JOB 19

Franks calls this the “watershed of the book.”

There is little agreement as to the number or identification of individual literary units in this chapter.

Thus:

vv. 1-6, 7-12, 13-20, 21-27, 28-29 (Hartley)

vv. 1-20, 21-27, 28-29 (NEB)

vv. 1-12, 13-22, 23-29 (NRSV)

vv. 1-12, 13-22, 23-29 (JB)

My own literary analysis breaks it down as follows, although the section division points are not really well defined:

    A. The friends' attack on Job (vv. 1-5)

            B. God's attack on Job (vv. 6-22)

                    C. Words of hope (vv. 23-27)

    A'. The friends' attack on Job (v. 28)

            B'. God's judgment on the friends (v. 29)

Unfortunately, the often quoted key center verses here are the most difficult to translate of any in the chapter, and so uncertainty must remain concerning their actual implications.

19:2-3 Job uses the plural “you” referring to all three friends, but specifically to Bildad since the question “How long?” is also the way Bildad has begun his two speeches. (Hartley)

19:3 The ancient commentator Rashi felt that the “ten times” referred to the number of speeches thus far in the story. But that is highly doubtful because it counts the speeches of Job as well. Alternatively, Pape treats it as just a figurative round number.

19:4 Milgrom: “' If indeed I sinned without knowing it, it is I who should be conscious of it, but I am not.' In other words, 'it would be unfair of God to punish me for a wrong I did not know I had committed.”

Seow: “Job is saying that the error would no doubt bring its consequences. He is confident, however, that the error is not his but God's.”

Heavenor: “...even if he has sinned, that is no business of theirs. That is a matter between a man and his God.” The friends should therefore encourage him instead of judging him.

19:6 Clines explains that “there is no one to answer him, for God himself is the oppressor.” See Jeremiah 20:7 for a similar thought.

19:7 Clines feels that “There is no justice” does not refer to the injustice of God but that God is delaying the justice due to Job.

19:8 The general thought and some of the language here are similar to Lamentations 3:2-9.

19:9 Kabod (“honor”) can also refer to wealth. Job has lost both. (Pape)

19:10-12 God has not only cut him down like a tree (see 14:7) but even uprooted him so that he cannot recover. In addition, He has erected a siege ramp against him even though he is only a tent, not a walled city. (Hartley)

19:17 However, Job's children are all dead! It has therefore been suggested that it instead refers to Job's children by concubines, his grandchildren, or Job's brothers and sisters.

19:20-26 There is an interesting threefold pattern tying together these verses:

    skin (20a)...flesh (20a)

    skin (20b)...flesh (22)

    skin (26a)...flesh (26b)

19:20 Gary Long: “The surrounding context suggests that Job has been delivered from death but in a condition where death might have been a better alternative,” unlike the modern understanding of the phrase “escaped by the skin of my teeth.”

Pape: “It is quite hopeless to arrive at any certainty as to the correct text and the exact sense of the verse...It is certain only that Job refers to his poor physical condition.” Hartley agrees with this assessment: “The explanations for this last metaphor are multiple and unconvincing.”

19:21 “Their inflexible creed would not allow them to do so [show pity]. They had to choose between their friend and their faith.” (Heavenor)

19:22 Alter: “In context, the otherwise bland verb [“sated”] produces a horrific image of cannibalism, which manages to say a great deal with awesome compression about the perverted nature of the friends' relationship to the stricken Job.”

Alternatively, Tur-Sinai feels that “to eat the flesh” may refer to the practice of sexually abusing captives taken in war.

19:23-24 K.R.R. Gros Louis says, “Job seems to separate himself from his friends; their opinions are nothing compared to Job's more important audiences – us and his God.”

19:24 Konkel feels that this may refer either to an alloy out of which a stylus was made, or to molten lead being poured into grooves chiseled into a rock. The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery and other sources add the possibility that the iron tool inscribed the words on a sheet of lead.

19:25-27 A number of commentators point to the idea of the kinsman-redeemer which appears prominently in the book of Ruth. This person was expected to come to the defense or aid of a relative who was in trouble. Schneider and Brown translate this as the wish: “Oh, that I had a redeemer!” Hubbard points out that the identity of the redeemer is not certain. Some scholars feel it is God Himself. But more recent scholars note that it makes more sense if a third party defends Job against God. Another possibility he mentions is that it is a heavenly defender such as the archangel Michael (see Daniel 10) as a counterpart to Satan as the heavenly prosecutor.

“Unfortunately the Hebrew text of this and the subsequent verses is extraordinarily difficult, so that the popular interpretation of the passage [i.e. a belief in the afterlife] can hardly be supported.” (Clines) However, this is a rather illogical conclusion given the uncertainty involved in translation. Thus, although P.S. Johnston denies that these verses express a belief in the resurrection, he admits that the translation difficulties in this verse render any final decision on the matter uncertain. (NRSV actually has five translation notes for these two verses.) However, he states that “there is bold faith here: not that Job will survive death, but that he will eventually meet God. This indeed happens at the end of the book, though with an unexpected outcome: instead of defiant self-justification by Job, there is humble contrition, and instead of condemnation by God, there is vindication.”

Schneider and Brown state, “There has been considerable debate as to whether Job 19:25f looks to a life after death and even some form of resurrection.” However, “The translation is notoriously difficult...Rowley thinks it unlikely that we shall be able to achieve only convincing reconstruction within the limits of our present knowledge.” Heavenor agrees: “We cannot be certain of the meaning.”

There are at least four possibilities concerning Job's vindication as described in verses 25-26:

    Here on earth while Job is still alive

    Here on earth after Job is dead

    In his spiritual existence in heaven

    In his resurrected body

Naude similarly states, “Divergent views exist, depending on what kind of seeing is meant: physically in his own body (resurrected or restored), in a disembodied form / bodiless spirit, or in a vision.”

Rowley summarizes the situation by saying, “Two things seem to be clear. Job is assured that his Vindicator will arise to vindicate his innocence, and that he himself will see God.” H.M. Wolf also notes: “In Job 19:26 the rendering 'without my flesh I shall see God' yields a meaning diametrically opposed to 'in my flesh I shall see God.' Yet both translations are possible, and the English reader is to some extent at the mercy of the translator.” And as if that were not confusing enough, NRSV translates v. 27 to state that Job expresses the certainty that Job will see God “on my side,” rather than “with my eyes.”

One factor some use to argue against belief in any sort of afterlife expressed here is the paucity of other OT teachings on this subject. However, there are hints of such a belief found in several other OT passages, and so that should not be the prime factor for eliminating this as a possible interpretation of these verses.