THE BOOK OF JOB.

suffering, miserable, decayed cáp, he shall be- stranger, not another" (with which comp. Prov. hold God as a glorified spirit (Ewald, Vaihinger, xxvii. 2), containing an allusion to Job's three Schlottm., Arnheim, Delitzsch, Dillmann [Con, opponents, who could not share in this future Green]). This latter interpretation is favored joyful beholding of God the Vindicator, at least decidedly by the Imperf. in, which is not to not in the same blessed experience of it as himbe rendered in the present (as by Mercier, Hahn, self. Moreover the very fact that Job here so H. Schultz [Bibl. Theol. des A. T., Vol. II., obviously glances aside at his opponents, with 1870], etc.): I behold God even now in the spi-tion of Hirzel and others, who put the time of their hostile disposition, precludes the supposirit;" for then the circumstantial particulars, the beholding here prophesied in this life, and yandan, would appear meaning- regard ch. xxxviii. 1 seq. as the fulfillment of less, and almost unintelligible, but which is cer- the prophecy; for comp. ch. xlii. 7 seq. [Zocktainly to be construed in the future, expressing ler's argument seems to be that the vindication the hope in a joyful beholding of God hereafter, recorded at the close of the book could not be (comp. the similar meaning of in Ps. xvii. the vindication here anticipated by Job for the 15, also of in in Ps. xi. 7), that is to say, as reason that in the former case God did really the following verse shows yet more clearly, in appear to the friends, as well as to Job, whereas such a beholding of God in a glorified state after they were to be excluded (so also Delitzsch) death (Matth. v. 8; 1 John iii. 2, etc). The ex- from the appearance to which Job looked forpression of such a hope here "does not, after ward. But it is unnatural to suppose that the ch. xiv. 13-15; xvi. 18-21, come unexpectedly; Theophany and the Vindication in which Job and it is entirely in accordance with the inner here exults, would be limited either to himself progress of the drama, that the thought of a re- or to his sympathizing adherents. The very demption from Hades, expressed in the former object of it presupposes the presence, as witpassage, and the demand expressed in the latter nesses, of those who had wronged him. When passage for the rescue of the honor of his blood, Job accordingly says: "I shall see Him-my which is even now guaranteed him by his wit- eyes shall behold Him-and not a stranger" ness in heaven, are here united together into the he is not so much intimating that they would be confident assurance that his blood and his dust excluded, as denying that he himself would be will not be declared by God the Redeemer as in- excluded. The vindication was not to be in his nocent, without his being in some way conscious own absence, and before a stranger, who would of it, though freed from this his decaying body." feel no interest in the matter, but-in some (Delitzsch). strange, unaccountable way-he would be there, Ver. 27 describes, in triumphant anticipation participating in the awful glory and the blessed of the thing hoped for, how Job will then behold triumph of the scene. This view of the meanGod. Whom I shall behold for myself, to ing also gives the most satisfactory explanation wit, for my salvation; the ", of, not an "enemy," as shown above, which "for me ,, (emphatic Dat. commodi, as in Ps. lvi. 10; cxviii. 6) would be too general, but a "stranger," who would be inappropriate, nor "another," which being decidedly emphasized, as also ", "I,' would have no interest in the result. The jubiby the use of which Job makes prominent the lant tone of Job's mind is strikingly exhibited thought that he, who was so grievously perse- in the repetition of the pronoun: "I-for mecuted, and delivered over to certain death, was destined some day to enjoy a blessed beholding my eyes," the climax being reached in 7of God. And whom mine eyes shall see, -E.]-Finally, the fact that Job here hopefully and not a stranger.-N after the Fut. I promises this future beholding of God not only is the Perf. of certainty, or of futurity (præt.cular to his eyes, may certainly with perfectly good to himself as the personal subject, but in partipropheticum s. confidentiæ), and, can only right be appealed to in proof that the condition be nominative, synonymous with NS! (et in which he hopes to enjoy it, viz. disembodied, non alius, Vulg.; so also LXX., Targ. [E. V.], freed from the earthly, is to be understood and most), not accusative, as held by Gesenius not as one of abstract incorporeality, or absoin Thes., Vaih., Umbreit, Stickel, Hahn, v. Hofm. which is decidedly opposed to the concrete lute spirituality-for this is a representation [Noyes, Wemyss, Carey, Elzas, Green], who take the rendering which they assume, et non alium, the Old Testament Scriptures, which does not pneumatico-realistic mode of thought found in in the sense of et non adversarium, "and not as an enemy"—which is decidedly at variance with even represent God as abstractly incorporeal.— the universal use of, which never signifies My reins pine (therefore) in my bosom: "an enemy" [never at least except indirectly, and in a national connection, a hostile alien: it can scarcely be regarded as the word which Job would most naturally use in describing God's personal relations to himself,-E.], and also at variance with the clause, which ought not to stand without an object, if I were an appositional accusative. It is undoubtedly to be taken as a nominative [in cor-relation to and ", "I-my eyes"] "and not a

