Job 19:26

Job 19:26 And [though] after my skin [worms] destroy this [body], yet in my flesh shall I see God:

Ver 26. And though after my skin worms destroy this body] Here he pointeth again, as doth likewise David, when in Psa 34:6, he saith, "This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him," &c. So the ancient believers, when they came to that Article in the Creed, I believe the resurrection of the flesh, were wont to add, Etiam huius carnis, even of this flesh, pointing to some naked part of their body; or else alluding to that of the apostle, "This mortal must put on," &c.

Worms destroy this body] Heb. They destroy this. He saith not this body, quod ob deformitatem summam, non liceret corpus dicere, saith Vatablus, So worn it was, and wasted with sores and sicknesses, that it could scarcely be called a body. And yet it was not at the worst either, for in the grave it should be worm eaten, and something more. Mihi experto credite, saith Austin, Believe me, who have tried it, open dead men’s sepulchrcs, and upon their heads ye shall find toads crawling, begotten of their brains; on their loins serpents, begotten of their reins; in their bellies worms, begotten of their bowels, &c. (Serm. 48, ad Frat. in Erem.).

Yet in my flesh] Heb. Out of my flesh, as out of a casement.

I shall see God] I shall see Christ, Christum in corpore (Austin’s wish), the human and glorified body of Christ, who is God blessed for ever, as also the mystical body of his Church perfectly united unto him, 1Jn 3:2. To this sense some render the text thus, I shall see God in my flesh, that is, I shall see Christ sitting in glory, clothed with flesh, or in the likeness of man. And here do but think with thyself, though it far pass the reach of any mortal thought, saith one, what an infinite inexplicable happiness it will be to look for ever upon the glorious body of Jesus Christ, shining with incomprehensible beauty, and to consider that even every vein of that blessed body bled to bring thee to heaven; and that it being with such excess of glory hypostatically united to the second person in Trinity, hath honoured and advanced thy nature, in that respect, far above the brightest cherub. The whole verse may be read thus, And after I shall awake, though this body shall be destroyed, yet out of my flesh shall I see God. And being thus read, it is a plainer and fuller confession of the resurrection, saith an interpreter. It is common in Scripture to compare death to sleep and resurrection to awaking, Dan 12:2 Psa 17:15. The bodies of the saints are laid in the grave, as in a bed of roses, to ripen and mellow against the resurrection, and they write upon their graves, as one did once, Resurgam, I shall surely rise again (Dr King). Moses’s body, hid in the valley of Moab, appeared afterwards glorious in Mount Tabor. This is matter of joy and triumph, as it was here to Job, and to those good souls who were to lose all, Dan 12:2, and those, Heb 11:35, considering that God, by rotting, would refine their bodies, and in due time raise them conformably to Christ’s most glorious body, the standard. The forethought of this cheered up David’s good heart, Psa 16:9, and those in Isaiah, Isa 26:19, and the good people in our Saviour’s time, Joh 11:24. I know, saith Martha, concerning her brother Lazarus, that he shall rise again at the resurrection; at the consolation, saith the Syriac interpreter (Benuchama). Resurrection and consolation then were terms equivalent. Hence that great apostle, 2Co 4:16 : "For this cause we faint not," saith he. For what cause? Because we believe "that he which raised up the Lord Jesus, shall raise us up also by Jesus, and shall present us with you." And the same apostle maketh this doctrine of the resurrection the canon of consolation, 1Th 4:13-14, &c., to the end.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Job 19:26. And though after my skin, &c. — The style of this and other poetical books of the Scripture is concise and short, and therefore many words are to be understood in some places to complete the sense. The meaning here is, Though my skin be now, in a great measure, consumed by sores, and the rest of it, together with this body, shall be devoured by worms, which may seem to make my case quite desperate, yet in my flesh — Hebrew, מבשׁרי, mibbeshari, out of my flesh, or, with my flesh, that is, with eyes of flesh, or bodily eyes; my flesh, or body, being raised from the grave and reunited to my soul: (which is very fitly added, to show that he did not speak of a mental or spiritual, but of a corporeal vision, and that after his death:) shall I see God — The same whom he called his Redeemer, (Job 19:25,) who having taken flesh, and appearing in his flesh or body, with and for Job upon the earth, might well be seen with his bodily eyes. Nor is this understood of a simple seeing of him, but of that glorious and beatifying vision of God which is promised to all God’s people.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

26 And after my skin, thus torn to pieces,

And without my flesh shall I behold Eloah,

27 Whom I shall behold for my good,

And mine eyes shall see Him and no other -

My veins languish in my bosom.

28 Ye think: "How shall we persecute him?"

Since the root of the matter is found in me -

29 Therefore be ye afraid of the sword,

For wrath meeteth the transgressions of the sword,

That ye may know there is a judgment!

If we have correctly understood על־עפר,Job 19:25, we cannot in this speech find that the hope of a bodily recovery is expressed. In connection with this rendering, the oldest representative of which is Chrysostom, מבּשׂרי is translated either: free from my flesh = having become a skeleton (Umbr., Hirz., and Stickel, in comm. in Iobi loc. de Gole, 1832, and in the transl., Gleiss, Hlgst., Renan), but this מבשׂרי, if the מן is taken as privative, can signify nothing else but fleshless = bodiless; or: from my flesh, i.e., the flesh when made whole again (viz., Eichhorn in the Essay, which has exercised considerable influence, to his Allg. Bibl. d. bibl. Lit. i. 3, 1787, von Clln, BCr., Knapp, von Hofm.,

(Note: Von Hofmann (Schriftbeweis, ii. 2, 503) translates: "I know, however, my Redeemer is living, and hereafter He will stand forth which must have been יעמד instead of יקום] upon the earth and after my skin, this surrounding (נקּפוּ, Chaldaism, instead of נקּפוּת after the form עקּשׁוּת), and from my flesh shall I behold God, whom I shall behold for myself, and my eyes see [Him], and He is not strange.")

and others), but hereby the relation of Job 19:26 to Job 19:26 becomes a contrast, without there being anything to indicate it. Moreover, this rendering, as מבשׂרי may also be explained, is in itself contrary to the spirit and plan of the book; for the character of Job's present state of mind is, that he looks for certain death, and will hear nothing of the consolation of recovery (Job 17:10-16), which sounds to him as mere mockery; that he, however, notwithstanding, does not despair of God, but, by the consciousness of his innocence and the uncharitableness of the friends, is more and more impelled from the God of wrath and caprice to the God of love, his future Redeemer; and that then, when at the end of the course of suffering the actual proof of God's love breaks through the seeming manifestation of wrath, even that which Job had not ventured to hope is realized: a return of temporal prosperity beyond his entreaty and comprehension.

