worthy; but honored is the better word to use, because it implies the actual possession, as well as the worthiness; when the other form of words does not; and it is the former and not the latter that constitutes the reason for not marrying, and for the other things affirmed.

The following passages will show the propriety of our rendering of this word, "accounted worthy." The original verb has two forms, the simple and compound (ağıów and xaraşıów); the last having the preposition kata (xara). The translators make no distinction between these words, giving both the same version. We will give a few passages to illustrate their usage: Luke vii. 7, "Neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee." There is no term for thought in this passage. It is like accounted in the passage we are considering. The meaning is that he had not honored himself with a visit to the Saviour. The reason implied is his unworthiness; but this is not expressed. The verb is the simple form. Luke xxi. 36. “Watch ye, therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things, that shall come to pass, (are about to come to pass,) and to stand before the Son of man." Here the compound form is employed, and the passage is the more important as being the language of Luke, and in close proximity to the passage under consideration.

The worthiness to escape the impending calamities and to stand before the Son of man is implied; but the actual escape, etc., was the more important, and is implied in the Greek but not in the translation. When we say a man is worthy of the presidency of the United States, we do not mean that he is president, or ever will be. But when we say a man is honored with the presidency, we mean he is president. The word accounted is no part of the passage last quoted, nor of any other that will be quoted. For some reason, the word under consideration, rendered "accounted worthy," is not recog nized by the revisers, in Luke xxi. 36. Here as well as in the other passages, honored is a better rendering than the one employed.

Acts v. 41. "They therefore departed from the presence of

the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the Name." Counted is not here. That they were worthy to suffer dishonor, would be better. But this is not all. They rejoiced, not alone for their worthiness to suffer dishonor, but for the actual suffering of it. Therefore, “they rejoiced in being honored to suffer dishonor," is better still. Here the compouud verb is used. See similar passages: 1 Tim. v. 17, 2 Thess. i. 5, 11, Heb. iii. 3, x. 29.

II. The rest of the passage, after verses 34, 35, which is the same essentially as the parallel passages, is in entire harmony with our exposition thus far given. Some of the phraseology is directly opposed to the ideas of the Pharisees on the same subject. It hardly need be added, that it refutes the theory of some, that Jesus taught no original doctrine of the resurrection, but only accommodated his teaching to the prevailing opinions.

1. For neither can they die any more. According to Josephus, the Jewish historian, the Pharisees held to a resurrection in the form of transmigration; and this is borne out by a number of passages in the New Testament. In some things, Josephus, as there is reason to believe, did not correctly represent the Jews; but in this particular, the corroborating evidence should convince us that he did. That the soul, coming back from hades to this world, would die no more, they did

not believe; nor that such would be as the angels.

We were at first a little embarrassed with the word for, at the beginning of the above sentence. It seemed superfluous and out of place, But it is in the Greek, and it is there for a purpose. It gives a reason for there being no marriage in the future life. Men do not die there, and for that reason they do If they died in that world, as they do in this, marriage would be equally necessary.

not marry.

Being equal to the angels, or, more properly, being like the angels, may be another reason for no marriage in that state;

or

it may be the same reason in a different form. Among the heathen those beings called angels by Christians are denominated gods and are worshiped. These marry and are given in

marriage. They are sometimes faithful to their marriage obligations; but more generally not. more generally not. So the Pharisees believed that those who came back from hades would marry, as they had done before their visit to the under world. Some of the Christian fathers believed that the sons of God, who took for wives the daughters of men, recorded in Genesis, were angels.

2. That the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the place concerning the Bush. That the dead are raised must. embrace all the dead, and not a select number that are accounted worthy. Of course, what goes before must have the same universal application; and this proves our general view of this passage to be correct. What is said of "the Bush " will be understood when it is known that in the time of our Saviour, the Bible had no division of chapters and verses; and that passages were referred to by naming some prominent things alluded to therein. Hence, what took place at the burning bush was referred to by calling it "the Bush." A number of such references are found in the New Testament. Mark ii.

26, Rom. xi. 2, etc.

