This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1900 ... 332. 2 Acts xxiii. 8; compare p. 46. See p. 242. his authority for what he did. It seems, however, that some of them happened to be present when he was speaking on this very question of the resurrection; so they urged a difficulty which had doubtless more than once done good service against the Pharisees. "Rabbi!" they said, "you were speaking just now of the resurrection; but how will it be? Take an instance. You know the Law of Moses says that when a man dies childless, his brother must marry his widow, and the eldest son must bear the dead man's name.1 Now there was once a family of seven brothers; and the eldest of them married, but died childless,--so the next took his widow; but he died without children too, and the widow was taken by the third. And so it went on till all the seven brothers had married her,--and all had died childless. Finally the woman died herself. Now when they all rise again, whose wife Will she be?--for all the seven were married to her!" Whether this had really occurred or not was a matter of no consequence. It was possible; and that was enough to give the Sadducees a right to treat it as actual. We must also concede that it raised an unanswerable objection to the doc trine of the resurrection as conceived by the Jews,--that is to say, as a renewal under more favorable circumstances of the former life. But for Jesus the difficulty did not exist; for he had formed a far more spiritual conception of the new life in the kingdom of God. So he struck the broad principle at once and went to the very root of the matter in his answer,--which may be paraphrased "The denial of the resurrection rests upon a two-fold misconception,--upon want of insight into the Holy Scriptures, and misapprehension of the pow...