Resurrection in the OT, Part 4

Job 19:25–27

(avg. read time: 5–11 mins.)

Our text for today, Job 19:25–27, is perhaps the most perplexing of the potential resurrection texts in this study. Of the texts we study here, it is also the one I am least settled about with regards to its significance for theology of resurrection. There are several factors that seem to indicate that it is not a reference to resurrection per se. But there are also several factors that indicate that it uses resurrection imagery and may indeed refer to a literal resurrection.

The Hebrew of Job is particularly difficult, and this text is no exception. That alone makes it difficult to be sure that this is a resurrection text. But it is also interesting that the rabbis scoured the Scriptures (though especially the Torah) looking for resurrection texts and this one simply does not seem to have registered as significant. Granted, I have not read every rabbinic text, but every search I have done thus far has turned up nothing for the rabbis using this text as a resurrection reference. This is an argument from silence, but it seems to be a suggestive silence. Even Jon Levenson’s Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel says nothing about this text. Finally, and most forcefully, Job has multiple statements denying the return of the dead. In my Sheol analysis I noted Job 7:9 as denying that those who go down to Sheol (and Job presumes he will be one) come up again. But there is also the more broadly referential Job 14:11–12 that mortals lie down and do not rise again; until the heavens are no more, their sleep is permanent. What is especially significant about these statements is that they are both from Job and so too is the text in question from Job 19.

However, there are complications with these points. The most forceful of these points is nevertheless stated ambiguously, as 14:11–12 could potentially mean there will be no return from death until the dissolution of the heavens. That does appear to be how it is understood in the LXX/OG, as well as Aquilla and Symmachus. The Targum is even clearer in that it makes a distinction between those who will rise at the “set time” when the heavens are no more and those who are wicked who will not arise at all. (But whether or not the LXX translators can be fairly accused of mollifying this statement based on later theology, there is no reason to doubt that this is exactly what the Targumist is doing.) The LXX of Job even ends with a statement by the narrator expecting that Job will rise again when God raises the dead (42:17a) and this is also supported in the Greek tradition with the statement of T. Job 4:9. Furthermore, an interpretation of Job 19 as referring to eschatological judgment was established early in the Church by 1 Clem 26:3 and is further exemplified by texts such as Origen, Comm. Matt. 17.29; Augustine, Civ. 22.29; Jerome, Ep. 53.8; Jo. Hier. 30; and the Vulgate. And we know both Origen and Jerome were familiar with both the LXX (as well as its versions) and the Hebrew texts available in their day. (John Chrysostom appears to be of two minds on the subject in allowing for the resurrection interpretation in Comm. Job 19:26 but denying that Job knew of resurrection in Ep. Olymp. 8.) Finally, it is notable at how many points the text is adjacent to or overlapping with semantic fields of texts dealing with resurrection and judgment. On this last point, I would particularly recommend the dissertation of Gordon E. Christo.

What then can be said about the text itself? I do think the fact that the Hebrew is difficult is what makes this matter not so straightforward. But I also think that the significance of the other statements in Job has been overstated because those texts have been overread. But at the same time, I think part of what led the Church Fathers to read this text as they did was how v. 25 resonated with a Christocentric reading of who the “redeemer” is.

Indeed, Job says he knows his redeemer is alive (חי). The term for “redeemer” (גאל), broadly speaking, has two basic uses in the OT. The first appears in legal contexts for someone who acts on behalf of another to recover losses, buy back, reestablish some social equilibrium (such as with the avenger of blood), or fulfill familial duties (Lev 25:25–26, 30, 33, 48–49; 27:13, 15, 19–20; Num 5:8; 35:12, 19, 21, 24–25, 27; Deut 19:6, 12; Josh 20:3, 5, 9; Ruth 2:20; 3:9, 12–13; 4:1, 3–4, 6, 8, 14; 2 Sam 14:11; Prov 23:11; cf. Lev 25:24, 29, 31–32, 51–52; Ruth 4:6–7; Jer 32:7–8). The second appears in contexts describing God’s salvific action on behalf of his people, particularly in redeeming them from slavery in Egypt, exile, death, or a general situation of trouble and suffering (Exod 6:6; 15:13; Pss 19:14; 69:18; 72:14; 74:2; 77:15; 78:35; 103:4; 106:10; 107:2; 119:154; Isa 35:9; 41:14; 43:1, 14; 44:6, 22–24; 47:4; 48:17, 20; 49:7, 26; 51:10; 52:3, 9; 54:5, 8; 59:20; 60:16; 62:12; 63:4, 9, 16; Jer 31:11; 50:34; Lam 3:58; Hos 13:14; Mic 4:10). This use seems to stand somewhere in the overlap in between, as Job is describing a court setting in which God is involved. The גאל is expected not only to act as a defender/advocate, but as someone who can supply Job with vindication (indeed, the JPS translation of this term is “Vindicator”). The fact that this גאל is pulling double duty, as it were, could indicate either that גאל is in fact God, as much as that might conflict with the imagery implied by Job, or that we are to assume another kind of heavenly גאל who can serve in this double capacity.