viz. with longing for such a view. 2, lit. "they are consumed, waste away, languish ; elsewhere used of the soul pining away with longing (Ps. lxxxiv. 3 [2]; cxix. 81), or of the eyes (Ps. lxix. 4 [3]; cxix. 123; comp. above ch. xi. 20; xvii. 5), here of that inner organ inmost and deepest affections, being used also which is regarded as the seat of the tenderest, in this sense in Ps. xvi. 7; vii. 10 [9] (Del., Biblical Psychology, p. 268 [Clark, p. 317]). Comp. also the Arabic phrase culaja tadhûbu,

my reins melt." Essentially the same meaning is given to the phrase in the various renderings which on other accounts are objectionable, e. g. the Syriac: "my reins waste away completely by reason of my lot;" that of Hahn: if my reins perish in my bosom." [E. V. and Good: "though my reins be consumed within me;" Lee and Conant: "when my reins are (or shall have been) consumed within me;" either of which renderings is far less expressive as limiting the description to Job's physical sufferings, now, or in death, and failing to bring out the pathetic emotion with which the passage expresses Job's ardent longing for the day of his vindication-a meaning which is not only far more in accordance with the general usage of the words (see reff. above), but also most touchingly appropriate here. As Dillmann also remarks: These words indicate that what Job has said just before expresses something altogether extraordinary."-E.]

6. Third Division: Conclusion: Earnestly warning the friends against the further continuance of their attacks: vers. 28, 29. [It is worthy of note how lofty the tone which Job, inspired by the vision of his future vindication, here assumes towards the friends. No longer a suppliant for pity (ver. 21), or trembling before their threats of the Divine vengeance, he now threatens them with that vengeance in case they persevere in their unjust treatment of him. -E.]

"the root of the matter" is to be taken in a good sense of Job's piety (Barnes), or the "justice of his cause (Renan). The expression has indeed become in English a proverbial one for religious sincerity, and we who have become accustomed to it in this sense may find a little difficulty in releasing our minds from the power of that association. It will be found difficult, however, to harmonize such a thought with the connection. In the E. V., for example, no one can help feeling that the connection between ver. 28 and the preceding passage has an unsatisfactory abruptness and lameness about it, and even this connection, such as it is, rests on a forced rendering of which is properly adversative only after an expressed or implied negative. And in general it may be said, that whether we regard ver. 28 b as a declaration of Job's sincerity by himself or by his friends, it will be found next to impossible to put it into proper and natural relations to ver. 28 a on the one hand, and to ver. 29 on the other. The most intelligible, tenable and forcible construction is that given above by Zöckler (and adopted by Ewald, Dillmann, Schlottmann, Delitzsch, Conant, Green), which regards vers. 28, 29 as a lofty warning to the friends, inspired by the triumphant anticipation of vers. 25-27, bidding them-if they continued to persecute him, and to charge him with harboring within himself the root of the calamities which had befallen him to beware of the sword!-E.]

