Nemesius of Emessa (d. 420), "De Natura Hominis" Chapter 2 and the Nature of Scripture

The following is from chapter 2 of De Natura Hominis by Nemesius of Emessa (d. 420). I am reproducing it here as it is sometimes used as a proof-text for the patristic acceptance of Sola Scriptura.

 

Greek (PG 40:588-89):

 

πολλῷ διενήνοχεν ἀλλήλων τὰ μόρια τῶν ζῴων, ὅτι καὶ αἱ ψυχαί. Πάλιν δὲ, προκόπτων ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ βιβλίῳ, προστίθησιν ἐπὶ τοῦ [ἀσαφές] καὶ τοῦτο· « Καὶ μήν, ὦ σοφώτατε κατήγορε, λέξεν ἂν ἡ φύσις πρὸς σέ, γελοίαν τὴν ψυχὴν ζῴῳ γελοίαν χρὴν δοθῆναι σώματος κατασκευήν· » οὕτως οἶδε τοῖς διαφόροις κατ’ εἶδος σώμασι διαφόρους ἐνούσας ψυ- χάς. Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν περὶ τούτων Εἰ δὲ τὴν ψυ- χὴν ἀπεδείξαμεν μήτε σῶμα οὖσαν, μήτε ἁρμονίαν, μήτε κράσιν, μήτε ἄλλην τινὰ ποιότητα, δῆλον ἐκ τούτων, ὡς οὐσία τίς ἐστιν ἀσώματος ἡ ψυχὴ. Ὅτι μὲν γάρ ἐστιν ὁμολογεῖται πᾶσιν εἰ δὲ μήτε σῶμα, μήτε συμβεβηκός, δῆλον, ὅτι ἀσώμα- τός ἐστιν οὐσία καὶ οὐδὲν τῶν ἐχόντων ἐν ἄλλῳ τὸ εἶναι. Ταῦτα γὰρ καὶ γίνεται καὶ ἀπογίνεται χωρὶς τῆς τοῦ ὑποκειμένου φθορᾶς· τῆς δὲ ψυχῆς χωριζομένης, τὸ σῶμα πάντως φθείρεται. Τοῖς αὐτοῖς δὲ χρησάμενον ἔστιν ἀποδεῖξαι τὴν ψυχὴν ἀθάνατον οὖσαν. Εἰ γὰρ μήτε σῶμά ἐστιν (ὅπερ φύ- σει διαλυτὸν ἀποδειχθῇ καὶ φθαρτόν), μήτε ποιότης, μήτε ποσότης, μήτε ἄλλο τι τῶν φθειρομέ- νων, δῆλον, ὅτι ἀθάνατός ἐστι. Πολλαὶ μὲν οὖν εἰσι τῆς ἀθανασίας αὐτῆς ἀποδείξεις παρὰ τε Πλάτωνι καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις· ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖναι μὲν περισχε- λεῖς καὶ δυσεκτανόητοι, καὶ μόλις τοῖς ἐντεθραμμένοις ἐκείναις ταῖς ἐπιστήμαις γνώριμοι· ἡμῖν δὲ ἀρχή, πρὸς ἀπόδειξιν τῆς ἀθανασίας αὐτῆς, ἡ τῶν θείων λογίων διδασκαλία, τὸ πιστὸν ἀφ’ ἑαυτῆς ἔχουσα, διὰ τὸ θεόπνευστος εἶναι· πρὸς δὲ τοὺς μὴ κα- ταδεχομένους τὰ τῶν Χριστιανῶν γράμματα ἀρχή, τὸ μηδὲν εἶναι τὴν ψυχὴν τῶν φθειρομένων ἀποδεί- ξαι. Εἰ γὰρ μηδὲν ἐστι τῶν φθειρομένων, ἔστι δὲ ἄφθαρτος, ἔστι καὶ ἀθάνατος. Ὥστε τοῦτο μὲν ἀρχούντως ἔχειν παραλειπτέον.