On the other hand, the mode of interpretation of the older translators and expositors, who find an expression of the hope of a resurrection at the end of the preceding strophe or the beginning of this, cannot be accepted. The lxx, by reading יקים instead of יקום, and connecting יקים עורי נקפו זאת, translates: ἀναστήσει δὲ (Cod. Vat. only ἀναστῆσαι) μου τὸ σῶμα (Cod. Vat. τὸ δέρμα μου) τὸ ἀναντλοῦν μοι (Cod. Vat. om. μοι) ταῦτα, - but how can any one's skin be said to awake (Italic: super terram resurget cutis mea),

(Note: Stickel therefore maintains that this ἀνιστάναι of the lxx is to be understood not of being raised from the dead, but of being restored to health; vid., on the contrary, Umbreit in Stud. u. Krit. 1840, i., and Ewald in d. Theol. Jahrbb., 1843, iv.)

and whence does the verb נקף obtain the signification exhaurire or exantlare? Jerome's translation is not less bold: Scio enim quod redemptor meus vivit et in novissimo die de terra surrecturus sum, as though it were אקום, not יקום, and as though אחרון could signify in novissimo die (in favour of which Isa 9:1 can only seemingly be quoted)! The Targ. translates: "I know that my Redeemer liveth, and hereafter His redemption will arise (become a reality) over the dust (into which I shall be dissolved), and after my skin is again made whole (thus

(Note: In this signification, to recover, prop. to recover one's self, אתּפח is used in Talmudic; vid., Buxtorf, פוח and תפח. The rabbinical expositors ignore this Targum, and in general furnish but little that is useful here.)

אתּפח seems to require to be translated, not intumuit) this will happen; and from my flesh I shall again behold God." It is evident that this is intended of a future restoration of the corporeal nature that has become dust, but the idea assigned to נקפו ot is without foundation. Luther also cuts the knot by translating: (But I know that my Redeemer liveth), and He will hereafter raise me up out of the ground, which is an impossible sense that is word for word forced upon the text. There is just as little ground for translating Job 19:26 with Jerome: et rursum circumdabor pelle mea (after which Luther: and shall then be surrounded with this my skin); for נקּפוּ can as Niph. not signify circumdabor, and as Piel does not give the meaning cutis mea circumdabit (scil. me), since נקפו cannot be predicate to the sing. עורי. In general, נקפו cannot be understood as Niph., but only as Piel; the Piel niqap, however, signifies not: to surround, but: to strike down, e.g., olives from the tree, Isa 17:6, or the trees themselves, so that they lie felled on the ground, Isa 10:34, comp. Arab. nqf, to strike into the skull and injure the soft brain, then: to strike forcibly on the head (gen. on the upper part), or also: to deal a blow with a lance or stick.

(Note: Thus, according to the Turkish Kamus: to sever the skull from (Arab. ‛n) the brain, i.e., so that the brain is laid bare, or also e.g., to split the coloquintida or bitter cucumber, so that the seeds are laid bare, or: to crack the bones and take out the marrow, cognate with Arab. nqb, for the act of piercing an egg is called both naqaba and naqafa-l-beidha. In Hebrew נקף coincides with נגף, not with נקב.)

Therefore Job 19:26, according to the usage of the Semitic languages, can only be intended of the complete destruction of the skin, which is become cracked and broken by the leprosy; and this was, moreover, the subject spoken of above (Job 19:20, comp. Job 30:19). For the present we leave it undecided whether Job here confesses the hope of the resurrection, and only repel those forced misconstructions of his words which arbitrarily discern this hope in the text. Free from such violence is the translation: and after this my skin is destroyed, i.e., after I shall have put off this my body, from my flesh (i.e., restored and transfigured), I shall behold God. Thus is מבשׂרי understood by Rosenm., Kosegarten (diss. in Iob, xix. 1815), Umbreit (Stud. u. Krit. 1840, i.), Welte, Carey, and others. But this interpretation is also untenable. For, 1. In this explanation Job 19:26 is taken as an antecedent; a praepos., however, like אחר or עד, used as a conj., has, according to Hirzel's correct remark, the verb always immediately after it, as Job 42:7; Lev 14:43; whereas Sa1 20:41, the single exception, is critically doubtful. 2. It is not probable that the poet by עורי should have thought of the body, which disease is rapidly hurrying on to death, and by בשׂרי, on the other hand, of a body raised up and glorified. 3. Still more improbable is it that בשׂר should be so used here as in the church's term, resurrectio carnis, which is certainly an allowable expression, but one which exceeds the meaning of the language of Scripture. בשׂר, σάρξ, is in general, and especially in the Old Testament, a notion which has grown up in almost inseparable connection with the marks of frailty and sinfulness. And 4. The hope of a resurrection as a settled principle in the creed of Israel is certainly more recent than the Salomonic period. Therefore by far the majority of modern expositors have decided that Job does not indeed here avow the hope of the resurrection, but the hope of a future spiritual beholding of God, and therefore of a future life; and thus the popular idea of Hades, which elsewhere has sway over him, breaks out. Thus, of a future spiritual beholding of God, are Job's words understood by Ewald, Umbreit (who at first explained them differently), Vaihinger, Von Gerlach, Schlottmann, Hlemann (Schs. Kirchen- u. Schulbl. 1853, Nos. 48, 50, 62), Knig (Die Unsterblichkeitsidee im B. Iob, 1855), and others, also by the Jewish expositors Arnheim and Lwenthal. This rendering, which is also adopted in the Art. Hiob in Herzog's Real-Encyclopdie, does not necessitate any impossible misconstruction of the language, but, as we shall see further on, it does not exhaust the meaning of Job's confession.

