tality of the soul, in the existence of a Supreme Being and in the final extinction of evil. And in their virtuous lives, in their intelligence and love of progress, so vastly superior to those of the Hindoos and Mohammedans by whom they are surrounded, we may see a promise that the little group of Parsees in Bombay, with their few brethren scattered in Indiathe sole descendants of the sacred order of the Priesthood of Zoroaster of the Wise Men who in such infinite faith followed the star to the manger of Bethlehem, and the last remnants of one of the greatest people of antiquity, have yet a future before them and are not numbered among the peoples soon to pass Caroline M. Sawyer.

away.

ARTICLE XIX.

Accounted Worthy of the Resurrection.

The sons of this world marry and are given in marriage; but they that are accounted worthy to attain to that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage. Luke xx. 34, 35.

WE once published our views of this passage in one of the weekly papers of our church; and the late Dr. Thayer, then editor of the Quarterly, remarking thereon, said it was the best exposition he had ever seen. This commendation, from so high authority, has encouraged us to prepare it anew, and offer it to the Quarterly; hoping it will be as favorably regarded by his successor and his patrons, as by the former editor.

The style of our composition can no doubt be improved; but the truth of our rendering and exposition, we are convinced, is unassailable, resting on a foundation that cannot be moved. If our Greek is at fault, (though supported by abundant New Testament usage,) the Greek masters can make the necessary corrections; and we earnestly call upon them to do so.

I. There are some mistranslations in this passage, though taken from the revised edition. These make the pas

sage to differ from its parallels in Matthew and Mark, with which it would otherwise agree. See Matt. xxii. 29, 30, Mark xii. 24, 25. These speak of the resurrection as universal, no limitation or qualification being expressed or implied; while in Luke the resurrection is restricted to those who are accounted worthy; though further along this restriction is not recognized, but is apparently contradicted. This fact itself is a

plain indication that something is wrong.

(1) In the first place, in the expression, "sons of this world," sons is not the best rendering. The word means sons, to be sure; but when, as in the passage before us, it embraces both men and women, it is better to translate it, as in the old version, children. The language, "marry and are given in marriage," has reference to both sexes. Men marry, and women are given in marriage. The latter expression had its origin in the fact, that in Oriental lands ladies married young, and were given away by their parents, themselves having but little to say on the subject. This was often true of young men. But when both are mentioned together, by an Oriental author, who would expect him to neglect the opportunity of saying something in disparagement of the female? Jesus employs the popular language of his age and country.

.6

(2) In the clauses, this world," and "that world," the original for world is aion, (wor), about which there has been much controversy. It generally means age, or dispensation, and is often used to denote the Jewish or Christian age. In some of these instances Dr. Campbell would prefer state, as the more appropriate word. The proper word for world is kosmos (xóoμos,) though a few times oikoumen (oixovμévn) is used for the inhabited earth or land, from oikeo (oixéo) to dwell. It generally denotes a limited territory, and never more than the Roman Empire. In the present instance, the construction of the passage shows, that aion means the present state or constitution of things, as compared with the future life; the one being physical, the other spiritual; the first admitting of marriage, and requiring it; the last neither requiring nor admitting of it. We are not aware that this term is

ever used in this way elsewhere, in the New Testament; but we are utterly at a loss as to what other meaning to give to it in this

passage.

If the passage itself admitted of any doubt, the parallel passages would set the matter at rest. The question put to Jesus, concerning the woman with seven husbands, involved a serious objection to the doctrine of the Pharisees, who made the two states to be alike, or rather the same; but not to that of Jesus, who taught that they were very different. Therefore, he said to the Sadducees, who had asked the question, and who assumed that he and the Pharisees held the same doctrine, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." He does the same as to say, "As this world is constituted, marriage is proper and necessary; but in that spiritual state, it is neither required nor possible."

The children of this state or physical condition, are all mankind; for marraige is designed to be universal. It is not confined to a worthy class, but embraces the worthy and the unworthy. This leads us to notice the chief error in the passage

before us.