 

It seems that Galen, the admirable physician, also follows this view: that in each kind of animal there is, he thinks, a different kind of soul. For he says right at the beginning of the first book of his treatise On the Usefulness of the Parts: “And if this is so, there will be many parts in animals, some larger, some smaller, and some altogether indivisible into another kind; and all of them are needed by the soul. For the body is its instrument, and for that reason the parts of animals differ greatly from one another, because the souls too differ.” Again, as he proceeds in the same book, he adds this: “And indeed, most wise accuser, nature would say to you that a ridiculous soul ought to be given a ridiculous bodily constitution.” Thus he knows that different souls dwell in bodies differing according to kind. So much for this. But if we have shown that the soul is neither body, nor harmony, nor mixture, nor any other quality, it is clear from this that the soul is a certain incorporeal substance. That it exists, indeed, is admitted by all. And if it is neither body nor an accident, it is clear that it is an incorporeal substance and nothing among the things whose being consists in being in something else. For these things both come into being and pass away apart from the corruption of the underlying subject; but when the soul is separated, the body necessarily perishes. By the same arguments one can prove that the soul is immortal. For if it is not a body—something that by nature is dissolvable and corruptible—nor a quality, nor a quantity, nor anything else among perishable things, it is clear that it is immortal. There are many proofs of this immortality, in Plato and in others; but those are elaborate and difficult to understand, and scarcely familiar even to those trained in those disciplines. For us, however, the starting point for proving its immortality is the teaching of the divine oracles, which carries conviction from itself because it is God-inspired. And for those who do not accept the writings of Christians, the starting point is to show that the soul of perishable things is nothing. For if it is nothing among perishable things, then it is imperishable, and therefore also immortal. So this part can be left here for the time being.

 

Here, the Greek text uses θεοπνευστος (cf. 2 Tim 3:16) to describe “the divine oracles” ("τῶν θείων λογίων"); however, unless one reads into θεοπνευστος “formal sufficiency,” it is not a meaningful proof-text for Sola Scriptura. It is true that Nesemius believed that “the divine oracles” “carries conviction from itself,” but again, only if one thinks that Scripture carrying any weight/authority in and of itself is one to one equivalent to Sola Scriptura can one conclude such. Furthermore, he limits its “sufficiency” only to the immortality of the soul in this passage.

 

The same applies to the Latin version:

 

Latin (PG 40:587, 590):

 

Videtur autem nostram hanc opinionem approbare etiam admirabilis ille medicus Galenus, et in quaque specie animalis diversam esse animae speciem arbitrari. Scribit enim statim in principio libri primi De usu partium, hoc modo: « Atque si hoc ita est, multae animalium partes erunt, aliae maiores, aliae minores, aliae etiam quae in aliam speciem secari non possunt, quibus omnibus animae opus est. Nam corpus ejus est instrumentum, eamque ob rem multum a se differunt partes animalium, quandoquidem et anima. Deinde in progressu ejusdem libri addit et hoc de simia: « Atqui, sapientissime accusator, dicat natura tibi, animali anima ridiculo oportuit ridiculam corporis structuram dari. » Ita differentibus specie corporibus differentes inesse animas cognovit. Atque ista quidem de his disputata sunt. Quod si animam ostendimus neque corpus esse, neque harmoniam, neque temperationem, neque aliam ullam qualitatem, dubitandum non est quin substantia quaedam sit anima, vacans corpore: nam esse quidem, inter omnes constat. Si autem neque corpus est, neque accidens, profecto substantia est corporis expers, neque de iis est quorum, ut ita dicam, esse in alio est positum. Haec enim adveniunt et recedunt, sine subjecti interitu: at anima dum sejungitur, prorsus corpus exstinguitur. Eisdem rationibus licebit uti ut eam immortalem esse doceamus. Si enim neque corpus est (quod natura sua dissolvi et interire probatum est), neque qualitas, neque quantitas, neque aliquid e numero caducorum, obscurum non est quin immortalis sit. Multae quidem sunt ejus immortalitatis certissimae rationes apud Platonem et alios, sed spinosae et ad cognoscendum difficiles, et vix iis notae qui in illis scientiis magno opere versati sunt. Nobis autem satis est ad demonstrationem animae immortalitatis doctrina divinarum Litterarum, quae a se fidem habet, nec foris petita probationis eget, quia divino instinctu et inflatu data est. Adversus eos qui Christianorum Litteris non utuntur, satis est quod non numerari animam in iis quae occidunt demonstravimus. Si enim nihil est eorum quae occidunt, sed interitum omnem effugit, immortalis profecto est. Itaque hoc, quod abunde declaratum sit, omittendum est.

