up the hiatus which they have themselves created. To complete this construction they also find it necessary to supply the relative pronoun as the object of the verb ?. This construction has been adopted by Dr. L. Alexander, whose rendering will sufficiently illustrate the positions of Gesenius and Stickelius. Dr. Alexander translates-"even after my skin [which] they shall devour, this [shall be.]" We ask, what shall be? Gesenius answers that, namely, which has been already described in the 25th verse. But such an interpretation makes the text more obscure and elliptical than it really is, and that in the face of all ordinary principles of interpretation. Stickelius afterwards, indeed (in Commentario in Jobum, p. 166), taking a yet different view of 8, makes it signify-thus, in this manner, and translates the clause as follows:-"Und nach meiner Haut, [die] durchlöchert wird. diesermassen." Here the relative pronoun is supplied unnecessarily, as before, and zōth is translated by diesermassen. But over against this rendering it is sufficient to say with

Here again * כָּזֹאת כָּלָה, כֵּן = never זאת Heiligstedt that

The

then our Authorized Version is substantially correct. language of the patriarch points first to the destruction of his skin, and then next of his body, by the disease then afflicting him, and the Authorized Version has kept faithfully to this in the main, having merely had recourse to a harmless device by the use of the word "worms," in order to the better explanation, as was thought, of the peculiar idiomatic employment in the original of the impersonal verb of the 3 pers. plural. See observations on ? as above.

Fourth clause (v. 26):-:ippi—ū-mībbēsārī 'thhězeh 'čloǎh. This rendered literally is-yet from out of my flesh shall I see God. Hereu is allowably adversative in signification, and is here properly rendered by yet. And the whole clause has the following meaning:-yet (i.e., notwithstanding that first my skin and then my whole body shall have been destroyed-see the third clause, v. 26), from out of my flesh shall I see God.

*Comment. Gramm. Hist. Crit. in Jobum, p. 136.

¬? mīb-bēsārī is rendered by Jerome by in carne mea, a rendering which has been closely followed by Luther-in meinem Fleisch-and the Authorized Version, which has in my flesh. It has been, however, rightly objected that 1 min does not, like be, signify in, but from or from out of. Some modern interpreters, as Rosenmüller (in the I. Edit. of his Scholia in V.T.), Heiligstedt, Maurer, Barnes, translate min by without; but the references given in support of such an interpretation have the effect rather of overthrowing it. Such an interpretation is indeed untenable; and it is highly satisfactory to find that Rosenmüller, in the second edition of his 'Scholia," entirely repudiated it. He there translates

by

e carne med, i.e., e corpore meo redintegrato;" and maintains that the phrase in question denotes, not separation from the body, but rather such a presence within it as that the body itself should become the terminus a quo-the starting-point, of the patriarch's vision, when hereafter he should "see God." Cf. Solom. Song ii. 9-bn--for an analogous employment of this preposition.

chhězě člōah. Here I refers to bodily, not mental vision, as is abundantly evident from the expression 7 in the immediate context. It is surely by no accidental coincidence that this is exactly what our Lord promises to "the pure in heart," namely, that "they shall see God"τὸν Θεὸν ὄψονται. Matt. v. 8. But how is this to become attainable? "No man hath seen God at any time."-John i. 18. It is attainable only upon the supposition of the holy incarnation. God can be seen only in His only begotten Son.* The language, both of the patriarch and of our Saviour, evidently, therefore, presupposes the mystery of godlinessGod manifest in the flesh (1 Tim. iii. 16); and the giby of our text, like the Ocós, whom the pure in heart shall see, is none other person than the Messiah—the Divine Goël spoken of by the patriarch in the 25th verse. It is also noteworthy that in Job and in St. Matthew this vision of God with the

* Cf. Olshausen-Comment. on the Gospels, vol. i., p. 195, note. Clark, Edin.

bodily eyes is deferred to a remote future, manifestly not anterior to the resurrection.

Fifth clause (v. 27): 18-åshër ăni čhhězě-lī. Literally, whom I shall see for myself. The only question in this clause, concerning which any difference of opinion exists, is as to the meaning of the expressionli. Jerome renders the sense by ego ipse, Luther by werde ich mir sehen, and our Authorized Version by for myself. In this translation, Goode, Lindsay Alexander, Bishop Browne, Bishop Pearson, Barnes, and most commentators concur. And this is incontestably correct. Heiligstedt, Maurer, Pye Smith, and others suppose that signifies videbo mihi, i.e., mihi propitium. Dr. Pye Smith renders the clause to the same effect-whom I shall see on my behalf. To this view it must be objected that it supposes an ellipsis where none exists, and that, this being thus effected, a meaning is attached to the expression which is out of harmony with the context. The idea, upon which in the verse before us the patriarch is even anxious to insist, is, that in spite of the absolute dissolution of his bodily frame, which (v. 26) he contemplated as inevitable and perhaps imminent, he himself in his proper personality, and with his own bodily eyes, should see God. The expressions,

and

are but varied statements of this one grand idea—an idea involving no less sublime a hope than that of a beatific resurrection from the grave. Our Authorized Version has, therefore, rightly conceived and accurately expressed the sense of the expression in question.

Sixth clause (v. 27):-)-vě-'ēynāy rāū vẻ15-zur. Literally-and mine eyes shall behold and no stranger.

-The Vulgate has-et oculi mei conspecturi sunt; Luther-und meine Augen werden ihn schauen; Authorized Version-and mine eyes shall behold. 7 is properly employed to express bodily vision: and that this was the idea of the patriarch is placed beyond dispute by his use of the word

:

-"mine eyes." Rosenmüller aptly remarks :—“ Jobus spem quam fovebat, se oculis corporis sui instaurati adspecturum Deum, verbis clarissimis declarat."*

Scholia in Vet. Test. in loco.

-vělō-zār, literally, and no stranger, i.e., and not another.

=

as Heiligstedt observes alienus, i.e., alius. (Cf. Prov. xiv. 20; xxvii. 2). Our Authorized Version is, therefore, right. Some expositors, as Dathe, Gesenius, Umbreit, Stickelius, and Pye Smith treat refer it to God, rendering alienum, i.e., non inimicum mihi."

as in the accusative, and as follows:-" et non Thus Dr. P. Smith-and

not estranged. But for reasons already stated the version above adopted is in every way preferable. Here, therefore, also, the Authorized Version is again right.

(To be continued.)

The Preacher's Finger-Post.

TRUE SOCIAL LOVE.

"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another."-John xiii. 34. THESE Words lead us to consider true social love, the love that men ought to have for their fellow creatures.

I. Its MODEL. How should man love his brother? Here is the answer-" As I have loved you."

doing good." (2.) His love expressed itself in His death. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." "Scarcely for a righteous man will one die."

Thirdly: Constantly. His love is an everlasting love. "The mountains shall depart and the hills be removed," &c. Thus we are to love each other. This is the model. We are not to hate men; we may hate their characters, but not their being. We are not to love them with a passing feel

First: Initially. Christ loved man before man loved him. "Herein is love; not that we loved Him, but that He loved us." Because others doing but with a practical affecnot love us, it is no excuse for not loving them.

Secondly: Practically. His love did not evaporate in sentiment, did not exhaust itself in speech. (1.) His love expressed itself in His works. In His life "He went about

tion.

"A

II. Its OBLIGATION. new commandment I give you." It is a "commandment," not a suggestion, not an advice. And it is a new commandment. How is it new?

First: It is new to the