and relation of the first human pair, what is the right view of marriage; and on the other, from the original Sabbath, what is the true idea and sanctification of the Sabbath. (Matthew, xix. and xii.) Moreover, He presupposes the history of the first sin, where he describes Satan as a murderer from the beginning, and a liar: John viii.: 44; "he (the devil) was a murderer-ανθρωποκτόνος—from the beginning-ἀπ' ἀρχῆς and abode not in the truth." There has been, indeed, a difference of opinion, from the Greek interpreters down to those of the present day, as to what fact Jesus would bring to recollection by this language; for the majority, e. g. Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, then Luther and Calvin, and in more modern times, Paulus, Tholuck, Olshausen, Julius Müller (II. 535, sq.) think of the death which was introduced by Satan's tempting men to apostatize; while on the contrary, the minority, e. g. Cyril of Alexandria, Döderlein, Nitzsch, De Wette, find in the words, a reference to the fratricide of Cain; and finally, Stier and Lange have attempted so to unite these interpretations, as to discover a primary reference to Cain's fratricide, but also, mediately, an allusion to the temptation of Eve. But all things considered, we prefer the first of these explanations, for the following reasons: (1.) The words áπ' άρxñs, when compared with the usus loquendi, Matt. xix. : 4, 8, point us much rather to the very origin of human history, than to any later period whatever. (2.) The assertion of Satan's lying nature or habit is so immediately annexed to that of his lust of murder, that we are compelled to look for both in one and the same event; and we find both unquestionably united in the first sin, but not in the deed of Cain. (3) The expression, "the lusts of your father ye will do," v. 44, points more directly to the designs than to the acts and achievements of Satan; and therefore the avvρwпоктóνоs can so much the better be referred to the fall which did not have bodily death as its instant result; nay, the hostility of Christ's enemies to the truth, and their hatred of Him, first drew from His lips this whole statement. That Cain's act of sin did, at other times, pass before the mind of Christ, we learn from the mention of the blood of Abel, in Luke xi. 50, sq. It appears once more from our passage,

(John viii.,) that Jesus treats the narratives of the Old Testament respecting the earliest history of man, not only with a special predilection, but He also knows how to draw important conclusions from them, and to pour new light upon them.

If we follow the course of history so far as it is noticed in the words of Jesus, we find that He had not merely an observing eye for the acts and revelations of God, but also for the condition of men, including their sin and its punishment. He considers the time of Noah-the customs and the spirit of the age immediately before the flood-as a type of the time before His second coming; (Luke xvii.: 26, sq. cf. Matt. xxiv.: 37– 39;) the same carelessness and security of a race lost in sensual delights, as in the days of Noah, will again be realized; and as those were unexpectedly overtaken and destroyed by the flood, so will the generation which beholds the re-appearance of the Son of man be also surprised. Luke proceeds to give, as parallel to the state of mankind in the time of Noah, the practices of Sodom and the neighboring cities even until the day when Lot abandoned Sodom and all were destroyed by a rain of brimstone, v. 28, sq. From both these historical events three characteristics are selected for notice by Jesus: (1.) The spiritual condition and the practices of each generation respectively; (2.) The sudden and unexpected coming of the retributive judgment of God; (3.) The deliverance of a few individuals by a Divine providence and interposition, and by an external separation from the rest whom they had previously abandoned in heart. (1.) Christ describes the spiritual condition of the world in both instances, not by specifying particular vices, but only by referring to their rude security, and sensual, earthly conduct; but with this distinction, that merely the sensuality of the generation before the flood is mentioned, while the industrial activity in buying and selling and making gain is also referred to in the case of Sodom.And thus Jesus characterizes the spirit of those who shall live during the period before His return, as one of persistent unbelief in the Divine Word, as well as of secure impenitency and abandonment to sensual and materialistic pursuits. (2.) The sudden and retributive coming of the deluge, and the

storm of fire, is employed as a historical type of the judgment upon the unbelieving, which is to be realized at the coming of Christ. And so (3) does the Lord also employ the deliverance of Noah with his family, and of Lot by means of a separation from the rest—the former going into the ark, the latter going out of Sodom-as a type of the last time, with an express warning against the act of turning back, as did Lot's wife, v. 31, sq. It is obvious how very carefully the Lord brings out the features of history, and teaches us to look upon it as a type of the future.