Ver. 29. Apodosis: Be ye afraid (D"for yourselves," as in Hos. x. 5) before the sword, i. e. the avenging sword of God; comp. 7 in ch. xv. 22; xxvii. 14; Deut. xxxii. 41; Zech. xiii. 7, etc. ["a sword, without the art. in order to combine the idea of what is boundless, endless and terrific with the indefinite," Del.]. This sufficiently distinct threat of Divine punfor wrath (befalls) the transgressions of ishment is confirmed by that which follows: the sword, that ye may know that (there is) a judgment.-, "glow of wrath, rage," can scarcely be regarded as the subject, with the meaning: "for wrath (against friends) is one of the crimes of the sword" (Schultens, Stickel, Schlottmann), [Conant, Noyes, who with less than his usual accuracy renders by 'malice"]. Apart from the difficulty that

Ver. 28. If ye think [lit. say] How will we pursue him!— is neither causal (Stick.) [Rodwell], nor affirmative, "truly" (Umbreit, Hirzel, Vaih.), [nor adversative "but" (E. V.), which requires an untenable rendering of the clauses which follow; nor temporal-"then' (Wemyss, Renan, Elzas, who refer it to Job's restoration in this life; Good and Lee, who refer it to the resurrection), for this is inconsistent with the future ]; but, as the analogy of ch. xxi. 28 teaches, a conditional particle "if" ["when" Ewald; "since," Noyes], so that ver. 28 is the protasis of which ver. 29 is the apodosis. in that case is neither an interrogative "how?" (Böttcher) [Carey], nor "why?" (Umbreit, Hirzel [E. V., Rodmann, Elz. ], etc.), but exclamatory: "how! how much!" comp. ch. xxvi. 2, 3; Cant. vii. 2.-In regard to the construction of 77 with, found y can by no means, without modification be only here, comp. that with in Judg. vii. the partitive ii, the meaning is not at 25. With this exclamation of the friends all suited to the true position of Job as regards there is connected in b the expression of an the friends, who might rather reproach him with opinion, or a thought on their part in the oratio anger, than he them. Rather is a noun in obliqua: and (if you think): the root of the the predicate, the meaning being: "wrath are matter is found in me, i. e. the cause of my the sword's crimes," i. e. they carry wrath as a suffering lies only in me, viz. in my sin. As reward in themselves, they cause wrath, they regards this connection of an oratio obliqua with are infallibly overtaken by it (Rosenm., Hahn, an oratio recta, especially with exclamatory Delitzsch, Dillmann, etc.). ["Crimes of the clauses, comp. chap. xxii. 17; xxxv. 3; Ewald, sword are not such as are committed with the 338. According to the reading of the ancient sword-for such are not treated of here, and, versions (LXX., Targ., Vulg.), and of some with Arnh. and Hahn, to understand of MSS., which have 12 instead of ', this inter- the sword of hostilely mocking words' is arbichange of the direct and conditional form of trary and artificial-but such as have incurred expression is removed, assuredly against the the sword. Job thinks of slanders and blasoriginal construction. [According to another phemy." Delitzsch]. This explanation is better view, followed by the translators of the E. V., than that of Hirzel, Ewald [Rodwell], etc.:

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL.

1. The history of the interpretation of vers. 25-27, the passage of greatest theological importance in this chapter, exhibits three principal

rest on the texts of the ancient versions, and particularly of the LXX. and Vulg., which are more or less erroneous, and yield results which are one-sided and partially perverted. It is only the latest of these which, resting on the original text, avoids these one-sided results, and sets forth the poet's thought with unprejudiced objectivity.

a. A rigidly orthodox, or if the phrase be preferred, an ultra-orthodox (ultra-eschatological) view, which can be traced back into the earliest periods of the church, assumes that the passage last day. This assumption rests on the renderpredicts a resuscitation of the body by Christ on the ing of ver. 25 b, and ver. 26 a by the LXX., partly indeed also on the Targum, but more especially on the rendering of the passage in the Vulgate-a rendering which flows out of the older version, and which pushes still further its misinterpretation. The LXX. presents a version of the words which for the most part indeed is opposed, rather than otherwise, to the eschatological view, which limits Job's expectations to the present earthly life, which in fact almost wholly precludes the reference to the future. But the words beginning with Dp', ver. 25 b, (instead of which it read D'P), and ending with

