Job 19:26Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

He articulates a sound rationale behind the transformation: "He struck, and He will also heal; He caused suffering, and He will also free this afflicted body from its anguish." Therefore, He continually delivers from numerous agonies, granting rest from rightful toils.

The translation by Theodotion states, "my near relative is alive and will eventually rise from the dust," suggesting an association between the two verses, conveying the thought, "since I know that He who has eternal power to rescue me on earth will restore my enduring skin." The implication is, "God is eternal," as Paul asserts, "For in Him we live and move and exist" (Acts 17:28). Having allowed my body to return to the earth through death, He will raise me from the earth by means of the resurrection. Additionally, after having delivered me from illness, He will once more renew my skin, which has been ravaged, as He who brings the affliction is also the one who restores, allowing life to flourish after it has been brought low. This unity of thought is enriched by the acknowledgment: "for from the Lord all these things have been done over me."

This is evidenced by our Redeemer, who, when His disciples expressed doubt about His resurrection, presented His hands and feet, inviting them to touch Him, declaring, "Touch Me and see; for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have" (Luke 24:39). When I presented Eutychius with this testimony from the Gospel upon my arrival in Constantinople, he remarked, “The Lord did this to eliminate any doubts about the Resurrection from the hearts of the disciples.” My response was, “It is truly remarkable that from the very act that dispelled the disciples' doubts, your own uncertainties arise.” For what could be more troubling than to question the reality of His flesh due to the same evidence that reaffirmed the faith of His disciples? If He asserts that He lacks what He reveals, then the source that confirmed His disciples' faith would simultaneously undermine ours.

Eutychius further contended, “He had a body that was tangible; however, after the disciples’ hearts were reassured of the tangibility of the Lord's body, it was transformed into something more subtle.” In response, I reminded him, “It is written, ‘Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more; death has no more dominion over Him’” (Romans 6:9). If there were any aspect of His body capable of alteration after the Resurrection, contrary to Paul’s explicit statement, it would imply that the Lord returned to death post-resurrection. Who would dare claim such a thing and deny the truth of His flesh's resurrection?

He then challenged me: “But it is written, ‘Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God’” (1 Corinthians 15:50). How, then, can we assert that the flesh truly rises again? I responded, “In Scripture, ‘flesh’ can denote a particular nature, or it can signify sin and corruption. For regarding flesh in its natural sense, it is written, ‘This is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh’” (Genesis 2:23) and ‘The Word became flesh and dwelt among us’” (John 1:14). Yet, concerning the flesh that symbolizes sin, it says, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh” (Genesis 6:3). As the Psalmist notes, “He remembered that they were flesh, a breath that departs and does not return” (Psalm 77:39). Thus, when Paul instructs the disciples not to live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (Romans 8:9), he does not imply that they must abandon the flesh but rather control the urges of carnal desires. Through the empowerment of the Spirit, they “are not in the flesh.” Therefore, when Paul states that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,” he refers to the flesh in the context of sin, not in the sense of our natural form.

Consequently, as he continues, he clarifies that he refers to flesh as sin, adding, “and corruption cannot inherit incorruption.” Thus, in the glory of the heavenly kingdom, there will indeed be flesh according to its nature, yet devoid of sinful passions; and as the sting of death is vanquished, it shall exist in eternal incorruption. Eutychius replied, expressing assent to these words but continued to deny that flesh could be resurrected as a corporeal body. He based his arguments on the Apostle Paul's teaching that “what you sow will not come to life unless it dies,” and “that which you sow is not the body that will be but a bare grain” (1 Corinthians 15:36-37), attempting to demonstrate that the flesh will either be intangible or something other than itself. He emphasized that the holy Apostle, in discussing the glory of the resurrection, states, “you sow not the body that ought to be.”

However, this can be quickly addressed. St. Paul, by saying “you sow not the body that is to be, but a bare grain,” points out the visible reality: the grain sown, without leaves or stem, will grow into a plant with both. Thus, in highlighting the glory of the resurrection, he does not claim that the body lacks anything; rather, he affirms that what is yet unseen is already preordained.

Our discussion on this matter extended into a prolonged debate, escalating to significant conflict, until Emperor Tiberius Constantine summoned us for a private audience. After understanding the nature of our disagreement and weighing both arguments, he repudiated the book Eutychius had authored on the resurrection, deciding it should be destroyed. After this audience, I fell seriously ill, and surprisingly, Eutychius suffered a similar fate and ultimately passed away. When he died, I refrained from permitting others to persecute his few remaining followers, even though I had initially played a part in it, choosing instead to protect his reputation even after his death. Yet, during his life, while I was also afflicted by a severe fever, some acquaintances visited him, and upon learning that he would place his hands on their eyes, exclaiming, “I affirm that we must all rise again in this flesh,” I realized he had admitted what he had once fervently denied.

Let us now set aside these discussions and delve into the profound declarations of blessed Job, which affirm the reality of both the resurrection and the true nature of the resurrected body. For it is through him that we can no longer waver in our hope for the resurrection. He stated, “I must rise at the last day from the earth.” He further assures us of the resurrection of the true body, proclaiming, “And I shall be covered again with my skin.” He conclusively adds to alleviate any uncertainties: “And in my flesh I shall see God” (Job 19:26).

Observe how he explicitly references the resurrection, mentioning ‘skin’ and ‘flesh.’ What more can our minds cling to in doubt? If this holy man, even before Christ's resurrection had occurred, held the belief that the flesh would one day return to its original state, how can we justify doubting the truth of fleshly resurrection after witnessing the Resurrected One? For if a tangible body does not exist post-resurrection, then it cannot be the same person who perishes that is raised — a baffling belief indeed, suggesting that it is I who dies, while someone else is resurrected. Thus, I earnestly implore you, blessed Job, continue to affirm your beliefs and eradicate any lingering doubts we may harbor regarding this matter.

This profound truth, recognized by the pagan world and understood in a vague manner by those bound by the law, was firmly grasped and openly professed by the patient Job. His focus is not on a mere restoration to health or an earthly existence; he has recently acknowledged the certainty of his impending death. Most Church Fathers interpreted this passage as a reference to the future resurrection. Some, like Irenaeus and Athenagoras, may not have directly cited it as evidence of the resurrection of the dead, and St. Chrysostom’s view that Job lacked awareness of resurrection might stem from the surrounding despair over his earthly plight.