in the Old Testament of a corporeal resurrection, but one of the clearest in the whole compass of revelation. For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet וַאֲנִי יָדַעְתִּי כֹּאֲלִי הָי וְאַחֲרוֹן :at the latter day upon the earth עַל־עָפָר יָקוּם: ואחר עוֹרִי נִקְפוּ זָאת :in my flesh shall I see God וּמִבְּשָׂרִי אֶחֱזֶה אֱלוֹהַ : ,and mine eyes shall behold אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי אֶחֱזֶה־כִּי וְעֵינַי רָאוּ GR. OF LXX. Οἶδα γάρ ὅτι ἀεννός ἐστιν ὁ ἐκλύειν με, ἐπὶ γῆς ὁ ἀναστῆ σας τὸ δέρμα μου τὸ ἀναν. τλοῦν ταῦτα· παρὰ γὰρ Κυρίου ταῦτα μοι συνετελέσθη, ἃ ἐγὼ ἐμαυτῷ συνεπίσταμαι, å ó ógvαîμós pov swoaxɛ, καὶ οὐκ ἄλλος, πάντα δέ μοι συντετέλεσται ἐν κόλπῳ. VULG. Scio enim, quod redemptor meus vivit, et in novissimo die de terra surrecturus sum; Et rursum circumdabor pelle mea, et in carne mea videbo Deum meum. Quem visurus sum ego ipse, et oculi mei conspecturi sunt, et non alius; reposita est hæc spes mea in sinu meo. Whom I shall see for myself, and not another; though my ENG. VERS. For I know that he is eternal who is about to deliver me, to raise again upon earth this skin of mine, which draws up these things. For from the Lord these things have hap pened to me, of which I alone am conscious, and not another, to me in my bosom. and which have all been done ENG. VERS. For I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the last day I shall rise from the earth; And again I shall be enveloped with my skin, and in my flesh shall I see my God. Whom I myself shall see, and my eyes shall behold, and not another: this, my hope, is laid up in my bosom. No one can fail to be struck with the diversity of renderings here exhibited. The same feature would be still more remarkably disclosed were we to multiply, as might easily be done, the translations, ancient and modern, which interpreters have given of the passage. It would, perhaps, be impos sible to cite any paragraph in the whole compass of revelation marked by greater variety of construction than the present. This does not prove, indeed, that the passage is intrinsically unintelligible, but it proves that it cannot at once and confidently be assumed as bearing upon the point to which it is often applied. The mere letter of the English version does not afford a warrant sufficiently strong for adducing the passage in proof of the resurrection. The propriety of such a reference obviously depends upon the soundness of the interpretation which makes the language of Job a prediction of the Messiah-a view which has indeed been held by many commentators in different ages of the church, but against which the most serious objections exist. (1.) The book of Job was not written by a Jew nor in the country of the Jews, and therefore not by one who was among the inheritors of the promise of the Messiah, or who is to be supposed a priori to have had any knowledge of a Messiah. Nor is there any other passage in the whole book importing that Job knew any thing of such a promised personage as the Jews understood by their Messiah. The book is not in its genius a Messianic book, but one purely theistic; and we are not at liberty, from the simple occurrence of the title 'Redeemer,' which we shall soon show to be more correctly translated by another term, to assign to the book a character which it has no adequate evidence of possessing. (2.) Had the present passage really contained such an explicit declaration of Job's faith in a coming Messiah as is generally supposed, it is certain that he would have been entitled to a conspicuous place in that roll of ancient worthies, recited in the eleventh of Hebrews, who "have by faith obtained an excellent report." But no mention of him occurs in that catalogue, nor is he ever cited in the New Testament as an example of faith, but simply as a pattern of patience. (3.) Were the words before us to be justly regarded as expressive of his belief in the promised Redeemer of the Jewish Scriptures, it would have given him a just claim to the character of a prophet, as well as a believer; yet we find no intimation of his ever being deemed to possess that character, nor is this passage ever once alluded to by the Apostles in their controversies with the Jews in regard to the Old Testament predictions of Christ. For these reasons we are constrained to dissent from any view which recognizes these words of Job as referring to the Messiah; and just so far as the evidence is weakened on this score, so far do they lose their force as a testimony to the doctrine of the resurrection. But we have more positive proof from exegetical sources that no such allusion is couched in the language. The original word answering to 'Redeemer,' is b Goël, which is variously rendered by interpreters vindicator, avenger, deliverer, and is the term applied to him whose office it was to avenge the blood of a near kinsman, or to redeem a possession which had been alienated by mortgage or otherwise, as the kinsman of Naomi is said to have been the Goël or redeemer of the estate which Boaz bought