 

The admirable physician Galen also seems to approve this view of ours, and to think that each species of animal has a different kind of soul. For he writes immediately at the beginning of the first book of On the Usefulness of the Parts as follows: “And if this is so, there will be many parts of animals: some larger, some smaller, some also incapable of being cut into another species, and all of them are needed by the soul. For the body is its instrument, and for that reason the parts of animals differ greatly from one another, since the souls too differ.” Then later in the same book he adds this about the monkey: “Indeed, most wise accuser, nature would say to you that a ridiculous animal ought to be given a ridiculous bodily structure.” Thus he recognized that different souls dwell in bodies differing by species. So much, then, for these matters. But if we have shown that the soul is neither body, nor harmony, nor temperament, nor any other quality, there can be no doubt that the soul is some incorporeal substance, devoid of body; for that it exists is admitted by everyone. And if it is neither body nor accident, it is plainly a substance without body and not one of those things whose being, so to speak, consists in being in something else. For such things come and go without the destruction of the underlying subject; but when the soul is separated, the body is completely destroyed. By the same arguments we may also prove that the soul is immortal. For if it is neither body — something shown by nature itself to be dissoluble and perishable — nor quality, nor quantity, nor anything else among the things that pass away, it is obvious that it is immortal. There are indeed many very certain arguments for its immortality in Plato and others, but they are intricate and difficult to understand, and scarcely known even to those who have devoted much study to those disciplines. For us, however, the teaching of the divine Scriptures is enough for demonstrating the immortality of the soul; that teaching carries conviction from itself and needs no proof sought from outside, because it has been given by divine inspiration. Against those who do not accept the writings of Christians, it is enough that we have shown that the soul is not to be numbered among perishable things. For if it is nothing among the things that perish, but escapes every kind of destruction, then it is certainly immortal. So this point, having been sufficiently made clear, may be passed over.

 

 

Jason Kerrigan (Unitarian) on 1 Clemnet 58:2

  

 

Trinity in 1 Clement?

 

It seems to some that Clement of Rome presented the Trinity doctrine in 1^st century epistle known as 1 Clement. Although the epistle does not present any such theme, Trinitarians have pointed out a single statement found in 1 Clement 58:2 as a proof that Clement was a Trinitarian.

 

“For as God who lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ lives, and the Holy Spirit (who are the faith and hope of the elect)” (Lightfoot)

 

Although this is how it has been translated (and thus quoted) by Trinitarians, it is not the best translation of the Greek text, which reads as follows:

 

ζῇ γὰρ ὁ θεὸς καὶ ζῇ ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ἥ τε πίστις καὶ ἡ ἐλπὶς τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν

 

We can take τε here to mean in addition to or to mean both. The Loeb Classical Library translation accords with the meaning in addition to and has the primary translation of the text as:

 

“For as God, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit all live—as do the faith and the hope of those who are chosen”

 

Yet, even if we took τε to mean both, the Greek can be translated thus:

 

“For God lives and the Lord Jesus Christ lives, and the Holy Spirit, both the faith and hope of the elect”

 

There is nothing in the text that can be translated as “who are” (as the Trinitarian translators render it). Notwithstanding, when anyone takes the final clause of the text as summarizing what came beforehand, they are forced to define the previous contexts being summarized. Instead of choosing to take the summary as a reference to three persons, which the text does not say, I propose that we define the content being summarized by the factors presented within the summary itself. In other words, since the summary is “the faith and hope of the elect,” we are given a guide on how to interpret the preceding content. In this framework, I suggest the following English translation be adopted.

 

“For God lives and the Lord Jesus Christ lives and the Holy Spirit, which amounts to both the final and hope of the elect”

 

Now that we have assessed the text itself, let’s turn our attention toward biblical examples to see how we might interpret the meaning of the text in accordance with early Christian beliefs.