First of all, we will continue the explanation of each expression אחר is a praepos., and used in the same way as the Arabic ba‛da is sometimes used: after my skin, i.e., after the loss of it (comp. Job 21:21, אחריו, after he is dead). נקּפוּ is to be understood relatively: which they have torn in pieces, i.e., which has been torn in pieces (comp. the same use of the 3 pers., Job 4:19; Job 18:18); and זאת, which, according to Targ., Koseg., Stickel de Gole, and Ges. Thes., ought to be taken inferentially, equivalent to hoc erit (this, however, cannot be accepted, because it must have been וזאת אחר וגו, Arab. w-ḏlk b‛d 'n, idque postquam, and moreover would require the words to be arranged אחר נקפו עורי), commonly however taken together with עורי (which is nevertheless masc.), is understood as pointing to his decayed body, seems better to be taken adverbially: in this manner (Arnheim, Stickel in his translation, von Gerl., Hahn); it is the acc. of reference, as Job 33:12. The מן of מבּשׂרי is the negative מן: free from my flesh (prop. away, far from, Num 15:25; Pro 20:3), - a rather frequent way of using this preposition (vid., Job 11:15; Job 21:9; Gen 27:39; Sa2 1:22; Jer 48:45). Accordingly, we translate: "and after my skin, which they tear to pieces thus, and free from my flesh, shall I behold Eloah." That Job, after all, is permitted to behold God in this life, and also in this life receives the testimony of his justification, does not, as already observed, form any objection to this rendering of Job 19:26 : it is the reward of his faith, which, even in the face of certain death, has not despaired of God, that he does not fall into the power of death at all, and that God forthwith condescends to him in love. And that Job here holds firm, even beyond death, to the hope of beholding God in the future as a witness to his innocence, does not, after Job 14:13-15; Job 16:18-21, come unexpectedly; and it is entirely in accordance with the inner progress of the drama, that the thought of a redemption from Hades, expressed in the former passage, and the demand expressed in the latter passage, for the rescue of the honour of his blood, which is even now guaranteed him by his witness in heaven, are here comprehended, in the confident certainty that his blood and his dust will not be declared by God the Redeemer as innocent, without his being in some way conscious of it, though freed from this his decaying body. In Job 19:27 he declares how he will behold God: whom I shall behold to me, i.e., I, the deceased one, as being for me (לי, like Psa 62:2; Psa 118:6), and my eyes see Him, and not a stranger. Thus (neque alius) lxx, Targ., Jerome, and most others translate; on the other hand, Ges. Thes., Umbr., Vaih., Stick., Hahn, and von Hofm. translate: my eyes see Him, and indeed not as an enemy; but זר signifies alienus and alius, not however adversarius, which latter meaning it in general obtains only in a national connection; here (used as in Pro 27:2) it excludes the three: none other but Job, by which he means his opponents, will see God rising up for him, taking up his cause. ראוּ is praet. of the future, therefore praet. propheticum, or praet. confidentiae (as frequently in the Psalms). His reins within him pine after this vision of God. Hahn, referring to Job 16:13, translates incorrectly: "If even my reins within me perish," which is impossible, according to the syntax; for Psa 73:26 has כלה in the sense of licet defecerit as hypothetical antecedent. The Syriac version is altogether wrong: my reins (culjot) vanish completely away by reason of my lot (בּחקּי). It would be expressed in Arabic exactly as it is here: culâja (or, dual, culatâja) tadhûbu, my reins melt; for in Arab. also, as in the Semitic languages generally, the reins are considered as the seat of the tenderest and deepest affections (Psychol. S. 268, f), especially of love, desire, longing, as here, where כּלה, as in Psa 119:123 and freq., is intended of wasting away in earnest longing for salvation.

Having now ended the exposition of the single expressions, we inquire whether those do justice to the text who understand it of an absolutely bodiless future beholding of God. We doubt it. Job says not merely that he, but that his eyes, shall behold God. He therefore imagines the spirit as clothed with a new spiritual body instead of the old decayed one; not so, however, that this spiritual body, these eyes which shall behold in the future world, are brought into combination with the present decaying body of flesh. But his faith is here on the direct road to the hope of a resurrection; we see it germinating and struggling towards the light. Among the three pearls which become visible in the book of Job above the waves of conflict, viz., Job 14:13-15; Job 16:18-21; Job 19:25-27, there is none more costly than this third. As in the second part of Isaiah, the fifty-third chapter is outwardly and inwardly the middle and highest point of the 3 x 9 prophetic utterances, so the poet of the book of Job has adorned the middle of his work with this confession of his hero, wherein he himself plants the flag of victory above his own grave.

Now in Job 19:28 Job turns towards the friends. He who comes forth on his side as his advocate, will make Himself felt by them to be a judge, if they continue to persecute the suffering servant of God (comp. Job 13:10-12). It is not to be translated: for then ye will say, or: forsooth then will ye say. This would be כי אז תאמרו, and certainly imply that the opponents will experience just the same theophany, that therefore it will be on the earth. Oehler (in his Veteris Test. sententia de rebus post mortem futuris, 1846) maintains this instance against the interpretation of this confession of Job of a future beholding; it has, however, no place in the text, and Oehler rightly gives no decisive conclusion.

(Note: He remains undecided between a future spiritual and a present beholding of God: harum interpretationum utra rectior sit, vix erit dijudicandum, nam in utramque partem facile potest disputari.)

