Albert Barnes Commentary Job 2

Again there was a day ... - See the notes at (Job 1:6). These seasons are represented as periodical, when the angels came, as it were, to report to God what they had observed and done. The Chaldee renders this, “And there was a day of the great judgment (רבא דינא יום yôm dı̂ynā' rābā'), a day of the remission of sins (שבוק יום סרחניא) and there came bands (כתי) of angels.”

To present himself before the Lord - This does not occur in the former statement in (Job 1:6). It here means that he came before the Lord after he had permission to afflict Job. The Chaldee renders it, “that he might stand in judgment דין dı̂yn before the Lord.”

And the Lord said unto Satan ... - See the notes at Job 1:7.

Have you considered - Notes, (Job 1:8).

That there is none like him in the earth - The same addition is made here by the Septuagint which occurs in (Job 1:1); see the notes at that verse.

And still he holds fast his integrity - Notwithstanding all the efforts made to show that his piety was the result of mere selfishness. The word “integrity” here תמה tûmmâh means “perfection;” another form of the word which is rendered “perfect” in (Job 1:1); see the notes at that verse.

Although you moved me - The word rendered “moved” סוּת sûth means to incite, to impel, to urge, to irritate against anyone (Joshua 15:18; Judges 1:14; 2 Chronicles 18:2; 1 Samuel 26:19; Jeremiah 43:3). The Septuagint renders this in a special manner, “And you have ordered (εἶπας eipas) his property to be destroyed in vain” (διακενῆς diakenēs), that is, without accomplishing the purpose intended.

To destroy him - The word used here (from בלע bela‛) means properly to swallow, to devour, with the idea of eagerness or greediness. It is then used in the sense of to consume, or destroy; compare Job 20:18; Proverbs 1:12; Numbers 16:30; Psalms 69:15. In the margin it is rendered “swallow him up.”

Without cause - Without any sufficient reason. The cause assigned by Satan (Job 1:9–11) was that the piety of Job was selfish, and that if God should remove his possessions, he would show that he had no true religion. God says now that it was demonstrated that there was no reason for having made the trial. The result had shown that the charge was unfounded, and that his piety still remained, though he was stripped of all that he had. This passage may remind us of the speech of Neptune in favor of Aeneas, Iliad Book 5, line 297:

And can you see this righteous chief atone
With guiltless blood for vices not his own?
To all the gods his constant vows were paid;
Sure though he wars for Troy he claims our aid.
Fate wills not this - Pope

Skin for skin — This is a proverbial expression, whose origin is unknown, nor is its meaning as a “proverb” entirely clear. The general sense of the passage here is plain, for it is immediately explained that a man would give everything that he had to save his life. The idea here is that if Job were so afflicted in his body that he was likely to die, he would give up all his religion to purchase life. His religion, which had borne the comparatively trifling test previously applied to it, would not bear the severer trial if his life were endangered. Regarding the proverb itself, a great variety of explanations has been given.

The ancient versions throw no light on it. The Vulgate renders it, “Pellem pro pelle.” The Septuagint, Δέρμα ὑπὲρ δέρυατος — derma hyper dermatos — skin for, or instead of, skin. The Chaldee renders it, “member for member,” אברא אמטול אברא — and the author of that paraphrase seems to have supposed that it means that a man would give the members of his body or his limbs to preserve his life.

Parkhurst renders it, “skin after skin,” meaning, as he explains it, that a man may bear to part with all that he has, and even to have his skin, as it were, stripped off again and again, provided only that his life is safe. Noyes supposes that it means that any man will give the skin or life of another, whether animal or man, to save his own; and that Job gave up all, without complaint, from the selfish fear of exposing his own life to danger. Dr. Good remarks on the passage that the skins or spoils of beasts, in the rude and early ages of humanity, were the most valuable property one could acquire, and that for which people most frequently combated. Thus, Lucretius says:

Tam igitur “pelles,” nunc aurum et purpura, curis
Exercent hominum vitam, belloque fatigant.
v. 1422.

“Then man for “skins” contended; purple now,
And gold, forever plunge him into war.”

In various parts of the book of Job, however, Dr. Good remarks, the word “skin” imports the “person” of a man as well as his “property,” the whole living body which it envelops, as in Job 18:13 and Job 19:26.

“It is,” says he, “upon the double meaning of the same term, and the play which is here given to it, by employing the term first in one sense and then in the other, that the gist of the proverb, as of a thousand others similarly constructed, depends. ‘Skin for skin’ is in this view, in plain English, ‘property for person,’ or ‘the skin forming property for the skin forming person.’”

See a somewhat similar view presented by Callaway, in Bush’s Illustrations, on this passage. The editor of the Pictorial Bible mainly coincides with this view and supposes that the reference is to the time when trade was conducted by barter, and when the skins of animals, being a most frequent and valuable commodity, were used to represent property.

