3. It is evident also that he intends hereby something that should befal him after his death, and not barely a deliverance from his present misery in this world; for he speaks of his skin or body as devoured by worms, and his reins consumed within him; which can intend no other than a state of corruption in death.
4. It does not appear that Job had any intimation concerning the change of his condition in this world, before God turned his captivity, having first made him sensible of his error, in uttering that which he understood not, when he testified his reconciliation to his friends, notwithstanding the injuries he had received from them, by praying for them, chap. xlii. 3, 10. And, indeed, he was so far from expecting happiness in this life, that he says, Mine eye shall no more see good, viz. in this world, chap. vii. 7. and hereupon he takes occasion to meditate on his own mortality in the following words; The eye of him that hath seen me shall see me no more; thine eyes are upon me, and I am not: And after this he prays, O that thou wouldst hide me in the grave, chap. xiv. 13. &c. And immediately before he speaks of his Redeemer as living, and the deliverance which he should obtain in the latter day, in the text under our present consideration, he earnestly desires the compassion of his friends: Have pity upon me, have pity upon me, O ye my friends; for the hand of God hath touched me; which does not well agree with the least expectation of a state of happiness in this world; in which case he would not need their pity; he might only have convinced them of the truth thereof, and it would have given a turn to their behaviour towards him; for we find, that, when God blessed his latter end more than his beginning, every one was as ready to comfort him concerning the evil that the Lord had brought upon him, and shew their very great respect to him, by offering him presents, as any were before to reproach him. Therefore upon the whole, it is very evident that Job is not speaking concerning his deliverance from his present evils in this world, but of a perfect deliverance from all evil in the great day of the resurrection: Accordingly we must conclude, that the doctrine of the resurrection is plainly asserted in this scripture; and indeed, Jerome says, that no one who wrote after Christ has more plainly maintained the doctrine of the resurrection than Job does in this scripture, who lived before him[[172]].
There is another scripture, by which, if I do not mistake the sense thereof, Job appears to have had a steady faith in the doctrine of the resurrection, and was firmly persuaded concerning his happiness, when raised from the dead, namely, in chap. xiv. 13, 14, 15. in which he says, O! that thou wouldst hide me in the grave, that thou wouldst keep me secret until thy wrath be past; that is, till a full end is put to all the afflictive providences which men are liable to in this present world, namely, till the day of Christ’s second coming; or, that thou wouldst appoint me a set time, and remember me; namely, that thou wouldst deliver me from the evils which I now endure. As to the former of these expedients, to wit, his deliverance by death, that he counts a blessing, because he takes it for granted that if a man die he shall live again, ver. 14.[[173]] and therefore says, all the days of my appointed time, that is, not of the appointed time of life, but the time appointed that he should lie in the grave, in which he desired that God would hide him; there, says he, I shall wait, or remain, till my change come, that is, till I am changed from a state of mortality to that of life. And he goes on in the following words, Thou shalt call, that is, by thy power thou shalt raise me, and I will answer thee, or come forth out of my grave; and hereby thou wilt make it known that thou hast a desire to the work of thine hands.
If it be objected to this sense of the words, that Job says, ver. 12. that man lieth down, and riseth not till the heavens be no more; they shall not awake nor be raised out of their sleep; therefore he is so far from expecting relief from his misery in the resurrection, that he seems plainly to deny it. To this I answer, that he doth not deny the doctrine of the resurrection in those words wherein he says that they shall not be raised from the dead, till the heavens be no more; which seems to intimate that he concluded that the dead should rise when the frame of nature was changed, as it will be, at the last day, in which the heavens shall be no more. I confess this sense is not commonly given of these verses, nor any argument drawn from, them to prove a resurrection from the dead; therefore I would not be too tenacious of mine own sense thereof; but I cannot but think it more probable than the common sense that is given of the words, and if so, it may be considered as a proof of the doctrine that we are maintaining.