For Job 19:28, as is rightly observed by C. W. G. Kstlin (in his Essay, de immortalitatis spe, quae in l. Iobi apparere dicitur, 1846) against Oehler, and is even explained by Oetinger, is the antecedent to Job 19:29 (comp. Job 21:28.): if ye say: how, i.e., under what pretence of right, shall we prosecute him (נרדּף־לו, prop. pursue him, comp. Jdg 7:25), and (so that) the root of the matter (treated of) is found in me (בי, not בּו, since the oratio directa, as in Job 22:17, passes into the oratio obliqua, Ew. 338, a); in other words: if ye continue to seek the cause of my suffering in my guilt, fear ye the sword, i.e., God's sword of vengeance (as Job 15:22, and perhaps as Isa 31:8 : a sword, without the art. in order to combine the idea of what is boundless, endless, and terrific with the indefinite - the indetermination ad amplificandum described on Psa 2:12). The confirmatory substantival clause which follows has been very variously interpreted. It is inadmissible to understand חמה of the rage of the friends against Job (Umbr., Schlottm., and others), or חרב עונות of their murderous sinning respecting Job; both expressions are too strong to be referred to the friends. We must explain either: the glow, i.e., the glow of the wrath of God, are the expiations which the sword enjoins (Hirz., Ew., and others); but apart from עון not signifying directly the punishment of sin, this thought is strained; or, which we with Rosenm. and others prefer: glow, i.e., the glow of the wrath of God, are the sword's crimes, i.e., they carry glowing anger as their reward in themselves, wrath overtakes them. Crimes of the sword are not such as are committed with the sword - for such are not treated of here, and, with Arnh. and Hahn, to understand חרב of the sword "of hostilely mocking words," is arbitrary and artificial - but such as have incurred the sword. Job thinks of slander and blasphemy. These are even before a human tribunal capital offences (comp. Job 31:11, Job 31:28). He warns the friends of a higher sword and a higher power, which they will not escape: "that ye may know it." שׁדּין, for which the Keri is שׁדּוּן. An ancient various reading (in Pinkster) is ידעוּן (instead of תּדעוּן). The lxx shows how it is to be interpreted: θυμὸς γὰρ ἐπ ̓ ἀνόμους (Cod. Alex. - οις) ἐπελεύσεται, καὶ τότε γνώσονται. According to Cod. Vat. the translation continues ποῦ ἔστιν αὐτῶν ἡ ὕλη (שׂדין, comp. Job 29:5, where שׁדי is translated by ὑλώδης); according to Cod. Alex. ὅτι οὐδαμοῦ αὐτῶν ἡ ἴσχυς ἐστίν (שׁדין from שׁדד). Ewald in the first edition, which Hahn follows, considers, as Eichhorn already had, שׁדּין as a secondary form of שׁדּי; Hlgst. wishes to read שׁדּי at once. It might sooner, with Raschi, be explained: that ye might only know the powers of justice, i.e., the manifold power of destruction which the judge has at his disposal. But all these explanations are unsupported by the usage of the language, and Ewald's conjecture in his second edition: אי שׁדּכם (where is your violence), has nothing to commend it; it goes too far from the received text, calls the error of the friends by an unsuitable name, and gives no impressive termination to the speech.

On the other hand, the speech could not end more suitably than by Job's bringing home to the friends the fact that there is a judgment; accordingly it is translated by Aq. ὅτι κρίσις; by Symm., Theod., ὅτι ἔστι κρίσις. שׁ is = אשׁר once in the book of Job, as probably also once in the Pentateuch, Gen 6:3. דּין or דּוּן are infinitive forms; the latter from the Kal, which occurs only in Gen 6:3, with Cholem, which being made a substantive (as e.g., בּוּז), signifies the judging, the judgment. Why the Keri substitutes דון, which does not occur elsewhere in the signification judicium, for the more common דין, is certainly lost to view, and it shows only that the reading shdwn was regarded in the synagogue as the traditional. דּין has everywhere else the signification judicium, e.g., by Elihu, Job 36:17, and also often in the book of Proverbs, e.g., Job 20:8 (comp. in the Arabizing supplement, ch. 31:8). The final judgment is in Aramaic רבּא דּינא; the last day in Hebrew and Arabic, הדּין יום, jaum ed-dı̂n. To give to "שׁדין, that there is a judgment," this dogmatically definite meaning, is indeed, from its connection with the historical recognition of the plan of redemption, inadmissible; but there is nothing against understanding the conclusion of Job's speech according to the conclusion of the book of Ecclesiastes, which belongs to the same age of literature.

The speech of Job, now explained, most clearly shows us how Job's affliction, interpreted by the friends as a divine retribution, becomes for Job's nature a wholesome refining crucible. We see also from this speech of Job, that he can only regard his affliction as a kindling of divine wrath, and God's meeting him as an enemy (Job 19:11). But the more decidedly the friends affirm this, and describe the root of the manifestation as lying in himself, in his own transgression; and the more uncharitably, as we have seen it at last in Bildad's speech, they go to an excess in their terrible representations of the fate of the ungodly with unmistakeable reference to him: the more clearly is it seen that this indirect affliction of misconstruction must tend to help him in his suffering generally to the right relation towards God. For since the consolation expected from man is changed into still more cutting accusation, no other consolation remains to him in all the world but the consolation of God; and if the friends are to be in the right when they persist unceasingly in demonstrating to him that he must be a heinous sinner, because he is suffering so severely, the conclusion is forced upon him in connection with his consciousness of innocence, that the divine decree is an unjust one (Job 19:5). From such a conclusion, however, he shrinks back; and this produces a twofold result. The crushing anguish of soul which the friends inflict on him, by forcing upon him a view of his suffering which is as strongly opposed to his self-consciousness as to his idea of God, and must therefore bring him into the extremest difficulty of conscience, drives him to the mournful request, "Have pity upon, have pity upon me, O ye my friends" (Job 19:21); they shall not also pursue him whom God's hand has touched, as if they were a second divine power in authority over him, that could dispose of him at its will and pleasures; they shall, moreover, cease from satisfying the insatiable greed of their nature upon him. He treats the friends in the right manner; so that if their heart were not encrusted by their dogma, they would be obliged to change their opinion. This in Job's conduct is an unmistakeable step forward to a more spiritual state of mind. But the stern inference of the friends has a beneficial influence not merely on his relation to them, but also on his relation to God. To the wrathful God, whom they compel him to regard also as unjust, he cannot in itself cling. He is so much the less able to do this, as he is compelled the more earnestly to long for vindication, the more confidently he is accused.