Tributes, ransoms, etc., he observes, were paid in skins. According to this, it means that a man would give “skin upon skin;” that is, would pile one piece of property upon another, and give “all” that he had, to save his life. It refers to the necessity of submitting to one great evil rather than incur a greater, answering to the Turkish proverb, “We must give our beards to save our heads.” According to Gesenius, it means “life for life.” Drusius explains it as meaning that he would give the skin of others, such as his sons, to save his own; that is, that he was unmoved as long as his own skin or life was safe. The same view is given by Ephrem the Syrian.

“Skin for skin; the skin not only of flocks, but even of his sons will he give, in order to save his own.” This view is also adopted by Umbreit. That is, his religion was supremely selfish. The loss of property and even of children he could bear, provided his person was untouched.

His own health and life, his own skin and body, were dearer to him than anything else. Other people would have been afflicted by the loss of children and property. But Job was willing to part with any or all of these, provided he himself was safe.

Rosenmuller supposes that the word “skin” here is used for the whole body and says that the sense is that he would give the body of another for his own, as in Exodus 21:23. “The meaning of this proverbial formula,” says he, “is, that anyone would redeem his own safety by the skin of others; that is, not only by the skins or lives of oxen, camels, servants, but even of his own children.”

Schultens supposes it means that a man would submit to any sufferings to save his life; that he would be willing to be flayed alive, to be repeatedly excoriated, to have, so to speak, one skin stripped off after another, if he might save his own life.

According to this, the idea is that the loss of life was the great calamity to be feared, and that a man would give “any” thing to save it. Umbreit says, “There is nothing so valuable to a man that he will not exchange it — one thing for another, one outward good for another, ‘skin for skin.’ But life, the inward good, is to him of no value that can be estimated. That he will give for nothing; and much more, he will offer everything for that.”

Another solution is offered in the Biblische Untersuchungen II. Th. S. 88: “Before the use of gold, traffic was conducted chiefly by barter. Men exchanged what was valuable to themselves for what others had which they wanted. Those who hunted wild beasts would bring their skins to market and would exchange them for bows and arrows.

Since these traffickers were exposed to the danger of being robbed, they often took with them those who were armed, who agreed to defend them on condition that they should have a part of the skins which they took, and in this way they purchased their property and life.”

That is, they gave the skins of animals for the safety of their own; all that they had they would surrender, so that their lives might be saved. See Rosenmuller’s Morgenland, on this passage. None of these solutions appear to me perfectly satisfactory, and the proverb is involved in perplexity still. It seems to refer to some kind of barter or exchange, and to mean that a man would give up one thing for another, or one piece of property of lesser value to save a greater; and that in like manner he would be willing to surrender “everything,” so that his life, the most valuable object, might be preserved. But the exact meaning of the proverb, I suspect, has not yet been perceived.

Yea, all that a man has — This is evidently designed to express the same thing as the proverb, “skin for skin,” or to furnish an illustration of it. The meaning is plain: a man is willing to surrender all that he has to preserve his life. He will part with property and friends so that he may be kept alive.

If a man, therefore, is to be reached in the most tender and vital part, if anything is to be done that shall truly reveal his character, his life must be put in danger, and his true character will then be revealed. The object of Satan is to say that a test had not been applied to Job of sufficient severity to show what he really was. What he had lost was a mere trifle compared with what would be if he were subjected to severe bodily sufferings, so that his life would be in peril. It is to be remembered that these are the words of Satan, and that they are not necessarily true.

Inspiration is concerned only in securing “the exact record” of what is said, not in affirming that all that is said is true. We shall have frequent occasion to illustrate this sentiment in other portions of the book. Regarding the sentiment here expressed, however, it is in general true. Men will surrender their property, their houses, lands, and gold, to save their lives. Many, too, would see their friends perish so that they might be saved.

It is not universally true, however. It is possible to conceive that a man might so love his property as to submit to any torture, even endangering life, rather than surrender it. Many, too, if endangered by shipwreck, would give up a plank to save their wives or children, at the risk of their own lives. Many will give their lives rather than surrender their liberty, and many would die rather than abandon their principles.

Such were the noble Christian martyrs; and such a man was Job. Satan urged that if Job’s life were made wretched, he would abandon his integrity and show that his professed piety was selfish, and his religion false and hollow. The Syriac and Arabic add, “that he may be safe.”

But put forth thine hand now— Satan felt that he had no power to afflict Job without permission. Malignant as he was, he knew that God only could subject the holy man to this trial—another proof that Satan is under the control of the Almighty, and acts only as he is “permitted” to act in tempting and trying the good.

And touch his bone— See the note at Job 1:11. Afflict his body so as to endanger his life. The words “bone” and “flesh” denote the whole body. The idea was, that the whole body should be subjected to severe pain.

And he will curse thee to thy face— Notes at Job 1:11.