Besides, just so little as the Basiλeía, "kingdom," here spoken of, is in itself, identical with everlasting bliss, as little is the xλavlμós x. T. X., "weeping," &c., with everlasting damnation; it is true, that ideas immediately connected with each other are frequently used to express remote analogies, and in so far is the relation of these contrasts to the ultimate decision based on truth. Meanwhile, in the description of the xλavduós x. r. 2., weeping," &c., we can trace besides nothing but the state of suffering experienced in the sheol, "hell," (comp. the context with Luke xvi. 24), which is distinguished in holy writ from the Gehenna. That all possibility of return cannot here be denied to the repudiated Israelites, is, above all, apparent from Rom. xi. 26, where the promise of salvation is made to the whole of Israel.

Ver. 13. Both the sacred writers referred to, state, in conclusion, that our Redeemer, overcome by the ardent faith of the warrior, forthwith healed the sick man. ('Exarovrágns, "cen(Εκατοντάρχης, turion," is another form of ixaróvragzos made use of in ver. 5.The verb yaiva, used by St Luke vii. 10, signifies "to be whole, to be in health," so that the cure appears also, according to his narrative, as one suddenly accomplished.

§ 6. THE RAISING FROM DEATH OF THE WIDOW's son of Nain.

(St Luke vii. 11—17.)

This event, which is related only by St Luke, is connected with the preceding in a direct manner, by the words vr (eg understood) "on the succeeding day," (ver. 11); we give this section the more willingly a place here, inasmuch as in ver. 16, 17 the fame of our Lord, which now began to be spread abroad, forms the question, and thus refers, in a manner by no means obscure, to an earlier period.

But with regard to the fact of a raising of the dead in general, it is a question very difficult to grapple with, on account of the uncertainty of the appearances, as well as of the nature of death. For, the separation of the ux, "soul," from the oua, “body," cannot be regarded as an absolute one, even though corruption begin to manifest itself, because in that case the resurrection of the body (according to 1 Cor. xv.) would be impossible, and at

--

best, the only question then could be a new creation thereof. But if there remain, even in death, an unsevered bond between the higher principle of life and the elements of the body which is to be raised up again, and if it is acknowledged by physicians, even from the ordinary point of view of experience, that to come to a determination as to the actual moment when death takes place is very difficult, then is it comprehensible that no other guarantee is possible than that afforded by the word of Christ and the apostles against the assumption of an apparent death, or suspended animation in this and similar other cases of raising the dead recorded in the New Testament. Wherever there exists in fact suspended animation, as was the case with the daughter of Jairus (Matth. ix. 24), there it is declared by the mouth of Truth, although she was regarded by all others as being dead; but where there is death, there the same mouth of Truth declares it likewise without hesitation. That which the human eye, in its shortsightedness, could recognise but imperfectly, was discerned by the Lord of the spiritual world with undoubting certainty. The reality of his raisings up from the dead, therefore, rests on the truth of his own person. The given mode of viewing death at the same time facilitates the perception of the resuscitation. For, as it is to happen at a future period, at the general resurrection, through the mighty life-bestowing power of the Redeemer, in the same manner did he, on occasion of his individual raisings from the dead, restore animation to the deceased (but not as yet destroyed) organ, so that thez, "soul," already freed, could resume its possession thercof. Hence, every raising from death is, as it were, a total cure of the disturbance of the entire relation existing between soul and body, whereas in the usual cases of partial cures only, there is removed an interruption occurring in this or that department of the psycho-corporeal organism. That same heavenly power, however, which is Life itself (John i. 4), effects the one as well as the other. As the source of every individual life, it can with the same ease recall to its organ the life thence departed, and reinstate in pristine harmony that which had been disturbed, as newly create that which had no previous existence. Concerning questions such as the one, where in the meanwhile has dwelt the departed soul of the resuscitated person, and whether, in the interim, it be possessed of consciousness or not, the Scriptures, for wise reasons, afford no information; and it is suf

ficient to reflect, that as in general, so also in this case, does the state of the person when dying condition his future state. Therefore the more important is it not to view the raising up from death as having no connection with the moral world. Not only to the relatives and all those who witnessed or heard of this event, was the corporeal awakening to be the means of spiritual reanimation, but also in a more especial manner to the resuscitated person himself. So extraordinary an occurrence must necessarily have produced a powerful and decisive effect upon the internal life, and the resuscitated person have become a living witness to the miraculous powers of our Lord.2

Ver. 11, 12. The city wherein dwelt the afflicted mother to whom Jesus gave back her restored son, was called Nain, (derived perhaps from "fine, beautiful.") It was a small city of Galilee, not far from Capernaum. (Concerning ixavós, "a considerable number," and oλús, "many," comp. Matth. viii. 30, with Luke viii. 32.) On his coming nigh to the gate of the city (ún), the Redeemer saw a dead man carried out; it was the only son of a widow. Movoyevs, as in Luke viii. 42, ix. 38, Heb. xi. 17, must be taken in the sense of only-begotten, i. e. only child. But the notion of the only child here expresses at the same time as does the Hebrew word that of the most dear, only beloved one.