"for wrath, i. e. something to be dreaded, are prevails more and more, until at last it remains the punishments of the sword," for iiy can supreme and alone." Ewald.] scarcely be taken in the sense of punishments, chastisements; even in Ps. xxxi. 11; xxxviii. 5; Lam. iv. 6, y signifies not so much punishment, as rather evil-doing, sin together with its mischievous consequences. The above interpretation is not, it is true, altogether satisfac-views of the meaning. Of these the two oldest tory; nevertheless, if we should attempt to amend the passage, it would be better to introduce a before ni, than either to change Пpn to pn (Gesenius: "for such, i. e. such transgressions as yours, are crimes of the sword) or to introduce the constr. state before , which is the construction given by the Pesh. and Vulg., the latter of which reads: quoniam ultor iniquitatum gladius est. A difficulty is also presented in the word (K'thibh) or (Kri) at the end of the last member, occasioned by the fact that does not elsewhere occur in the Book of Job, as also by the fact that the rendering of the LXX.-TOV čσTIV avrov i vŋ (or according to the Cod. Alex. or ovdaμov avτův ioxus kori) probably points to another text in the original. The above rendering, however: "that ye may know that there is a judgment," is in general accord with the context, and corresponds well to the meaning of these closing verses. It is not necessary with Heiligst., Dillmann, Ewald (2d Ed.), to read "that ye may know the Almighty;" nor (which is moreover linguistically inadmissible) to regard as a variation of " (Eichhorn, Hahn, Ewald, 1st Ed.), which would yield the same meaning. ['' has everywhere else the signification judicium, e. g. by Elihu, ch. xxxvi. 17; and also often in the Book of Proverbs, e. g. ch. xx. 8 (comp. in the Arabizing supplement, ch. xxxi. 8). The final judgment is in Aramaic N; the last day in Heb. and Arabic, 'n Di, jaum ed-din. To give to 1, "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." Delitzsch.]

[Thus does this lofty tragical discourse combine in itself the deepest humiliation and depression with the highest Divine elevation, the most utter despair with the most animated overflowing hope and the most blissful certainty. Not only does it occupy the lofty centre of the human controversy and of the whole action, but it also causes the first real and decisive revolution in Job's favor, because in it Job's two ruling thoughts and tendencies, the unbelief springing from superstition, and the higher genuine faith just forming itself come into such sharp and happy contact that the latter rushes forth out of its insignificance with irresistible might, and although the discord is not as yet harmonized, from this time on it maintains itself, gradually

N, ver. 26 a, which it combines together so as to form one sentence, it renders thus: avaσrhoe δέ μου τὸ σῶμα τὸ ἀναντλοῦν μοι ταῦτα (Cod. Alex.: ἀναστήσαι μου τὸ δέρμα μου τὸ ἀναντλοῦν ταῦτα). tion after death of the sorely afflicted body of Job According to this rendering a future resuscitais as distinctly as possible expressed. The TarI know that my Redeemer lives," and heregumist expresses essentially the same meaning: after my redemption will arise (i. e. be made, actual, become a reality) over the dust, and after that my skin is again made whole (or

according to another reading "is swollen up") this will happen, and out of my flesh shall I behold God. On the basis of these interpretations, which were rooted in the hopes of a resurrection cherished by the Jews after the exile, and especially on the basis of the former [that of the LXX.], Clemens Romanus (1 Cor. 26), Origen (Comm. in Matth. xxii. 23 seq.), Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech. XVIII.), Ephraem, Epiphanius (Orat. Ancorat), and other fathers before Jerome, found in the passages a proof of the church doctrine of the áváOTασię TÕs Oaрkóg. Still more definitely and completely did the passage acquire the character of a Scriptural proof of this doctrine from Jerome, as the author of the authorized Latin translation, which was adopted by the Western Church during the Middle Ages, as well as by the Catholic Church of recent times. While the predecessor of his work, the Itala, had somewhat indefinitely expressed a meaning approximating that of the LXX. ("super terram resurget cutis mea," e'c.), the Vulgate