upon his marriage to Ruth. Here then we may suppose it to be applied to God considered in the character of a vindicating or avenging patron of Job, who would appear as the asserter and defender of his injured innocence-innocence, that is, so far as the unjust charges and accusations of his professed friends were concerned. This divine Vindicator or Redeemer Job was assured was 'living,' however his power might now seem to be in abeyance, and that he would one day appear standing up in his behalf, but frail and mouldering dust though he were, and his skin and his flesh consumed by the force of his wasting disease. He is still confident that in his flesh, restored to strength and beauty, he shall yet in this life see, with his own eyes, his divine Deliverer appearing in his behalf and graciously vindicating his cause. It is the language of assured confidence in the issue which is expressly recorded in the closing chapters of the book, among the informations of which we learn, that the afflicted saint at length declared, chap. 42. 5, “I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now mine eye seeth thee." This then we conceive to be the fair and unforced interpretation of this remarkable passage, of which Rabbi Me nasseh Ben Israel says (De Resur. Mort. L. ii. c. 3), "There is nothing in it in any way relating to the resurrection; nor doth it appear that any of the Hebrews ever understood it in such a sense. The meaning and import of the words is this; I know that he who is the Redeemer of my soul, and translates it to a seat of happiness, is living and eternal through all ages." Yet this is said by a writer who does not scruple, by the most far-fetched perversion, to press into his service, in proof of the resurrection of the body, such texts as the following: 1 Kings 1. 31, "Let my lord king David live forever." Ex. 19. 6, "And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation." Num. 15. 30, "But the soul that doeth aught presumptuously, that soul shall be cut off from among his people." Deut. 4. 4, "But ye that did cleave unto the Lord your God, are alive every one of you this day." And so with a multitude of others equally irrelevant. How is this to be accounted for on the supposition that Job's words were ever understood by the Jewish church to refer to this subject? Would it not be the first text to which they would have had recourse? The necessity of a more extended discussion of this passage is precluded by the very ample and able investigation of it, into which Mr. Barnes has entered in his elabo rate commentary on this venerable book, in which, after summing up, in a masterly manner, the arguments for and against the common interpretation, he comes to the clear conclusion that it contains no reference either to Christ or the resurrection. He closes the discussion with the follow ing remarks, to which we cordially assent :-"So far as ĺ can see, all that is fairly implied in the passage, when properly interpreted, is fully met by the events recorded in the close of the book. Such an interpretation meets the exigency of the case, accords with the strain of the argument and with the result, and is the most simple and natural that has been proposed. These considerations are so weighty in my mind that they have conducted me to a conclusion, contrary, I confess, to what I had hoped to have reached, that this passage has no reference to the Messiah and the doctrine of the resurrection. We do not need it-for all the truths respecting the Messiah and the resurrection which we need, are fully revealed elsewhere; and though this is an exquisitely beautiful passage, and piety would love to retain the belief that it refers to the resurrection of the dead, yet truth is to be preferred to indulgence of the wishes and desires of the heart, however amiable or pious, and the desire to find certain doctrines in the Bible should yield to what we are constrained to believe the Spirit of inspiration actually taught. I confess that I have never been so pained at any conclusion to which I have come, in the interpretation of the Bible, as in the case before us. I would like to have found a distinct prophecy of the Messiah in this ancient and venerable book. I would like to have found the faith of this eminent saint sustained by such a faith in his future advent and incarnation. I would like to have found evidence that this expectation had become incorporated in the piety of the early nations, and was found in Arabia. I would like to have found traces of the early belief of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead sustaining the souls of the patriarchs then, as it does ours now, in trial. But I cannot. Yet I can regard it as a most beautiful and triumphant expression of confidence in God, and as wholly worthy to be engraved, as Job desired it might be, in the solid rock for ever, that the passing traveller might see and read it; or as worthy of that more permanent record which it has received by being ‘printed IN A BOOK'-by an art unknown then, and sent down to |