There is another scripture which plainly proves the doctrine of the resurrection, namely, Dan. xii. 2. Many of them that sleep in the dust shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. This scripture is brought by several Rabbinical writers, as a proof of this doctrine; and the words are so express, that it will be very difficult to evade the force of them; though, it is true, some modern writers, who are ready to conclude that the Old Testament is silent as to the doctrine of the resurrection, take the words in a metaphorical sense, for the deliverance of the church from those grievous persecutions which they were under in the reign of Antiochus; and so sleeping in the dust is taken, by them, for lying in the holes and caves of the earth, the Jews being forced to seek protection there from the fury of the tyrant: But this cannot be properly called sleeping in the dust of the earth; and their deliverance from this persecution is not consistent with the contempt that should be cast on some that were raised out of the dust; nor could the happiness that others enjoyed in this deliverance, be called everlasting life, it being only a temporal salvation, that according to them, is here spoken of; and it must be a straining the metaphor to a great degree, to apply the following words to their wise men and teachers, after this deliverance, that they should shine as the brightness of the firmament; therefore this sense has such difficulties attending it, that every person who is not prepossessed with prejudice must give into the literal sense of the text; and confess that it is an argument to prove the doctrine of the resurrection.
The only difficulty that is pretended to be involved in this sense of the text is its being said, Many of them that sleep in the dust shall awake; whereas the doctrine that we are defending, is that of an universal resurrection. But since we shall have occasion to speak to that under a following head, we shall rather choose to refer it to its proper place, in which, according to our designed method, we are to consider that all who have lived from the beginning to the end of time, shall be raised.
There are other scriptures in the Old Testament that might be brought to prove this doctrine, such as that in Deut. xxxii. 39. in which God says, I kill, and I make alive; and that parallel text, in which the same thing is confessed, and farther explained, by Hannah, in her song, in 1 Sam. ii. 6. The Lord killeth and maketh alive, he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up. I know that death and life are sometimes taken for good and evil; but why should deliverance from the miseries of this present life be represented by the metaphor of a resurrection, and this attributed to the almighty power of God, if the doctrine of the resurrection was reckoned by the church at that time, no other than a fiction or chimera, as it must be supposed to be if they had no idea of it, as not having received it by divine revelation?
We might, as a farther proof of this doctrine, consider those three instances that we have in the Old Testament of persons raised from the dead, namely, the Shunamite’s child, by the prophet Elisha, 2 Kings iv. 35. and the man who was cast into his sepulchre, that revived and stood on his feet, when he touched his bones, chap. xiii. 21. and the widow of Zarephath’s son, by the prophet Elijah, on which occasion it is said, He cried to the Lord, and said, O Lord my God, I pray thee let this child’s soul come into him again; and accordingly the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived, 1 Kings xvii. 21, 22. From hence we must conclude, that this doctrine was not unknown to the prophet; for if it had, he could not have directed his prayer to God in faith. And these instances of a resurrection of particular persons could not but give occasion to the church at that time, to believe the possibility of a resurrection at the last day; so that it might as reasonably be expected that God will exert his power by raising the dead then, as that he would do it at this time, unless there was something in this possible event contrary to his moral perfections; but the resurrection appeared to them as it doth to all who consider him as the governor of the world, and as distributing rewards and punishments to every one according to their works, as not only agreeable to these perfections, but, in some respects, necessary for the illustration thereof. Therefore we must conclude, that as they had particular instances of a resurrection, which argued the general resurrection possible, they might easily believe that it should be future; which is the doctrine that we are maintaining.
To this we may add, that the patriarch Abraham believed the doctrine of the resurrection; therefore he had it some way or other revealed to him, before the word of God was committed to writing. This appears from what the apostle says when speaking concerning his offering Isaac, that he accounted that God was able to raise him up even from the dead, Heb. xi. 19. From hence it is evident that he was verily persuaded when he bound him to the altar, and lifted up his hand to slay him, that God would suffer him to do it, otherwise it had been no trial of his faith, so that his being prevented from laying his hand on him was an unexpected providence. Now how could he solve the difficulty that would necessarily ensue hereupon; had he expected that God would give him another seed instead of Isaac, that would not have been an accomplishment of the promise which was given to him, namely, that in Isaac his seed should be called; therefore the only thing that he depended on, was, that when he had offered him, God would raise him from the dead, and by this means fulfil the promise that was made to him concerning the numerous seed that should descend from him; therefore it cannot be supposed that Abraham was a stranger to the doctrine of the resurrection.
There are other scriptures by which it appears that the doctrine of the resurrection was revealed to the church under the Old Testament dispensation, either from the sense of the words themselves, or the explication thereof in the New, which refers to them: thus it is said in Psal. xvi. 10. Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption; which the apostle Peter quotes to prove the resurrection of Christ, in Acts ii. 24-27. If David therefore knew that the Messiah should be raised from the dead (which, as will be considered under a following head, is a glorious proof of the doctrine of the resurrection of the saints) we cannot suppose that he was a stranger to this doctrine himself.