(3) The passage is at fault, in being so construed as to ignore the intimate connection between the two verses, the 34th and 35th. The first says, "The sons of this world marry and are given in marriage;" the next, "But they that are accounted worthy," etc. The original of the pronoun they here used is the Greek article hoi (o) in the plural, often used in this manner, both in the singular and plural, and translated as a The translators here treat it as if it had no antecepronoun. dent. If it had none, (and it is often used without any,) the translation would be correct. But here there is an antecedent; and it must be recognized, if we do not intend to pervert the sense of the passage.

66

The antecedent is sons, more fully, sons of this world," or as we prefer children, whioi (vo;) and the required agreement, in gender and number, with the antecedent, is exact. Besides, in the Greek, there is no word answering to the relative that, in the language, "They that are accounted worthy." The next

word after they, is a passive participle in the aorist tense, having the same gender and number as both the article and its antecedent, and therefore, the rendering should be, "But they, having been accounted worthy," etc., that is, the children of this state, having been accounted worthy to attain to that world, and the resurrection, etc., neither marry, nor are given in marriage. They are no longer children of this world, but are children of God, being children of the resurrection.

All that is said in this passage, is predicated of the children of this world, or the subjects of the present existence, meaning all mankind; and this brings it into harmony with the parallel passages in Matthew and Mark. The reason why these passages differ, is not so much on account of forgetfulness on the part of the evangelists, as on account of the variety of language by Jesus himself. We all understand that he said a great deal more, on every occasion, than what is recorded. There is no doubt that he varied his expressions relating to the same subject, and may have used, not only all the forms reported, but others not reported, and perhaps not remembered.

It is not difficult to see how Jesus came to nse the words given by Luke. The Sadduces contended that man had no worthiness for immortal life, that is not possessed by the brute creation. They may have said so on the present occasion; and if they did not, Jesus knew what they thought and often said. His reply is adapted to meet this objection; and we doubt not was so intended. He shows in what the worthiness of men consists. They are the sons of God, and therefore the sons of the resurrection. Being like God, that is immortal, implied in being his sons, they are destined to immortality.

The following passages have the article in the plural (òt); and it is used in the same way, both with an antecedent and without; Matt. iv. 20, 22, xxi. 25, xxvi. 66, xxvii. 66, xxviii. 15; Mark vi. 49, viii. 16, ix. 32, 34, x. 26, xii. 3. 14, 16, xiv. 11; Luke vii. 4, ix. 10, xx. 5, 15, xxiv. 42. In all these passages the antecedent of hoi, they is at once obvious.

"And

they straitway left the nets," " And they left the boat," "And

they reasoned in themselves." So with the rest. The following, having no antecedent, the word hoi is defined by the words that follow it. The examples selected to illustrate this usage are the following: Matt. viii. 33, xiv. 33, xv. 38, xxvi. 57, xxvii. 39; Mark v. 14; Luke viii. 12 13. "And they (hoi) that fed them fled," "And they that were in the boat worshipped him,' ," "And they that did eat were four thousand." So with the rest. Here the words that follow the hoi show its application; while in the other examples this is done by the precedfng words.

Luke xxii. 25 is treated by the translators as if there were no antecedent, when we think there is. It reads thus: And he said unto them, the kings of the Gentiles have lordship over them; and they (hoi) that have authority over them are called benefactors. The last sentence should rather be, " And they (the kings) that have authority over them are called benefactors." This is precisely like the passage we are considering; while it shows clearly the difference in the two classes of passages given above.

(4) "Being accounted worthy" is implied in the original; but the rendering is defective, as it fails to bring out the idea, also implied, of the actual possession of that of which men are worthy. The original kataxiothentes (xűtağıwbertes) is an aorist passive participle. It denotes worthiness; but it denotes more. It implies the actual possession of what is called "that state and the resurrection," as well as being worthy of them; and there is no word in the Greek for the rendering accounted. The children of this world do not cease to marry, because they are accounted worthy of immortal life; nor because they are worthy; but because they are in possession of it. We would, therefore, with Dr. Campbell, render the word, honored, thus : "But they, having been honored with that state, and the resurrection from the dead," etc. "Honored to attain it" is more literal, but it does not improve the sense; and so we prefer the shorter form.

Of course, if men are honored with that state and the resurrection, it is because they are accounted worthy, and are