 

What is the faith and hope of the elect according to the Bible?

 

“Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.”

(1 Peter 1:21)

 

Our faith and hope is specifically related to Christ’s resurrection that was brought about by God. The resurrection of Christ is the basis of our own hope for life after we die, and that hope is associated with the Holy Spirit.

 

“But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.” (Romans 8:11)

 

Accordingly, the Spirit is deemed the affirmation of our hope to come.

 

“After that ye believed, ye were sealed with the holy spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance.” (Ephesians 1:13-14)

 

So, if we interpret the statement in 1 Clement 58:2 by the substantiated beliefs of the early Christians, we come up with the following:

 

“For God lives [who raised Jesus from the dead, in whom we thereby have faith] and the Lord Jesus Christ lives [having been raised from the dead and now embodying our hope of life] and the Holy Spirit [the evidence of our future life and the means by which that resurrection will occur], which [in summary] amounts to both the faith and hope of the elect.”

 

It is noteworthy that this entire text we are discussing does not even discuss within the oldest manuscript containing 1 Clement, Codex Alexandrinus. However, the argument for its original inclusion in Codex Alexandrinus rests on the fact that a single leaf (a page) is missing from the 5^th century codex where this passage would have appeared.

 

Junius (Pat. Young), who examined the MS, before it was bound into its present form, stated that a whole leaf was here lost. The next letters that occur are ιπον, which have been supposed to indicate ειπον or ελιπον. Doubtless some passages quoted by the ancients from the Epistle of Clement, and not now found in it, occurred in the portion which has thus been lost. (Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 1 (p. 20) footnote 15)

 

It is important to note that there are textual variants in the newer manuscripts that demonstrate some different wordings than what we find in the more ancient Codex Alexandrinus (which existed over five hundred years before any of the other extant manuscripts containing 1 Clement). If we had the missing leaf, we might find that the phrase “and the Holy Spirit” had the missing leaf, we might find that the phrase “and the Holy Spirit” did not exist in the earliest text. In my opinion, the text would read more like the New Testament if it is simply said, “For God lives and the Lord Jesus Christ lives, both the faith and hope of the elect.” Compare “God our Savior and the Lord Jesus Christ, our hope.” (1 Timothy 1:1.) As to why the leaf is missing, we can only speculate. Since the extant text that would have appeared on the missing leaf consists almost entirely of a lengthy prayer, the leaf may have simply been removed by someone who wanted to use it as a prayer script. Maybe they pulled it out to copy the prayer and it somehow never made its way back into the codex. (Jason Kerrigan, Restoring the Biblical Christ: Is Jesus God? [N.P.: Jason Wayne Kerrigan, 2025], 485-87, emphasis in original)

 

Matthew Lynch on "High Places" in Chronicles

  

Excursus: Shrines and Centralization in Chronicles

 

At this juncture, it is worth considering several ways that Chronicles “comprehensively reworked” the subject of the “high places,” or more accurately, “shrines” (במות), in ways that sustain its perspective on Yhwh’s unique mediating institutions. Chronicles omit references to worship at the shrines from the reigns of Joash/Jehoash, Amaziah, Azariah/Uzziah, and Jotham. Japhet states that Chronicles’ high view of Solomon led Chronicles to delete references to the במות from his successors, though this is difficult to prove. The first mention of illegitimate shrines occurs in connection with the במות that Jeroboam made in opposition to the Jerusalem cult (2 Chr 11:15). Regarding Asa and Jehoshaphat, Chronicles follows its source in Kings, which states that they did not remove the shrines (2 Chr 15:17; 20:33), but then deviates from its sources by stating that they did destroy them (2 Chr 14:2-4[3-5]; 17:6). Japhet attributes these contradicting accounts to Chronicles’ desire to follow its source text, but also praise these kings as reformers. Chronicles makes no attempt at a synthesis. Moreover, Chronicles states only that these kings removed the shrines from Judah, as the removal of shrines from all Israel was impossible during their reigns. It is not until his account of Jehoram that the Chronicler records a Judean king introducing shrines (2 Chr 21:11).

