umbreit, of pulvis or arena = palaestra, which is Classic, not Hebraic); but looking to the process of destruction going on in his body, which has been previously the subject of his words, and is so further on, it is far more probable that על־עפר is to be interpreted according to Job 17:16; Job 20:11; Job 21:26; Psa 30:10. Moreover, an Arab would think of nothing else but the dust of the grave if he read Arab. ‛alâ turâbinin this connection. ^{▼▼In Arabic ‛fr belongs only to the ancient language (whence ‛afarahu, he has cast him into the dust, placed him upon the sand, inf. ‛afr); Arab. gbâr (whence the Ghobar, a peculiar secret-writing, has its name) signifies the dry, flying dust; Arab. trâb, however, is dust in gen., and particularly the dust of the grave, as e.g., in the forcible proverb: nothing but the turâb fills the eyes of man. So common is this signification, that a tomb is therefore called turbe.}

Besides, it is unnecessary to connect קום על, as perhaps 2Ch 21:4, and the Arab. qâm ‛alâ (to stand by, help): על־עפר is first of all nothing more than a defining of locality. To affirm that if it refer to Job it ought to be עפרי, is unfounded. Upon the dust in which he is now soon to be laid, into which he is now soon to be changed, will He, the Rescuer of his honour, arise (קוּם, as in Deu 19:15; Psa 27:12; Psa 35:11, of the rising up of a witness, and as e.g., Psa 12:6, comp. Psa 94:16, Isa 33:10, of the rising up and interposing of a rescuer and help) and set His divine seal to Job’s own testimony thus made permanent in the monumental inscription. Oetinger’s interpretation is substantially the same: “I know that He will at last come, place himself over the dust in which I have mouldered away, pronounce my cause just, and place upon me the crown of victory.”

A somewhat different connection of the thought is obtained, if ואני is taken not progressively, but adversatively: “Yet I know,” etc. The thought is then, that his testimony of his innocence need not at all be inscribed in the rock; on the contrary, God, the ever living One, will verify it. It is difficult to decide between them; still the progressive rendering seems to be preferable, because the human vindication after death, which is the object of the wish expressed in Job 19:23, is still not essentially different from the divine vindication hoped for in Job 19:25, which must not be regarded as an antithesis, but rather as a perfecting of the other designed for posterity. Job 19:25 is, however, certainly a higher hope, to which the wish in Job 19:23. forms the stepping-stone. God himself will avenge Job’s blood, i.e., against his accusers, who say that it is the blood of one who is guilty; over the dust of the departed He will arise, and by His majestic testimony put to silence those who regard this dust of decay as the dust of a sinner, who has received the reward of his deeds.