set aside the last remnant of a possibility that I and quite recently the Catholic Welte, think that the passage should be understood of a restitution notwithstanding the various amendments which or a restoration of Job in this life. This it did following the original text they make to the verby introducing into the text of vers. 25 and 26 sion of the Vulg., or in a measure to that of Luthree inaccuracies of the most glaring sort. For ther, the passage must still be held to teach, at DP (or D'p) it substituted without more ado least in general, the Church doctrine of the reDIP, surrecturus sum; it rendered, in no-surrection, in that they favor the inadmissible rendering of

=

|

as neque ego alius (“and truly I not as another, I as unchanged"), or understand the appearing of the Redeemer on the dust" as having for its object the quickening of the dead, and hence as referring to the Second Advent of Christ, or find denoted in the glorified flesh of the resurrection body, or adopt other explanations of a like character (against which see above in the Exegetical and Critical Remarks).

b. A one-sided anti-eschatological view which limits the object of Job's hope and longing wholly to this life, which may also be called the skeptical or hypercritical rationalistic view has for its precursors in the Ancient Church Chrysostom, John of Damascus, and other fathers of the Oriental Church. By an allegorizing interpretation of the language of the LXX. avaorhoeɩ dé pov tò owμa rò ávavrhovv μoi тavra, these writers refine away the eschatological meaning which undoubtedly belongs to the passage as pointing to the hereafter, and refer it to the removal of his disease which Job hoped for, and the rehabilitation of his disfigured body; and they saw that the phraseology of the Septuagint in the remaining verses of the passage favored this interpretation. Most of the Jewish Exegetes during the Middle Ages adhered to their view so far as the principle was concerned, the principle, to wit, of excluding from the passage any messianic and eschatological application while in respect to many of the details they hit upon novel expedients, which were in part of a most wonderful and arbitrary character. The more freely inclined theologians of the Reformed Churches also, such as Mercier, Grotius, Le Clerc, substantially adopted this view. After Literatur I. 8, 1787) it acquired even a tempothe time of Eichhorn (Allg. Biblioth der Bibl.