 

Non-Jerusalemite sacrifice to Yhwh at the במות receives mention in relation to three phases in Judah’s history in Chronicles, the first of which occurs before the temple’s construction. During that phase, sacrifice occurs during the ark’s transport to Jerusalem, where the Levites offer seven bulls and rams (1 Chr 15:26) while David officiates wearing his “linen robe” and “linen priestly vest” (1 Chr 15:27). David’s priestly garb (cf. Exod 29:5) is a fitting accompaniment to his role as patron and initiator of the Jerusalemite cult (16:1-3). In this instance, the Chronicler’s effort to depict David as a cult founder takes precedent over his concern to restrict sacrifice to the “official” altar of Bezalel. However, the altar and cult at Gibeon were not yet established, and thus, Chronicles may have reasoned that sacrifice before the ark was entirely appropriate, especially with David acting in a priestly capacity. After establishing the Levitical cult before the ark in Jerusalem (16:4-38), David places Zadok and other Aaronids before the tabernacle and altar in Gibeon (16:39-40).

 

Later, when David sees the מלאך יהוה at Ornan’s threshing floor, the Chronicler states that David sacrificed in Jerusalem and not Gibeon because “he feared the sword” of the מלאך יהוה (1 Chr 21:28-30). Thus, Chronicles tolerates a limited bifurcation in the cult prior to the temple’s establishment. After David institutes the priestly sacrificial cult at Gibeon, sacrifice at a non-official altar occurs only on that one occasion (21:28), but even this was at the future temple site. Chronicles omits the reference to Solomon’s numerous sacrifices before the ark recorded in 1 Kgs 3:15, and demonstrates a concern to restrict sacrifice to the official altar in Gibeon.

 

Chronicles records that Solomon offered sacrifices at the במה in Gibeon (2 Chr 1:3, 13). Sacrifice at Gibeon is justified because the tent of meeting and Bezalel’s altar were there “before Yhwh” (לפני יהוה; 2 Chr 1:3, 5-6), even though the ark sat in the city of David with musical attendants (v. 4). The “tabernacle of Yhwh” (משכן יהוה) at Gibeon was staffed by Zadok and his fellow priests, who ministered at the “altar of burnt offering” (1 Chr 16:39; 21:29). None of these details receive mention in Kings, and they clearly arise from priestly concerns to maintain the distinctiveness of the one Yahwistic altar.

 

The second phase of Yahwistic worship at במות occurs during the reign of Manasseh (2 Chr 33:17), though here there is no indication that priests or Levites participated in this activity, making it qualitatively different from Gibeon. In contrast to all other references to plural במות in Kings, this is the only mention of Yahwistic worship at shrines. A possible reason that Chronicles makes a point of such Yahwistic worship at the במות is that it still attributes their removal to Josiah (2 Chr 34:3). Thus, Chronicles depicts what it might consider the lesser of two evils, decentralized worship of Yahweh. The overt mention of Yahwistic worship at the במות, something never claimed of them in Kings, may also be a concession to the state of affairs in the Persian period, when Yahwistic worship occurred in various temples.

 

A third acknowledgement of decentralized Yhwh worship at במות occurs in the mouth of Sennacherib’s messengers: “Is Hezekiah not the one who removed his [Yhwh’s] high places and his altars, saying to Judah and Jerusalem, ‘Before one altar (מזבח אחד) you shall worship, and upon it offer incense’?” (2 Chr 32:12).112 Here Chronicles lets an allusion to decentralized Yhwh worship stand, it seems, to amplify the significance of Hezekiah’s reforms. Hezekiah eradicated the במות and supported only “one altar” (אחד מזבח; המזבח הזה in 2 Kgs 18:22), which Sennacherib infamously mistook as a sign of weakness. This third acknowledgement is only implicit in Chronicles, and is in service of the portrait of Hezekiah as one who maintains one unique worship center.