But is it perhaps this his hope of God’s vindication, expressed in Job 19:25, which (as Schlottmann and Hahn, ^{▼▼Hahn, after having in his pamphlet, de spe immortalitatis sub V.T. gradatim exculta, 1845, understood Job’s confession distinctly of a future beholding in this world, goes further in his Commentary, and entirely deprives this confession of the character of hope, and takes all as an expression of what is present. We withhold our further assent.} though in other respects giving very different interpretations, think) is, according to Job’s wish, to be permanently inscribed on the monument, in order to testify to posterity with what a stedfast and undismayed conviction he had died? The high-toned introitus, Job 19:23, would be worthy of the important inscription it introduces. But (1) it is improbable that the inscription would begin with ואני, consequently with Waw, - a difficulty which is not removed by the translation, “Yea, I know,” but only covered up; the appeal to Psa 2:6; Isa 3:14, is inadmissible, since there the divine utterance, which begins with Waw, per aposiopesin continues a suppressed clause; כי אני would be more admissible, but that which is to be written down does not even begin with כי in either Hab 2:3 or Jer 30:3. (2.) According to the whole of Job’s previous conduct and habitual state of mind, it is to be supposed that the contents of the inscription would be the expression of the stedfast consciousness of his innocence, not the hope of his vindication, which only here and there flashes through the darkness of the conflict and temptation, but is always again swallowed up by this darkness, so that the thought of a perpetual preservation, as on a monument, of this hope can by no means have its origin in Job; it forms everywhere only, so to speak, the golden weft of the tragic warp, which in itself even resists the tension of the two opposites: Job’s consciousness of innocence, and the dogmatic postulate of the friends; and their intensity gradually increases with the intensity of this very tension. So also here, where the strongest expression is given both to the confession of his innocence as a confession which does not shun, but even desires, to be recorded in a permanent form for posterity, and also at the same time in connection with this to the confidence that to him, who is misunderstood by men, the vindication from the side of God, although it may be so long delayed that he even dies, can nevertheless not be wanting. Accordingly, by מלּי we understand not what immediately follows, but the words concerning his innocence which have already been often repeated by him, and which remain unalterably the same; and we are authorized in closing one strophe with Job 19:25, and in beginning a new one with Job 19:26, which indeed is commended by the prevalence of the decastich in this speech, although we do not allow to this observance of the strophe division any influence in determining the exposition. It is, however, of use in our exposition. The strophe which now follows develops the chief reason of believing hope which is expressed in Job 19:25; comp. the hexastich Job 12:11-13, also there in Job 12:14 is the expansion of Job 12:13, which expresses the chief thought as in the form of a thema. Job 19:26-29 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 Goële, 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 Cölln, BCr., Knapp, von Hofm., ^{▼▼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), ^{▼▼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 ^{▼▼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. ^{▼▼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 1Sa 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, Hölemann (Sächs. Kirchen- u. Schulbl. 1853, Nos. 48, 50, 62), König (Die Unsterblichkeitsidee im B. Iob, 1855), and others, also by the Jewish expositors Arnheim and Löwenthal. This rendering, which is also adopted in the Art. Hiob in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopädie, 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 Goële, 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; 2Sa 1:22; Jer 48:45). Accordingly, we translate: “and after my skin, which they tear to pieces thus, and free from my flesh, shall I behold Eloah.” That Job, after all, is permitted to behold God in this life, and also in this life receives the testimony of his justification, does not, as already observed, form any objection to this rendering of Job 19:26 : it is the reward of his faith, which, even in the face of certain death, has not despaired of God, that he does not fall into the power of death at all, and that God forthwith condescends to him in love. And that Job here holds firm, even beyond death, to the hope of beholding God in the future as a witness to his innocence, does not, after Job 14:13-15; Job 16:18-21, come unexpectedly; and it is entirely in accordance with the inner progress of the drama, that the thought of a redemption from Hades, expressed in the former passage, and the demand expressed in the latter passage, for the rescue of the honour of his blood, which is even now guaranteed him by his witness in heaven, are here comprehended, in the confident certainty that his blood and his dust will not be declared by God the Redeemer as innocent, without his being in some way conscious of it, though freed from this his decaying body. In Job 19:27 he declares how he will behold God: whom I shall behold to me, i.e., I, the deceased one, as being for me (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. ^{▼▼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. Köstlin (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 Goël, 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, ^{▼▼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; ^{▼▼The view of Böttcher, 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; ^{▼▼Job’s wish, Job 19:23, is accomplished, as e.g., Jam 5:1 shows, and his hope is realized, since he has beheld God the Redeemer enter Hades, and is by Him led up on high to behold God in heaven. We assume the historical reality of Job and the consistence of his history with the rest of Scripture, which we have treated in Bibl Psychol. ch. 6 §3, on the future life and redemption. Accordingly, one might, with the majority of modern expositors, limit Job’s hope to the beholding of God in the intermediate state; but, as is further said above, such particularizing is unauthorized.} but it is just as possible to understand him to mean the eyes of his renewed body (which the old theologians describe as stola secunda, in distinction from the stola prima of the intermediate state); and when Job thinks of himself (Job 19:25) as a mouldering corpse, should he not by his eyes, which shall behold Eloah, mean those which have been dimmed in death, and are now again become capable of seeing? While, if we wish to expound grammatical-historically, not practically, not homiletically, we also dare not introduce the definiteness of the later dogma into the affirmation of Job. It is related to eschatology as the protevangelium is to soteriology; it presents only the first lines of the picture, which is worked up in detail later on, but also an outline, sketched in such a way that every later perception may be added to it. Hence Schlottmann is perfectly correct when he considers that it is justifiable to understand these grand and powerful words, in hymns, and compositions, and liturgies, and monumental inscriptions, of the God-man, and to use them in the sense which “the more richly developed conception of the last things might so easily put upon them.” It must not surprise us that this sublime hope is not again expressed further on. On the one hand, what Sanctius remarks is not untrue: ab hoc loco ad finem usque libri aliter se habet Iobus quam prius; on the other hand, Job here, indeed in the middle of the book, soars triumphantly over his opponents to the height of a believing consciousness of victory, but as yet he is not in that state of mind in which he can attain to the beholding of God on his behalf, be it in this world or in the world to come. He has still further to learn submission in relation to God, gentleness in relation to the friends. Hence, inexhaustibly rich in thought and variations of thought, the poet allows the controversy to become more and more involved, and the fire in which Job is to be proved, but also purified, to burn still longer.

Ἐπ ̓ αὐτῶν τῶν λέξεων [τοῦ βιβλίου] γενόμενοι σαφηνίσωμεν τὴν ἔννοιαν,
αὐτοῦ ποδηγούντος ἡμᾶς πρὸς τὴν ἑρμηνείαν, τοῦ καὶ τὸν ἅγιον
Ἰὼβ πρὸς τοὺς ἀγῶνας ἐνισχύσαντος. - Olympiodoros.