When he now wishes that the testimony which he has laid down concerning his innocence, and which is contemporaries do not credit, might be graven in the rock with an iron pen, and filled in with lead, the memorial in words of stone is but a dead witness; and he cannot even for the future rely on men, since he is so contemptuously misunderstood and deceived by them in the present. This impels his longing after vindication forward from a lifeless thing to a living person, and turns his longing from man below to God above. He has One who will acknowledge his misjudged cause, and set it right, - a Gol, who will not first come into being in a later generation, but liveth - who has not to come into being, but is. There can be no doubt that by the words chy n'l he means the same person of whom in Job 16:19 he says: "Behold, even now in heaven is my Witness, and One who acknowledges me is in the heights." The חי here corresponds to the גם עתה in that passage; and from this - that the heights of heaven is the place where this witness dwells - is to be explained the manner in which Job (Job 19:25) expresses his confident belief in the realization of that which he (Job 16:20) at first only importunately implores: as the Last One, whose word shall avail in the ages of eternity, when the strife of human voices shall have long been silent, He shall stand forth as finally decisive witness over the dust, in which Job passed away as one who in the eye of man was regarded as an object of divine punishment. And after his skin, in such a manner destroyed, and free from his flesh, which is even now already so fallen in that the bones may be seen through it (Job 19:20), he will behold Eloah; and he who, according to human judgment, has died the death of the unrighteous, shall behold Eloah on his side, his eyes shall see and not a stranger; for entirely for his profit, in order that he may bask in the light of His countenance, will He reveal himself.

This is the picture of the future, for the realization of which Job longs so exceedingly, that his reins within him pine away with longing. Whence we see, that Job does not here give utterance to a transient emotional feeling, a merely momentary flight of faith; but his hidden faith, which during the whole controversy rests at the bottom of his soul, and over which the waves of despair roll away, here comes forth to view. He knows, that although his outward man may decay, God cannot, however, fail to acknowledge his inner man. But does this confidence of faith of Job really extend to the future life? It has, on the contrary, been observed, that if the hope expressed with such confidence were a hope respecting the future life, Job's despondency would be trifling, and to be rejected; further, that this hope stands in contradiction to his own assertion, Job 14:14 : "If man dies, shall he live again? All the days of my warfare would I wait, till my change should come;" thirdly, that Job's character would be altogether wrongly drawn, and would be a psychological caricature, if the thought slumbering in Job's mind, which finds utterance in Job 19:25-27, were the thought of a future vision of God; and finally, that the unravelling of the knot of the puzzle, which continually increases in entanglement by the controversy with the friends, at the close of the drama, is effected by a theophany, which issues in favour of one still living, not, as ought to be expected by that rendering, a celestial scene unveiled over the grave of Job. But such a conclusion was impossible in an Old Testament book. The Old Testament as yet knew nothing of a heaven peopled with happy human spirits, arrayed in white robes (the stola prima). And at the time when the book of Job was composed, there was also neither a positive revelation nor a dogmatic confession of the resurrection of the dead, which forms the boundary of the course of this world, in existence. The book of Job, however, shows us how, from the conflict concerning the mystery of this present life, faith struggled forth towards a future solution. The hope which Job expresses is not one prevailing in his age - not one that has come to him from tradition - not one embracing mankind, or even only the righteous in general. All the above objections would be really applicable, if it were evident here that Job was acquainted with the doctrine of a beholding of God after death, which should recompense the pious for the sufferings of this present time. But such is not the case. The hope expressed is not a finished and believingly appropriating hope; on the contrary, it is a hope which is first conceived and begotten under the pressure of divinely decreed sufferings, which make him appear to be a transgressor, and of human accusations which charge him with transgression. It is impossible for him to suppose that God should remain, as now, so hostilely turned from him, without ever again acknowledging him. The truth must at last break through the false appearance, and wrath again give place to love. That it should take place after his death, is only the extreme which his faith assigns to it.

If we place ourselves on the standpoint of the poet, he certainly here gives utterance to a confession, to which, as the book of Proverbs also shows, the Salomonic Chokma began to rise in the course of believing thought; but also on the part of the Chokma, this confession was primarily only a theologoumenon, and was first in the course of centuries made sure under the combined agency of the progressive perception of the revelation and facts connected with redemption; and it is first of all in the New Testament, by the descent to Hades and the ascension to heaven of the Prince of Life, that it became a fully decided and well-defined element of the church's creed. If, however, we place ourselves on the standpoint of the hero of the drama, this hope of future vindication which flashes through the fierceness of the conflict, far from making it a caricature,

(Note: If Job could say, like Tobia, Job 2:1-13 :17f., Vulg.: filii sanctorum sumus et vitam illam exspectamus, quam Deus daturus est his qui fidem suam nunquam mutant ab eo, his conduct would certainly be different; but what he expresses in Job 19:25-27 is very far removed from this confession of faith of Tobia.)

gives to the delineation of his faith, which does not forsake God, the final perfecting stroke. Job is, as he thinks, meeting certain death. Why then should not the poet allow him to give utterance to that demand of faith, that he, even if God should permit him apparently to die the sinner's death, nevertheless cannot remain unvindicated? Why should he not allow him here, in the middle of the drama, to rise from the thought, that the cry of his blood should not ascend in vain, to the thought that this vindication of his blood, as of one who is innocent, should not take place without his being consciously present, and beholding with his own eyes the God by whose judicial wrath he is overwhelmed, as his Redeemer? This hope, regarded in the light of the later perception of the plan of redemption, is none other than the hope of a resurrection; but it appears here only in the germ, and comes forward as purely personal: Job rises from the dust, and, after the storm of wrath is passed, sees Eloah, as one who acknowledges him in love, while his surviving opponents fall before the tribunal of this very God. It is therefore not a share in the resurrection of the righteous (in Isa 26, which is uttered prophetically, but first of all nationally), and not a share in the general resurrection of the dead (first expressed in Dan 12:2), with which Job consoled himself; he does not speak of what shall happen at the end of the days, but of a purely personal matter after his death. Considering himself as one who must die, and thinking of himself as deceased, and indeed, according to appearance, overwhelmed by the punishment of his misdeeds, he would be compelled to despair of God, if he were not willing to regard even the incredible as unfailing, this, viz., that God will not permit this mark of wrath and of false accusation to attach to his blood and dust. That the conclusion of the drama should be shaped in accordance with this future hope, is, as we have already observed, not possible, because the poet (apart from his transferring himself to the position and consciousness of his patriarchal hero) was not yet in possession, as a dogma, of that hope which Job gives utterance to as an aspiration of his faith, and which even he himself only at first, like the psalmists (vid., on Psa 17:15; Psa 49:15, Psa 73:26), had as an aspiration of faith;

(Note: The view of Bttcher, de inferis, p. 149, is false, that the poet by the conclusion of his book disapproves the hope expressed, as dementis somnium.)

it was, however, also entirely unnecessary, since it is indeed not the idea of the drama that there is a life after death, which adjusts the mystery of the present, but that there is a suffering of the righteous which bears the disguise of wrath, but nevertheless, as is finally manifest, is a dispensation of love.