Ver. 13, 14. The feeling of sympathy expressed by our Saviour for the mother (with regard to σπλαγχνίζεσθαι, “to have compassion, to feel the bowels yearn," comp. Luke i. 78) is put forth as the motive which created the resolution in Jesus to raise up the person reposing on the bier. But this does not exclude the idea of this action having a reference also to the resuscitated person. Man, as a sentient being, can never be only a means,

1- Strauss (vol. ii. p. 157, 2d edit.) thinks a reference to the resuscitated person himself improbable, because it is nowhere specially brought into view. But this reference required no particular mention, inasmuch as it is clearly self-evident. Jesus ministered always to the eternal welfare of men, in every word and in the slightest contact into which they might happen to come with him. How much more, then, by a raising up from the dead!

2 Lazarus, according to St John xi. 4, 42, is raised up to the glory of God; but this does not exclude, on the contrary it includes, the view of his death and of his raising up for his own perfection, for the starting into life of the whole man it is, indeed, which is the highest doğa Tou Oo, "glory of God."

as would here be the case, were we to regard the joy of the mother as the only object of the raising of the youth from the dead. Her joy, on the contrary, is only the immediate but more unessential result of this action, recognisable by those who were present; the secret result of this resuscitation was the spiritual raising up of the youth to a more exalted state of existence, through which only the joy of the mother assumed a true and everlasting character. (The term oogós here does not express a shut-up receptacle, but an open bier, on which the dead were carried to burial. The Hebrews called it lectulus, i.e. a small couch.)

Ver. 15, 16. Our Redeemer raised up the dead man without touching him, and by the mere power of his word (comp. Elisha's raising from the dead, 2 Kings iv. 34), which must be regarded as the audible expression of the invisible spiritual effect, through which the uz and oua, i. e. the soul and body, in this youth, were brought once more into their original just relation to one another. The corporeal resuscitation produced in those present a beneficial spiritual stirring and excitement, and this, as was natural, under the more special form of the póßos ro Oso, "fear of God." Penetrated by the holiness of the ministry of Jesus, they infer very correctly, that such holiness combined with such power points to the certain mission of Jesus from another and higher world. Hence, they view the miracle, according to its design and purpose, as a legitimation of his prophetic dignity. (The expression #gophτns μéyas, “a great prophet," refers to the greatness of the miracle; acts such as the raising from the dead were only recognised as having been performed by the princes of the prophetic order.-Respecting ÉTIOXETTEJα, "to visit in order to benefit," comp. Luke i. 68.

Ver. 17. By means of such isolated flashes of his divine power manifested in various directions, the Redeemer awakened in the whole nation the consciousness that great things awaited them. Out of the longing expectation with which this knowledge was accompanied, there sprung up a deep feeling of their present misery and need, and an ardent assurance of the future, which spiritual elements the Saviour understood how to direct and make use of for his own holy purposes.

§ 7. HEALING Of st peter's moTHER-IN-LAW.

(St Matth. viii. 14-17; Mark i. 29-34; Luke iv. 31-41.)

After St Luke (iv. 31-37) has related the history of the cure of a man, in the synagogue of Capernaum, who had a spirit of an unclean devil, a narrative which we pass over as containing nothing remarkable, deferring our remarks to St Matth. viii. 28 sqq., the same evangelist connects immediately therewith the cure of St Peter's mother-in-law, with the formula, ¿vaoràs iz rñs Guvaywys, "having gone up from the synagogue." This narrative is likewise introduced by St Mark i. 29 with a similar form of words, whereas St Matthew connects it immediately with the narrative of the cure of the centurion's servant. A remarkable circumstance in St Luke here is, that he mentions Simon Peter as a well-known person, without having before named him in his Gospel; this may be explained from the circumstance, that St Luke might presuppose Peter as already known to Theophilus. But it cannot be denied, nevertheless, that this circumstance affords no unimportant feature in that view, according to which St Luke compiled his Gospel from existing documents; hence, as St Peter was mentioned in them, he was likewise mentioned in St Luke, without taking into consideration that no mention had been made as yet of his connection with Jesus. Both St Matthew and St Mark had made some brief mention already of St Peter. (Matth. iv. 18 sqq.; Mark i. 16 sqq.) Besides, the fact itself contains nothing of a peculiar character; only, the general remarks concerning the cures of Jesus find here likewise their application. (Comp. on Matth. viii. 1.)

Ver. 14, 15. The mention of the evdegà Пergou, "mother-in-law of Peter," leads to the conclusion that this apostle lived in the conjugal state. According to 1 Cor. ix. 5, St Peter did not forsake his wife, even when engaged in the pursuit of his apostolic calling, but was accompanied by her on his missionary journeys. (To attempt to explain the nature of the woman's disease from the πυρετῷ μεγάλῳ συνέχεσθαι, literally, “ the being oppressed with a great fever," of St Luke, would always be very unsatisfactory.) -In this case, likewise, our Lord performed his ministry through an immediate touch (ntaro rñs xegós, "he touched her

U