vissimo die! and rendering p as Niphal of PP, "to surround, to circle," it gave to it no less arbitrarily the meaning of circumdabor, so that the whole passage is made to read thus: ver. 25: “scio enim, quod redemptor meus vivit et in novissimo die de terra surrecturus sum; ver. 26: et rursum circumdabor pelle mea et in carne mea videbo | Deum meum; ver. 27: quem visurus sum ego ipse et oculi mei conspecturi sunt et non alius; reposita est hæc spes mea in sinu meo.”—This interpretation, which was emphatically approved and recommended by Augustine (De Civ. Dei XXII., 29), held its ground through the Middle Ages among all Christian expositors, and all the more necessarily that a revision of the same after the Hebrew could not be undertaken by any one of them. Neither does Luther's translation-"But I know that my Redeemer liveth, and He will hereafter raise [or quicken] me out of the earth, and I shall thereupon be surrounded with this my skin, and shall see God in my flesh"-break through the spell of this doctrinally prejudiced interpretation; and just as little as Luther do the distinguished Reformed translators of the Bible, e. g., Leo Juda, Joh. Piscator, the authors of the English Version, etc., exhibit any substantial departure from the meaning or phraseology of the Vulgate. Thus the rendering under consideration succeeded in acquiring the most important influence even in the evangelical theological tradition. It came to be cited in Church symbols (e. g., Form. Conc. Epit., p. 375 R.) [Westminster Conf. of Faith XXXII. 2], catechisms and doctrinal manuals as a cardinal proof-text for the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, and occasionally even for the divinity of Christ (on account of the of ver. 26). It became a leading theme of sacred poets (e. g., of Louisa Henrietta v. Brandenburg, who wrote " "Jesus, meine Zuversicht" [Jesus, my Trust], of P.rary ascendency over the opposite opinions, and Gerhard, the author of "Ich weiss dass mein tendencies, such as Justi, v. Cölln, Knobel, Hirthat not only with commentators of rationalistic Erlöser lebt" [of Charles Wesley: "I know that my Redeemer lives"]), and in general itzel, Stickel, etc., but even with supra-naturalists, has received the most manifold application alike such as Dathe, Döderlein, Baumgarten-Crusius, in the domain of speculative theology, and in Knapp, Augusti, Umbreit, and even with Hahn, that of practical and ascetic piety. Even such strictly orthodox as he is elsewhere (De spe imthorough exegetes as Cocceius, Seb. Schmidt, mortalitatis sub V. T. gradatim exculta, 1845, and Starke, while in subordinate details occasionally his Comm. on the passage), with v. Hofmann departing from the traditional ecclesiastical ver(concerning whose peculiar rendering of DP! sion, advocate strenuously the direct christolo- see above on ver. 26), with the English theological and eschatological reference of the passage gians Wemyss, Stuart, Barnes [Warburton, (comp. also Jablonsky, De Redemptore stante suDivine Legation, Book VI., Sec. 2; Patrick, per pulverem, Francof. ad V. 1772: Gude and Kennicott, Noyes, Rodwell; to whom may be Rambach: De Jobo Christi incarnationis vate, added Elzas and Bernard], and others. Almost Halæ 1730, etc.). A number even of able Ori- all the advocates of this view agree in holding entalists, and independent Hebrew scholars since who interpret the passage of Christ and the final resurrec the last century, such as Schultens, J. H. and J. tion, may be ment oned Owen, Vol. XII., Stand. Lib. of Brit. D. Michaelis, Velthusen, Rosenmüller, Rosen- Divines, p. 508 seq.; Bp. Andrews' Sermons, Vol II., p. 251 garten, the English writers Mason, Good, Hales, seq. in Lib. of Ang.-Cath. Theol.; Bp. Sherlock, Works 1830, Vol. II, p. 167 seq.; John Newton, Works, Vol. IV., p. 435 J. Pye Smith [Scott, Lee, Carey, Wordsworth],* seq.; Bp. Pearson on the Creed, Art. XI.; Dr. W. H. Mill, Lent Sermons, Cambridge, 1845; Dr. W. L. Alexander, Connec, and Harm, of O. and N. Tests., p. 153 seq.-E.]

* [Among other prominent English theological writers

that in ver. 25 seq. Job, having just before | expressed the wish that he might see his protestation of innocence perpetuated, utters his conviction that such a perpetuation for posterity would not be necessary, that he himself would yet live to see the restoration of his honor and of his health, and that even though he should waste away to a most pitiful skeleton, he would be made to rejoice by the appearance of God to benefit him and none others.

c. An intermediate view, or one exhibiting a moderate eschatology, which resting on the most exact philological and impartial treatment of the original text, avoids the one-sided conclusions of the two older interpretations, has been advanced and defended by Ewald (Die Dichter des Alten Bundes, 1st Ed., Vol. III., 1836), and substantially adopted by Vaihinger, Schlottman, v. Gerlach, Hupfeld (Deutsche Zeitschrift, 1850, No. 35 seq.), Oehler (Grundzüge der alt-testamentlichen Weisheit, 1854), König (Die Unsterblichkeitsidee im B. Job, 1855, Hoelemann (Sächs. Kirchen, und Schulbl. 1853, No. 48 seq.), Del. (Art. Job in Herzog's Real-Encycl., and in his Commentary), Dillmann, Davidson (Introduction II. 224 seq.) [Conant, Canon Cook in Smith's Bib. Dict. Art. "Job;" MacClintock & Strong's Cyclop. Art. "Job"], and even by the Jewish expositors Arnheim and Löwenthal. According to the unanimous opinion of these investigators, Job here expresses the hope, not indeed of a bodily resuscitation from death, but neverthe less of a future beholding of God in a spiritual glorified state. It is not the hope of a resurrection; it is, however, the hope of immortality, to which he is here lifted up, and that too with great clearness and the most vivid definiteness, above the ordinary popular conception of the ancient Israelites, as it has been previously declared even by himself.