 

Thus, in contrast to Samuel–Kings, Chronicles’ overwhelming claim is that since the days of David, sacrificial worship of Yhwh took place at the one legitimate shrine. Non- Jerusalemite Yhwh worship in Gibeon appears as a preparatory measure during the days of David until early days of Solomon (in preparation for the temple), and after Manasseh’s incomplete restoration of the cult. Only in the latter case did sacrifice to Yhwh explicitly take place apart from the one legitimate shrine. (Matthew Lynch, Monotheism and Institutions in the Book of Chronicles [Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.Reihe 64; Studies of the Sofja Kovalevskaja Research Group on Early Jewish Monotheism 1; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014], 97-99)

 

Strack and Billerbeck on Jewish/Rabbinic Texts Allowing for Anoining of the Deceased on a Sabbath (cf. Mark 16:1)

  

16:1: When the Sabbath was over, they bought … spices in order to … anoint him.

 

1. The anointing סוּךְ of a dead person was not forbidden on the Sabbath. Mishnah Šabbat 23.5: (On the Sabbath) one is permitted to do everything that is necessary for the dead. This includes applying ointment and washing him סכין ומדיחין אותו, so long as they do not move any of the corpse’s limbs.—These words, however, apply only to work done on the corpse itself. The making of a coffin or the making of the tomb on the Sabbath was forbidden. On this, see m. Šabb 23.4.—Lightfoot applies a passage from y. Šabb 9.12B.1, which in his opinion forbids the anointing of a dead person on the Sabbath: Quidnam est illud quod quoad viventem permittitur, [Sabbato] quoad mortuum vero non? Est unctio. However, that passage is not about the Sabbath, but is about the second tithe. As such, it deals with what the living man may deny himself, but not for a dead man, out of the money for tithing. The answer is סִיכָה, the anointing (cf. b. Yebam. 74A).—When the women in Mark 16:1 let the Sabbath pass by to anoint Jesus’ body afterward, the reason for this is not that anointing was forbidden on the Sabbath but that shopping for the ἀρώματα necessary for the anointing was not permitted on the Sabbath. On this see the excursus “The Day of Jesus’ Death,” C, #4.

 

2. Corpses were anointed with oil and, as the NT shows, were buried with spices (ἀρώματα = בְּשָׂמִים Mark 16:1; Luke 24:1), especially myrrh and aloes (John 19:39). From the rabbinic literature, we did not find any evidence of the use of spices for this purpose.—Embalming the corpses, which was the custom of the Egyptians, was not customary among the Jews. King Herod is once said to have kept the body of his wife in honey for seven years (see b. B. Bat. 3B at § Matt 2:16, #2), and b. Taʿan. 5B speaks of embalming Jacob’s corpse: R. Isaac (ca. 300) said, “Thus says R. Yohanan († 279), ‘Our father Abraham did not die.’ Rab Nahman († 320) replied to him, ‘Did mourners lament him, and did embalmers embalm חנטו חנטייא him, and the gravediggers burry him for no reason?!’ ” (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash, ed. Jacob N. Cerone, 4 vols. [trans. Andrew Bowden and Joseph Longarino; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2022], 2:59-60)

 

Notes on Job 19:26

  

and after they flay my skin, / from my flesh I shall behold God. Amos Hakham boldly relates this strong line to Job’s wish to incise his words in stone, paraphrasing it as follows: “The scars and the bruises in my flesh are the writing God inscribes in my flesh instead of the inscription I sought to make.” If Hakham is right, Job would be representing himself here somewhat like the condemned man in Kafka’s “In the Penal Colony” who is meant to come to an illuminating understanding of his crime through the terrible machine that inscribes his transgression on his flesh. Job, however, does not concede that he has sinned, so the idea he expresses is that through all his suffering, through the tatters of his lacerated flesh, he will in the end behold God, come face-to-face with his divine persecutor and finally vindicate himself. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:515)

 

 

26b. Is the min of the expression mibb^eśārī to be read “from within my flesh” or “from without my flesh”? That is, does Job envisage seeing God in his body, in a disembodied form or in a vision? Traditional Israelite thought would clearly favor the first option. Moreover it is clear from Job’s desire to come face to face with God (13:15, 20, 24) that he wants to see God as Job the human being, not as an ethereal spirit. Here (in v. 26b) Job hopes to see with his “eyes,” which also suggests a physical seeing. Terrien demonstrates that “when used with a verb expressing vision or perception, the preposition min refers to the point of vantage, the locale from which or through which the function of the sight operates (Ps. 33:13–14; S. of Sol. 2:9).” Thus the KJV “In my flesh I shall see God” is preferable to RSV “from/without my flesh I shall see God.” (Norman C. Habel, The Book of Job: A Commentary [The Old Testament Library; Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1985], 293-94)