If, however, it is a germinating hope, which in this speech of Job is urged forth by the strength of his faith, we can, without anachronistically confusing the different periods of the development of the knowledge of redemption, regard it as a full, but certainly only developing, preformation of the later belief in the resurrection. When Job says that with his own eyes he shall behold Eloah, it is indeed possible by these eyes to understand the eyes of the spirit;

(Note: Job's wish, Job 19:23, is accomplished, as e.g., Jam 5:1 shows, and his hope is realized, since he has beheld God the Redeemer enter Hades, and is by Him led up on high to behold God in heaven. We assume the historical reality of Job and the consistence of his history with the rest of Scripture, which we have treated in Bibl Psychol. ch. 6 3, on the future life and redemption. Accordingly, one might, with the majority of modern expositors, limit Job's hope to the beholding of God in the intermediate state; but, as is further said above, such particularizing is unauthorized.)

but it is just as possible to understand him to mean the eyes of his renewed body (which the old theologians describe as stola secunda, in distinction from the stola prima of the intermediate state); and when Job thinks of himself (Job 19:25) as a mouldering corpse, should he not by his eyes, which shall behold Eloah, mean those which have been dimmed in death, and are now again become capable of seeing? While, if we wish to expound grammatical-historically, not practically, not homiletically, we also dare not introduce the definiteness of the later dogma into the affirmation of Job. It is related to eschatology as the protevangelium is to soteriology; it presents only the first lines of the picture, which is

Keil & Delitzsch — Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (1861–1891) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API. (Old Testament only.)

19:26 Job had faith that he would be vindicated even if death came first.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Herein Job declareth plainly that he had a full hope, that both the soul and body should enjoy the presence of God in the last resurrection.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Rather, though after my skin (is no more) this (body) is destroyed ("body" being omitted, because it was so wasted as not to deserve the name), yet from my flesh (from my renewed body, as the starting-point of vision, Sol 2:9, "looking out from the windows") "shall I see God." Next clause [Job 19:27] proves bodily vision is meant, for it specifies "mine eyes" [ROSENMULLER, 2d ed.]. The Hebrew opposes "in my flesh." The "skin" was the first destroyed by elephantiasis, then the "body."

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 26. And though after my skin worms destroy this body] My skin, which is now almost all that remains of my former self, except the bones; see Job 19:20. They destroy this - not body. נקפו זאת nikkephu zoth, they-diseases and affliction, destroy THIS wretched composition of misery and corruption.

Yet in my flesh shall I see God] Either, I shall arise from the dead, have a renewed body and see him with eyes of flesh and blood, though what I have now shall shortly moulder into dust, or, I shall see him in the flesh; my Kinsman, who shall partake of my flesh and blood, in order that he may ransom the lost inheritance.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(26) And though after my skin.—The word skin is probably put by the common metonymy of a part for the whole for body. “After they have thus destroyed my skin,” or “after my skin hath been thus destroyed”—or, “and after my skin hath been destroyed—this shall be: that even from my flesh I shall see God”—referring, probably, in the first instance, to his present personal faith, notwithstanding the corruption produced by his disease. “I can and do still see God, whom I know as my Redeemer;” but perhaps more probably put in contrast to this present knowledge as implying something yet to come, when the Redeemer stands at the last upon the earth, which also seems to be yet further expressed in the following verse.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

26. and though after my skin worms destroy] See trans. above. The word destroy means to break off, strike down or off, as branches from a tree (Isa_10:34). The words literally run, and after my skin which they have destroyed even this (probably pointing to himself). The indeterminate construction which they have destroyed is equivalent to our passive, which has been destroyed. The Heb. construction must be given somewhat freely in English, as above. The words “worms” and “body” have nothing corresponding in the original.

yet in my flesh] Better, as above, and without my flesh. The margin, out of (or, from) my flesh, suggests the explanation how such opposite senses may be arrived at. The Heb. prep. from has the same ambiguity as from in English. When Regan in Lear 11. 1 says,

“Our father he hath writ, so hath our sister,

Of differences, which I best thought it fit

To answer from our home,”

her words most naturally perhaps suggest the meaning that she thought it best to answer at home, her home being the place from which the answer was sent. Her meaning, however, is that she thought it best to answer when she was away from home. Similarly when Job says, from (or, out of) my flesh shall I see God, the meaning may be, that (looking) from his flesh he shall see God, i. e. as A. V. in his flesh; or that he shall see God, (when) away from his flesh, i. e. without his flesh. The context and general scope of the passage decides for the latter sense. For a similar use of the Heb. prep. see ch. Job_11:15, away from (=without) spot; Job_21:9, margin; Job_28:4, they hang (far) away from men, they swing; cf. Gen_27:39, away from (without) the fatness; Num_15:24, marg. The whole expression “after this my skin has been destroyed and without my flesh” means “when I have died under the ravages of my disease.” The words do not express in what condition precisely, but after what events Job shall see God.

shall I see God] The connexion is, But I know that my Redeemer liveth, and he who shall be after me shall stand upon the dust, and … I shall see God. The last words explain who Job’s Redeemer or Goel is, and who He is who remaineth or shall come after him, viz. God. After his skin is destroyed and without his flesh he shall see God. Before death he shall not see Him, for he shall die under His afflicting hand (cf. ch. Job_23:14), but he shall yet behold Him. To see God is to see Him reconciled and in peace, for this is implied in seeing Him at all, because now He hides. His face (ch. Job_23:3 seq., 8 seq., ch. Job_24:1 seq.).