He knows that “in the end” (אחרון) he will stand (קום) upon the dust (עפר). Each of these terms can have eschatological and resurrection connotations. The אחרון could mean the eschatological end, at the end of this whole situation, or it could simply have the sense of “at last” or something like “eventually.” The other options can blend into the first one if eschatology is still something of a hazy concept for Job.

The קום has already appeared in our resurrection texts and will appear again. In fact, both it and קיץ appear in 14:12, where they are typically taken to function in the context of an absolute denial of resurrection, since it is said that the dead will not perform these actions. Of course, it also functions in a legal context as arising to take action in court or to take a stand. This kind of legal sense fits best here, given the imagined court setting, while it is difficult to take the verb as anything but possibly doubly evocative of resurrection. After all, it is difficult to see why the גאל would rise from the dead and there is no hint that this verb has an object.

Finally, we must address the term עפר. Most translations simply render it as “earth” or perhaps “surface of the earth.” But more literally it means “dust,” and “dust,” particularly in poetic contexts, and was often associated with the grave or death (Gen 3:19; Job 7:21; 17:16; 21:26; 34:15; 40:13; Pss 22:15, 29; 90:3; 104:29; Eccl 3:20; 12:7), including in other resurrection texts (Isa 26:19; Dan 12:2). While the preceding verb may not imply Job’s resurrection, this imagery of Job’s redeemer standing upon the dust, where Job presumably expects to be buried, may make such an implication, which naturally leads into the next verse where it is perhaps more probable that we get a reference to Job’s resurrection.

Verse 26 is where the Hebrew is at its most difficult. The verb used for what happens to Job’s skin (עור), נקף, usually has the sense of “surround” or “round off,” but in Isa 10:34 refers to cutting down. The latter fits better here and so it seems that he is referring to some kind of flaying. This could be an intense poetic description, or it could be a reference to the decay that comes with death.

The further difficulty that arises with figuring out what is happening in this text is the prepositional phrase that begins the next clause: ומבשׂרי. The preposition מן is one of the most widely used in the OT and thus has a variety of senses. The ones most likely in this context could be separation (“away from”/“apart from”), location (“from” or “in”), origin or source (“from”), or lack (“without”). Of these options, the decision ultimately rests on whether the sense is that Job will see God in a fleshless fashion, or if his fleshly frame will be maintained after his skin is removed and he will see God “from” or “in” his flesh.

The former notion is difficult to comport with the bodily language of the next verse, where “seeing” is attached to the eyes. Nor does it comport with the imagery of vindication when the redeemer stands upon the dust. Since the book and the characters therein are largely concerned with bodily restoration, even if not with resurrection per se, it is difficult to understand why Job’s ultimate hope should be that a heavenly redeemer/vindicator should clear him when he can no longer benefit from it.

But even if the latter notion is more probable, it can be broken down further into options of Job expecting vindication and restoration prior to his death or that he is expecting some kind of resurrection at which he will be vindicated. If the first option were so, it undermines the story as a whole. He reflects upon and at multiple points wishes for his death, but here death should for some reason be removed from consideration as Job suddenly thinks that he will be restored before he dies, since he gets his day in court with God before he dies. Furthermore, it does not fit with the immediate context of vv. 23–24 either, as Job wishes for his words to be kept in a permanent record, described in terms of being engraved in the rock “in perpetuity” (לעד). Such an expressed wish would seem unnecessary if Job expects his vindication and restoration to happen relatively soon before his death. But it makes sense if he is to wait for some indefinite future time of judgment.

The second option is not without difficulty either, as this is a rather roundabout way of expressing resurrection belief. But it makes better sense in light of Job’s contemplations of his own death, and it can be seen to fit with the aforementioned statements that are usually thought to deny resurrection. If it is the case rather that the dead “standing” or “awakening” before the end is not going to happen, but that it will happen after some great cataclysm for which the text provides no detail but only veiled reference, then it makes sense that Job should expect to see God from/with/in his flesh.

Apart from the bodily language of Job seeing God with his eyes, v. 27 has little else to add to the question of whether or not we are dealing with a resurrection text. The verb attached to this expression, ראה, may have further significance in light of the next text we address, but it is also common enough that it is difficult to make this kind of determination. The description of his “heart/mind” (more accurately, “kidneys,” as ancients attached emotions and thoughts to several bodily organs) yearning is a way of expressing his deepest desire. The later context of v. 29 and its reference to judgment may also provide another indication of eschatological judgment and thus of resurrection, but this is once again implicit at best.

Personally, I am inclined to see the probability of this text as expressing resurrection belief to be more probable than not. In other words, it is more probable than the alternatives, but not overwhelmingly so. The language is, at most, suggestive and nowhere nearly as explicit as what we will see in texts later in this series. It is not out of the realm of possibility that we are dealing with a text that uses resurrection language to refer to something else, but for reasons I have noted, I find that option less probable. This text appears to supply us with hints of an eschatological resurrection and an eschatological judgment in which, for Job at least, there is a heavenly redeemer/vindicator involved. But hints may be all that this text supplies.