 

 

Then from my flesh I shall see God: from my flesh can also be understood as “without my flesh,” as in the rsv footnote, or the tev footnote “although not in this body.” The question most argued is the manner of Job’s seeing God. Job’s overwhelming desire so often repeated is to come to court face to face with God (13:15, 20, 24). He wants to confront God as a living human being, not as a spirit, and in verse 27 he hopes to see God with his eyes. As kjv says, “In my flesh shall I see God,” or as tev translates, “while still in this body I will see God.” In some languages it may be necessary to transpose the two lines of verse 26 to say, for example, “While I still have my physical body, I shall see God even though disease has eaten away my skin.” (William David Reyburn, A Handbook on the Book of Job [UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1992], 364)

 

 

26. This verse is notoriously difficult. The ancient versions all differ and no reliance can be placed in any of them. Various emendations have been proposed, but are scarcely worth discussing. Many Christian interpreters since Origen have tried to read here an affirmation of immortality or resurrection, but without success: Chrysostom quite correctly refuted this interpretation with the citation of 14:12 ff. If one sticks to the text as received, the given translation appears to fit the context as well as any, though many problems persist. Cf. J. Speer, ZAW 25 (1905), 47–140. Dahood (Psalms II, second Note on Ps 73:26) offers a novel and provocative interpretation of the famous enigma mibbĕśārî which he would read mĕbuśśārî, construing the form as Puʿal participle with the suffix representing the third person rather than the first and functioning as the dative of agency, “Refleshed by him, I will gaze upon God.” Thus Dahood finds here expression of “the doctrine of the creation of a new body for the afterlife.” This interpretation, if it could be validated, would have considerable interest as anticipating the climax of Paul’s famous discourse on the topic in 1 Cor 15. (Marvin H. Pope, Job: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, [AYB 15; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 147)

 

 

Notes on Job 19:25

  

I know my redeemer lives. This famous line, long the subject of Christological interpretation, in fact continues the imagery of a legal trial to which Job reverts so often. The redeemer is someone, usually a family member, who will come forth and bear witness on his behalf, and the use of “stand up” in the second verset has precisely that courtroom connotation. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:514)

 

 

25a. vindicator. It is difficult to find an adequate translation of the term gôʾēl. It designates the nearest kinsman who was obligated to exact vengeance in a blood feud (Deut 19:6–12; 2 Sam 14:11) or otherwise look after the interests of his kinsman by redeeming him from slavery (Lev 25:48) or regaining the family property (Lev 25:25), including the decedent’s widow in order to provide him an heir by proxy (Ruth 4:4–6). Thus the gôʾēl is the defender of the widow and orphan, the champion of the oppressed (Prov 23:10–11). The term is often applied to Yahweh as deliverer of Israel from bondage in Egypt (Exod 6:6, 15:13) or from exile (Jer 50:34) and dispersion (Isa 43:1, 44:6, 24, 48:20, 52:9). It is also applied to Yahweh’s deliverance of the individual from imminent death (Ps 103:4; Lam 3:58). It is not clear here whether Job has in mind a human agent who will act as his vindicator. The strongest point in favor of taking the vindicator and guarantor as God is the specific reference to seeing God in 26b. Dahood (Biblica 52 [1971], 346) rendered ʾaḥărôn here as “the Ultimate.” The application of the term gôʾēl to God in this context is questionable since elsewhere in Job’s complaint it is God himself who is Job’s adversary rather than defender. The difficulty may be alleviated by understanding the term gôʾēl here to refer to the agent elsewhere termed an umpire (9:33) and a witness (16:19) who is to serve the same function as the personal god of Sumerian theology, i.e., act as his advocate and defender in the assembly of the gods; cf. 33:23. (Marvin H. Pope, Job: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, [AYB 15; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 146)