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Whom I shall see for myself,.... For his pleasure and profit, to his great advantage and happiness, and to his inexpressible joy and satisfaction, see Psa 17:15;

and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; or "a stranger" (h); these very selfsame eyes of mine I now see with will behold this glorious Person, God in my nature, and not the eyes of another, of a strange body, a body not my own; or as I have seen him with my spiritual eyes, with the eyes of faith and knowledge, as my living Redeemer, so shall I see him with my bodily eyes after the resurrection, and enjoy uninterrupted communion with him, which a stranger shall not; one that has never known anything of him, or ever intermeddled with the joy of saints here, such shall not see him hereafter, at least with pleasure; like Balaam, they may see him, but not nigh, may behold him, but afar off: though "my reins be consumed within me"; or "in my bosom";

though; this word may be left out, and be read,

my reins are consumed within me; or, "within my bosom" (i); and both being the seat of the affections and desires, may signify his most earnest and eager desire after the state of the resurrection of the dead; after such a sight of God in his flesh, of the incarnate Redeemer, he believed he should have, insomuch that it ate up his spirits, as the Psalmist says, zeal for the house of God ate up his, Psa 69:9; it was not the belief of restoration of health, and to his former outward happiness, and a deliverance from his troubles, and a desire after that, which is here expressed; for he had no faith in that, nor hope, nor expectation of it, as appears by various expressions of his; but much greater, more noble, more refined enjoyments, were experienced by him now, and still greater he expected hereafter; and his words concerning these were what he wished were written, and printed, and engraven; which, if they only respected outward happiness, he would never have desired; and though he had not his wish in his own way, yet his words are written and printed in a better book than he had in his view, and will outlast engravings with an iron pen on sheets of lead, or marble rocks. The Vulgate Latin version seems to incline to this sense,

"this here is laid up in my bosom,''

that is, of seeing God in my flesh; so the Tigurine version, rather as a paraphrase than a version, "which is my only desire".

(h) "alienus", Pagninus, Montanus, Junius & Tremellius, Piscator, Mercerus; "extraneus", Drusius. (i) "in sinu meo", Pagninus, Montanus, &c.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

And though - Margin, Or, after I shall awake, though this body be destroyed, yet out of my flesh shall I see God. This verse has given not less perplexity than the preceding. Noyes renders it,

And though with this skin this body be wasted away,

Yet in my flesh shall I see God.

Dr. Good renders it,

And, after the disease hath destroyed my skin,

That in my flesh I shall see God.

Rosenmuller explains it, “And when after my skin (scil. is consumed and destroyed) they consume (scil. those corroding, or consuming, that is, it is corroded, or broken into fragments) this, that is, this structure of my bones - my body (which he does not mention, because it was so wasted away that it did not deserve to be called a body) - yet without my flesh - with my whole body consumed, shall I see God.” He translates it,

Et quum post cutem meam hoc fuerit consumptum,

Tamen absque carne mea videbo Deum.

The Hebrew is literally, “and after my skin.” Gesenius translates it, “After they shall have destroyed my skin, this shall happen - that I will see God.” Herder renders it,

Though they tear and devour this my skin,

Yet in my living body shall I see God.

The fair and obvious meaning, I think, is that which is conveyed by our translation. Disease had attacked his skin. It was covered with ulcers, and was fast consuming; compare Job 2:8; Job 7:5. This process of corruption and decay he had reason to expect would go on until all would be consumed. But if it did, he would hold fast his confidence in God. He would believe that he would come forth as his vindicator, and he would still put his trust in him.

Worms - This word is supplied by our translators. There is not a semblance of it in the original. That is, simply, “they destroy;” where the verb is used impersonally, meaning that it would be destroyed; The agent by which this would be done is not specified. The word rendered “destroy” נקפו nâqaphû from נקף nâqaph, means “to cut, to strike, to cut down” (compare the notes at Job 1:5, for the general meaning of the word), and here means to destroy; that is, that the work of destruction might go on until the frame should be wholly wasted away. It is not quite certain that the word here would convey the idea that he expected to die. It may mean that he would become entirely emaciated, and all his flesh be gone. There is nothing, however, in the word to show that he did not expect to die - and perhaps that would be the most obvious and proper interpretation.

This body - The word body is also supplied by the translators. The Hebrew is simply זאת zô'th - this. Perhaps he pointed to his body - for there can be no doubt that his body or flesh is intended. Rosenmuller supposes that he did not mention it, because it was so emaciated that it did not deserve to be called a body.

Yet in my flesh - Hebrew “From my flesh” - מבשׂרי mı̂bâśârı̂y. Herder renders this, “In my living body.” Rosenmuller, absque carne mea - “without my flesh;” and explains it as meaning, “my whole body being consumed, I shall see God.” The literal meaning is, “from, or out of, my flesh shall I see God.” It does not mean in his flesh, which would have been expressed by the preposition ב (b) - but there is the notion that from or out of his flesh he would see him; that is, clearly, as Rosenmuller has expressed it, tho’ my body be consumed, and I have no flesh, I shall see him. Disease might carry its fearful ravages through all his frame, until it utterly wasted away, yet; he had confidence that he would see his vindicator and Redeemer on the earth. It cannot be proved that this refers to the resurrection of that body, and indeed the natural interpretation is against it. It is, rather, that though without a body, or though his body should all waste away, he would see God as his vindicator. He would not always be left overwhelmed in this manner with calamities and reproaches. He would be permitted to see God coming forth as his Goal or Avenger, and manifesting himself as his friend. Calmly, therefore, he would bear these reproaches and trials, and see his frame waste away, for it would not always be so - God would yet undertake and vindicate his cause.

Shall I see God - He would be permitted to behold him as his friend and avenger. What was the nature of the vision which he anticipated, it is not possible to determine with certainty. If he expected that God would appear in some remarkable manner to judge the world and to vindicate the cause of the oppressed; or that he would come forth in a special manner to vindicate his cause; or if he looked to a general resurrection, and to the trial on that day, the language would apply to either of these events.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

The style of this and other poetical books is concise and short, and therefore many words are to be understood in some places to complete the sense. The meaning of the place is this, Though my skin is now in a great measure consumed by sores, and the rest of it, together with this body, shall be devoured by the worms; which may seem to make my case quite desperate. Heb.