2. We have, in our Exegetical Remarks above, expressed our concurrence in this modified eschatological or futuristic exposition of the passage, because, on the one side, the unmodified doctrinal orthodox rendering presents too many linguistic errors and arbitrary constructions to have any scientific value whatever attached to it, and because on the other side the view which excludes every reference to the hereafter can be established only by allegorically or rationalistically refining away the obvious phraseology of the passage. The latter interpretation, which Hirzel in particular has attempted to support with great argumentative acuteness, cannot be successfully maintained.

a. The connection with vers. 23, 21 cannot be urged in its favor, for Job by no means contradicts the wish here expressed that the protestation of his innocence might be preserved for posterity, when in ver. 25 seq. he declares the assurance of his triumphant justification by God hereafter; rather in proclaiming this assurance he but takes a new step upward in the inspired conviction that God will at last interpose as the Avenger of his inno

cence.

b. Job's former hopelessness, as he contemplates the mournful lot of him who goes down into Sheol, cannot be used as an argument in favor of that view; for Job's former discourses

are by no means wanting in preparatory intimations of a clear and well-defined hope in future retribution and a blessed immortality: see especially ch. xiv. 18-15, and ch. xvi. 18-21.

c. Nor finally can the fact that neither by Job's friends, nor in the historical issue of the colloquy in the Epilogue is there any direct reference made to this expression of Job's hope of immortality, be urged against our interpretation; for "it is a general characteristic of all the discourses of the friends, that they-spellbound as they are within the circle of their external, legal views-scarcely enter at all in detail upon the contents of Job's discourses; and in ch. xxxviii. seq. God does not undertake the task of a critic, who passes judgment, one by one, on all the propositions of the contending parties. That the poet, however, should have framed for the drama a different issue from that which it has, is not to be desired, for the theme of the poem is not the question touching the immortality of man's spirit, but the question: how is the suffering of the righteous to be harmonized with the Divine justice" (Dillmann)? Such a change of the issue, moreover, would be undesirable for the reason that the very contrast between the deliverance and exaltation which Job here hopes for as something which lies after death, and the favor which God visits upon him even in this life, a favor infinitely surpassing all that he hopes and waits for, prays for or understands—this is one of the most striking beauties of the poem, con. stitutes indeed the real focus of its splendor and its crowning close (comp. v. Gerlach in the Homiletical Remarks on ver. 25 seq.). Such a sudden unexpected blazing up of the bright light of the hope of immortality, without frequent references to it afterwards, and without other preparations or antecedent steps leading to it than a wish (in ch. xiv. 13 seq.), and a demand of similar meaning (ch. xvi. 18 seq.)-corresponds perfectly to the style of our poet, who, having assigned his hero to the patriarchal age, does not ascribe to him his own settled certainty of faith, representing him as possessing such a certainty in the same clear, complete measure as himself; he aims rather to represent him as striving after such a possession. To this it may be added that Hirzel's view, which places the object of the sufferer's hope altogether in this life is contradicted by the fact that Job in what he has already said has repeatedly described his end as near, his strength as completely broken, his disease as wholly incurable, his hope of an earthly restoration of his prosperity as having altogether disappeared (ch. vi. 8-14; vii. 6; xiii. 13-15; xiv. 17-22; xvii. 11-16). With such extreme hopelessness, how would it be possible to reconcile the expression in ver. 25 seq. of the very opposite, as is assumed to be the case by the interpretation which refers that passage to this life? And why again hereafter, in ch. xxx. 23, does the gloomy outlook of a near and certain death find renewed expression in a way which cuts off all possibility of cherishing any hopes in regard to this life (see on the passage)? Wherefore such an unseemly wavering between the solemnly emphasized certainty of the hope in an appearance of Eloah, and the not less emphatic expression of the certainty that he