 

 

Job 19:25

 

For I know that my Redeemer lives: the word translated Redeemer is the Hebrew Go’el, and it is found only here in the book of Job. An rsv footnote has “Vindicator” as an alternative translation. In other parts of the Old Testament the word has a variety of meanings. In such passages as 2 Samuel 14:11 it means “avenger of blood,” who is a kinsmen who avenges his dead relative. In Ruth 4:4–6 it is the relative who buys back the property of the dead man. In Numbers 5:8 he is the one to whom restitution is made (payment made in case of guilt). The term is applied to God as the one who delivers Israel from slavery in Egypt (Exodus 6:6) and from exile (Jer 50:34). In Psalm 103:4 God is the one who “redeems your life from the pit.” In the context of this verse in Job, Redeemer means generally “defender, protector, helper” and more specifically “the one who wins my case” or “the one who stands up for me in court.” Job is saying again that the one who will defend him in his argument or lawsuit with God “lives.” As Rowley says, Job is not asking God to rescue him from Sheol. That would be the task of a “deliverer.” Job wants his name and honor vindicated. He wants everyone, now and in the future, to know that he was innocent of wrongdoing. His vindicator, defender, is the one who will do this for him.

 

A much debated question is the identity of Job’s Go’el. For every argument that concludes that it is God, there is an equally good argument that it is not. Habel suggests that the obvious resolution of the identity of the Redeemer lies in relating verse 25 to 16:19, and so tev “I know there is someone in heaven … to my defense.” tev makes use of the same wording as in 16:19. However, tev does not thereby resolve the question (nor need it do so) whether “someone in heaven” means God or a third party. Many modern translations which assume it is God do this by spelling with an initial capital, and so “Defender, Vindicator, Redeemer.” Translators who assume Job has a third party in mind will usually spell with a lower-case initial letter.

 

This Handbook recommends the use of “defender, vindicator, helper.” However, if the translator prefers to indicate that this refers to God, there is a strong body of translations to support that. Translators should bear in mind that people hearing the Scriptures read do not know if a word is capitalized or not. In writing systems which do not use capitals letters, the problem is irrelevant. gecl makes the identification with God explicit: “I know that God, my advocate, lives.” Vindicator may be rendered, for example, “The one who proves I am innocent” or “The person who defends my right.” In any case “defender” and Redeemer are used in almost the same way in this context. In some languages it may be better to say, as frcl does, “I know, myself, that I have a living defender.”

 

And at last he will stand upon the earth: just as with the first line, interpreters come to totally different meanings for this line. rsv and others make at last an expression of time, meaning “finally, in the end.” Not so, argues Dhorme, who sees “The First and the Last” as titles for God, as used in Isaiah 44:6; 48:12; and so he translates “And then, as the Last, he will arise on the earth.” Translators differ most concerning at last and will stand upon the earth. bj follows Dhorme “he, the last, will stand.…” mft shifts at last to line a, “I know One to champion me at last.” However, many modern translations understand at last to be used adverbially, as in rsv and tev. Earth translates the Hebrew “dust,” and so some take it to refer to the grave, as in the niv footnote, “Or, upon my grave.” Most scholars, however, agree that stand upon the earth is a courtroom expression used to mean “to take the stand as a witness” in 31:14; Deuteronomy 19:16; Psalm 12:5; Isaiah 19:21. It is in this sense that tev renders “come to my defense.” neb translates this line “and that he will rise last to speak in court.” The thought is that he will have the final word; thus frcl translates “and that he will have the final word on this earth.” Translators may follow either interpretation; for example, “I know that he will have the final word,” meaning that his decision will be final, authoritative, and with no further recourse. Or one may say, for example, “he will be my lawyer in this final court” or “he will take the stand finally for me on this earth.” (William David Reyburn, A Handbook on the Book of Job [UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1992], 362-64)

 

Why This Type of Protestantism Is Evil | Ft Blake Ostler

Why This Type of Protestantism Is Evil | Ft Blake Ostler

And of course, who could forget the following:

 

(see this video clip for the fuller context of what Aaron said)