And though (which particle, as it is oft elsewhere, is here to be understood, as the opposition of the next branch showeth)

after my skin (which either now is, or suddenly will be, consumed by sores or worms) they (i.e. the destroyers, or devourers, as is implied in the verb; such impersonal speeches being usual in the Scripture; as Gen 1:26; Luk 12:20; 16:9, where the actions are expressed, but the persons or things acting are understood. And by the destroyers he most probably designs the worms, which do this work in the grave) destroy, or cut off, or devour this, i.e. all this which you see left of me, this which I now point to, all this which is contained within my skin, all my flesh and bones, this which I know not what to call, whether a living body, or a dead carcass, because it is between both; and therefore he did not say

this body, because it did scarce deserve that name.

Yet; for the particle and is oft used adversatively; or then, as it is oft rendered.

In my flesh, Heb. out of my flesh, or with (as the particle mem is used, Son 1:2; 3:9; Isa 57:8) my flesh, i.e. with eyes of flesh, as Job himself calls them, Job 10:4; or with bodily eyes; my flesh or body being raised from the grave, and restored and reunited to my soul. And this is very fitly added, to show that he did not speak of a mental or spiritual, but of a corporeal vision, and that after his death.

Shall I see God; the same whom he called his redeemer Job 19:25, i.e. Christ; of which see the note there; who being God-man, and having taken flesh, and appearing in his flesh or body with and for Job upon the earth, as was said Job 19:25, might very well be seen with his bodily eyes. Nor is this understood of a simple seeing of him; for so even they that pierced him shall see him, Rev 1:7; but of seeing him with delight and comfort, as that word is oft understood, as Gen 48:11; Job 42:16; Psa 128:5; Isa 53:11; of that glorious and beatifying vision of God which is promised to all God’s people, Psa 16:11; 17:15; Mat 5:8; 1Co 13:12; 1Jo 3:2.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

26. And after my skin — That is, when my skin is no more. “After” can only be a preposition (See Hirtzel in loc.) If, as some prefer, it be read adverbially, we shall have, And after they have thus destroyed my skin. But there are greater difficulties in this than in the reading of the Authorized Version.

Destroy this — So many and varied are the agencies that destroy the body that they are not enumerated. The Orientals, however, were of the opinion that worms were the principal cause of its destruction. They say — according to Roberts — that the life is first destroyed by them and afterwards the body. The word נקפ, in the Piel rendered destroy, in the Arabic (nakafa) signifies to smash or crush the head. It is one of the most powerful words in the Semitic languages to express complete destruction.

This — Though not expressed, the allusion is evidently to the body.

Yet — “Yet” (ו) is adversative. (See Nordheimer, 2:294.)

In my flesh — From my flesh. The word min, from, is supposed by some to mean without; apart from, and is thus given by Conant, Zockler in Lange, Ewald, etc. But Pusey and Perowne are right when they say that מן can no more, of itself, mean “without” than our word “from.” At the same time, the grammatical construction justifies the sense of in. Thus Rosenmuller, Kosegarten, Welte, Clarke, Carey, Noyes, Wordsworth, etc.: also the Vulgate, the Targum, (Walton’s rendering,) etc. The use of the word min, from, in the sense of in, is by no means alien to the Hebrew. This is especially the case in connexion with verbs of speaking, hearing, seeing, etc. The place from which the observer looks is invariably connected with the verb by the word from. A like remark holds good of the other senses. (GESENIUS, Thesaurus, p. 804.) Thus Sol. Song, (Son_2:9,) “he looketh forth at,” (literally, from,) “the windows.” Comp. 2Ch_6:21. Eastward, i.e., in the east, (Gen_2:8,) is literally from the east. Besides, Job freely uses at least five other prepositions to express without, either one of which would have been better to convey the idea of without than the min before us. For instance, (Hebrew text,) Job_4:11; Job_4:20-21; Job_6:6; Job_7:6; Job_8:11; Job_24:7; Job_24:10; Job_30:8; Job_30:28; Job_31:19; Job_31:39; Job_33:9; Job_34:6; Job_34:20; Job_38:2; Job_38:41; Job_39:16; Job_41:33. Thrice, indeed, elsewhere in Job, min occurs in a privative sense, (Job_3:19; Job_11:15; Job_21:9,) which, however, can hardly be regarded as parallel cases. If Job speaks of beholding God with his bodily eyes after that body has been destroyed, it must be from a new body. The subsequent beholding of God with his eyes, (“mine eyes,”) identifies it with the body he then had, the body to which he had before pointed with the deictic this. The unbiased interpretation of this passage discloses substantially the elements of the doctrine of the resurrection, even though their full meaning may have been hidden from Job. See Excursus V.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And though after my skin worms destroy this body. The supposed ellipsis of "worms" is improbable, as is also that of "body." Translate, and after my skin has been thus destroyed "thus" meaning, "as you see it before your eyes." Yet in my flesh shall I see God; literally, from my flesh scarcely, as Renan takes it, "without my flesh," or "away from my flesh de ma chair;" but rather, "from the standpoint of my flesh in my body," not "out of my body shall I see God. This may be taken merely as a prophecy of the theophany recorded in ch. 38-42. (see especially Job_42:5) But the nexus with ver. 25, and the expressions there used the last," and "he shall stand up over my dust fully justify the traditional exegesis, which sees in the passage an avowal by Job of his confidence that he will see God "from his body" at the resurrection.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Though - Though my skin is now in a great measure consumed, and the rest of it, together with this body, shall be devoured by the worms, which may seem to make my case desperate. Flesh - Or with bodily eyes; my flesh or body being raised from the grave, and re-united to my soul. God - The same whom he called his Redeemer, ver. 25, who having taken flesh, and appearing in his flesh or body with and for Job upon the earth, might well be seen with his bodily eyes. Nor is this understood of a simple seeing of him; but of that glorious and beatifying vision of God, which is promised to all God's people.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

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

and from my flesh I see judgments.

judgment Heb. אלוה, an expression of judgment and chastisements.

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.