As we should have expected, Jesus delights to speak of Abraham. He utters a remarkable word respecting him in the eighth chapter of John. The Jews appeal (v. 33,) to the fact that they are Abraham's posterity-σréqμa; to which Christ replies: "I know that ye are Abraham's posterity, -σлÉQua-but ye seek to kill me because my word hath no place in you” (v. 37); then (v. 39): "If ye were Abraham's children, ―TÉKVα-ye would do his works; but now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth which I have heard of God; this did not Abraham." He admits their genealogical, but not their spiritual and moral descent from Abraham, as also in a similar way John the Baptist had warned them (Matt. iii.: 9,) against a vain reliance upon the fathership of Abraham. But afterwards, in verses 56 and 58, we meet this weighty declaration: "Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad ;" that is, when he received the promise, (Gen. xviii. : 18.; xxii. 18,) he rejoiced in view of the time when the fulfillment of this promise should come, and the blessing of all nations appear; and Abraham actually saw this time of the Messiah's advent-he did not simply anticipate and behold it in prophetic vision; and this happened naturally after his death, not while he was upon earth. This explanation is given by the learned Jesuit, Maldonatus (+1583); videt diem Christi re ipsa, quem admodum et ille et palres omnes videre concupierant; and also by Mosheim, Tholuck, Lücke, De Wette, Stier. By this language Christ testifies unmistakably, that He Himself and His appearance on earth were the object of blessed hope and longing on the part of Abraham, and therefore that

He is greater than Abraham. Euthymius, as quoted by Lücke (II. p. 306), makes the transition to verse 56 with this happy expression : εἶτα κατασκευαζεν και ότι μειζων ἐστὶ του Αβραάμ. When the rows found fault with the assertion that Jesus, who was not yet fifty years old, professed to have seen Abraham who had been dead so many centuries, He makes this assertion: "Before Abraham was, I am," by which He claims for Himself pre-existence, and a timeless, eternal being, in contrast with the existence of Abraham which began in time. This is the distinction between yɛvéovaɩ and eiμ; cf. Acts xxvi.: 29. Akin to this passage of John, not indeed outwardly but inwardly, is the significant language of Christ against the Sadducees, respecting the resurrection, in Matt. xxii.: 31, sq. (cf. Luke xx.: 37.)

Jesus answers the question proposed to Him concerning the woman who had been married to seven brothers successively, as one springing from ignorance of the Scriptures and of the power of God (v. 29): "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, neither the power of God;" and by referring to the angelic condition of those who are risen (v. 30). He then points them for positive evidence, to the Word of God to Moses (Ex. iii. : 6)—"I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;" adding the explanation: "And he is not God of the dead but of the living; for all live to Him," (according to Luke xx.: 38.) What does this signify? In order to reason from the well known name which God gave to Himself in the hearing of Moses at Sinai, to the continuance of personal life and to the resurrection, Jesus evidently starts from the nature of God and so from His fellowship with men. If God calls Himself the God of a particular man, that man must be living; for it cannot be reconciled with the nature and dignity of the living and eternal God, that he should be a dead person whose God Jehovah names himself. Moreover, not merely personal existence hereafter, but also the resurrection of the dead, is inferred from this language; for in Luke we read "And that the dead are raised, even Moses signified," that is, Moses revealed this fact. And his words really contain

the truth, since the personality of man presupposes a body: nam ipse Abraham, quantus est et in quantum Abraham nominatur, i. e. non Abrahæ tantummodo anima, sed etiam corpus,habet Deum, Bengel, Matthew xxii. (cf. Stier ii., 403, sq.) And by this Jesus, the only Master and Doctor of the Holy Scriptures, teaches us to understand the Scriptures and the power of God; for it is precisely the eternal and absolute life-power of God, from which eternal life flows to the man whose God He is in truth. Not an immanent immortality discernible in the nature of the soul per se, but a continued. existence and resurrection passing over from God to man, even the whole man, and granted to him as a matter of grace, is taught by the Lord on the basis of language found in the Scripture. It is likewise obvious, that this testimony in respect to the personal existence of the patriarchs whose God Jehovah denominates Himself, is in admirable harmony with the declaration of Christ, John viii.: 56, that Abraham lived to see His day, His incarnation. The passage in John presupposes the fundamental thought expressed in the synoptical Gospels, and is so perfectly explained by the latter that it is superfluous to seek an interpretation of John viii.: 56, differing from the simplest literal sense.

And-which is remarkable-a third and a fourth passage presuppose the eternal life of Abraham. We annex in our

investigation, the statement of Matt. viii.: 11, sq., which was made, without doubt, at an earlier day than the two already considered. Astonished and moved at the humble faith of the Roman centurion, Jesus declares that He had not found such faith even in Israel, and prophecies that many will come from the East and the West, and sit down at table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. This language. it may be, attaches itself to the promise made to Jacob, Gen. xxviii. 14: "Thou shalt spread abroad to the West, and to the East, and to the North, and to the South; and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed." But by designating the enjoyment of the kingdom of heaven into which the heathens in great numbers were to enter, as a fellowship with the fathers, with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,