How Moses showed that the dead are raised, at the burning bush, need not be dwelt upon in this article, as the matter is familiar to everyone. We need not suppose that the words, "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," were originally spoken to show that these patriarchs were then living in the immortal life; or that Jesus believed they were spoken with this view. One thing we may safely presume, namely, that Jesus did not use this argument to prove a fiction; and therefore, these patriarchs were living, in the time of Moses. The word of Jesus is equally conclusive without the quotation as with it. The argument with the Pharisees was conclusive for one reason; with us it is conclusive for another and different reason.

3. For all live unto Him. the true meaning. To live, in the New Testament, often means to be made alive. "Lay thy hand upon her and she shall live," that is, shall be made alive. And no scholar will be likely to claim that to him expresses the sense of the origi

This does not, we think, convey

nal better than by him. All are made alive by God; and therefore he is the God of all the living. We strongly suspect that the logical consistency of these words has been overlooked by most readers. The translation has misled them. All live unto him most naturally means that all live righteously, that is, in the future life. Is it true, then, that God is the God of the living, for this reason? Is it not, rather, true that he is the God of the living, because they are living by his means; and this is precisely what the passage says. For all are made alive by him. This is sound logic; while to make God the God of the living, because they all live to him, is neither sound logic nor common sense.

III. Here we must notice the theory of some, advocated by no less a personage than Dr. Geo. Campbell, one of the most learned of modern scholars, and an eminent expounder of the Scriptures. It is this, that in this passsge the term resurrection is employed in a modified sense, and denotes, simply, being made alive after death; the resurrection proper being far in the future. The Sadduces, it is said, denied a future life; and all the Saviour was required to do, was to refute this idea; and this, it is added, is all the words imply, God is not the God of the dead, but of the living; for all are made alive by him. With this view the use of the present tense, they do not marry, they are as the angels, the dead are raised, all are made alive, etc., is accounted for. The future life is entered upon as fast as men die; but the resurrection, in the highest sense of the term, is far in the future and is to take place simultaneously. There is plausibility in this theory—more, we suspect, than of soundness. As Jesus stood related to the Sadducees, all that was required of him was the proof of a future life. But the Pharisees were also present, and they expressed their approval of his reasoning. Jesus proves a future life to the Sadducees; but he proves it by proving the resurrection. And he goes further, and asserts a number of things, which need not have been touched upon, for their benefit alone. The Sadducees denied a future life, because they denied the resurrection; and the latter had to be proved in order to prove

the former. And in the view of Jesus there could be no future life without the resurrection. Hence, in showing that the patriarchs were living, Moses showed that the dead are raised. That the words, "the dead are raised," mean only that the dead are living in a disembodied state, cannot be proved.

us, in

If the term resurrection is used in the passage before an inferior sense, then it must be employed in the same way in the parallel passages; and with this view it will not be easy to prove that the resurrection in any other sense is taught in the gospels, except a few times as a figure. The Pharisees, surely, did not denote the entering on a future life, by the term resurrection; and they would not have approved the reasoning of Jesus if the issue of that reasoning had been merely a life beyond the grave. But what seems to settle the question is the supposition of marriage in the resurrection state. The Sadducess certainly were not so demented as to imagine that pure spirits would be troubled about each other's wives. Had they expected to elicit from Jesus the proofs of a simple existence after death, they would have come to him with no such question as the one they proposed.

The Pharisees, so far from using the term to denote entering on a future life, thought men would be in the future lifethat is, in Hades-no one could tell how long, before the resurrection would take place. They held that the resurrection was coming back from the under world to this life, and not going to it. On the contrary, the resurrection, in the view of our Lord, was the entrance of souls into the immortal life by taking on spiritual bodies. The reunion of souls with the bodies left behind in this world, at some far distant period, which Dr. Campbell wishes to provide for, is now being generally relinquished as alike unreasonable and unscriptural.

The theory of Dr. Campbell involves the necessity of two resurrections, and two separate and distinct applications of the term resurrection. The first resurrection and the use of the term to denote it is the entrance of souls into a spiritual existence beyond death; the second resurrection and a corresponding use of the term is the union of souls with their bodies at