College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

Matthew 22:23-33

B. THE QUESTION OF THE RESURRECTION

(Parallels: Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-39)

TEXT: 22:23-33

23 On that day there came to him Sadducees, they that say that there is no resurrection: and they asked him, 24 saying, Teacher, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first married and deceased, and having no seed left his wife unto his brother; 26 in like manner the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. 27 And after them all, the woman died. 28 In the resurrection therefore whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. 29 But Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven. 31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, 32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. 33 And when the multitudes heard it, they were astonished at his teaching.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

Why do you suppose that these Sadducees, whose normal interest is politics, should pose Jesus a religious question? What advantage could they hope for in such an attempt?

Do you think this story about the wife and seven husbands had been used before this, or was it freshly invented to make Jesus and His doctrine look ridiculous?

If you believe this story to be a stock Sadducean argument used with success against the Pharisees, how would you account for Pharisean failure to answer it once and for all?

Is it ever a good idea to tell people frankly that they are wrong? Jesus did so here. And yet, does it not close people's minds to any further dialogue to make such a statement?

Was it literally true that the Sadducees did not know the Scriptures? In what sense does Jesus mean His accusation of their ignorance? Were they (1) unlearned, (2) ignoring obvious truth, or (3) what? What did the Sadducees-' theological position have to do with their ignorance?

How does the power of God resolve the question posed by the Sadducees?

What had the Old Testament indicated about the resurrection from the dead? Did the Old Testament furnish any reasons to believe in resurrection? If so, what are they? And, if so, what does this fact reveal about the Sadducees-' attitude toward the Old Testament?

What does the fact that in the resurrection marriage does not exist tell us about this present world, if anything?

Since the text Jesus cited merely refers to God as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and never mentions resurrection, how can Jesus correctly conclude that the passage teaches resurrection from the dead? Is this a legitimate use of Scripture texts? On what basis can He affirm that God is not a God of the dead, but of the living, since the text cited does not say so? What is Jesus-' thrust behind His quotation of Exodus 3:2-6? Is it (1) the verb? I am (present tense, see Luke), or (2) the predicate nominative: the God of Abraham, etc.? How does Luke's addition, For all live to him furnish additional explanation that clarifies Jesus-' point?

Since the actual text in question is a quotation of words God directed to Moses, how can Jesus affirm: ... have you not read what was said TO YOU by God. ? There were nearly 1500 years of history intervening between the voice of God in the burning bush and Jesus-' Sadducean listeners! In what sense did God say this expressly for these hearers?

What do you think Jesus was trying to teach those Sadducees by affirming that it was God who was the author of the words cited from the pen of Moses? How does this revelation of Jesus resolve some modern doubts and scholarly uncertainties about Exodus-' authorship?

Since the Sadducees disbelieved in angels, how can Jesus safely allude to angels as He does, without fear that the Sadducees would reject His argument? Why do you think they dropped the subject of angels without debating it with Him? (What evidence could He have used from the Pentateuch to defend the truth they rejected?)

What does it mean to be like the angels in heaven? What characteristics are to be shared with them? What information does Luke (Luke 20:36) provide to answer this?

Why did not Jesus simply say, Have you not read Exodus 3:6?? Why did He have to identify the desired passage by calling it the passage about the bush? (Cf. Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37.)

What does this incident teach us about the importance of understanding the Bible correctly?

How does this incident describe the life beyond the grave? Explain why, according to Luke 20:36, the resurrected dead can die no more. In what sense are the redeemed the sons of God? In what sense are they sons of the resurrection?

PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY

That same day there came to Him some Sadducees. These people were saying they did not believe in life after death. They put the following question to Him, Teacher, Moses gave us a law: -If a man dies, leaving a wife, but no heir, his brother must marry the widow and raise up a legal posterity for his dead brother.-' Now there was a case in our community involving seven brothers. The first brother married a wife, but died, having no heir, thus leaving his wife to his brother. The same thing happened to the second brother. He married her, but died childless too. This was also the case with the third. Eventually all seven died leaving no posterity. Last of all, the woman herself died. In the resurrection-when the dead come back to lifeto which of the seven brothers will she be wife? For they all had been married to her!
If not this why you are mistaken? answered Jesus. You do not understand either the Scriptures nor what God can do! Marriage is an institution limited to this world. But the men and women who are judged worthy to live in the next world (which implies their rising from the dead) will not marry but are like the angels in heaven. In fact, they cannot die anymore, because they are like heaven's angels. Reborn in the resurrection, they are God's sons!
On the other hand, even Moses himself indicated that there is life after death. Have you never read in the book of Moses in that passage about the burning bush what God said to you when He spoke to Moses, saying, I am the GOD of Abraham, the GOD of Isaac and the GOD of Jacob-'? This means that He is not the GOD of corpses but the GOD of living people! So, as far as God is concerned, they are all alive. You are quite mistaken!
Even some of the theologians admitted, Well said, Rabbi! The common people who heard His teaching were deeply impressed by it.

SUMMARY

The materialistic Sadducees who deny the world of the spirit and life after death approached Jesus with their stock catch-question seemingly based on Mosaic authority. Jesus revealed the fallacy of their presupposition that the after-life must simply continue this one in all respects, then expounded the meaning of Exodus 3:6 to show the reality of the spirit-world and man's intimate participation in it.

NOTES
I. THE PROBLEM: IS THERE LIFE AFTER DEATH?

(22:23-28)

Matthew 22:23 On that day there came to him Sadducees. On that day definitely connect this Sadducean assault with the foregoing attack. In contrast to the previous Pharisean strategy, the Sadducees now approach Jesus by themselves, since they alone denied the resurrection, The company of other sectarian groups would only frustrate their intention to subdue Jesus on a point He shared with the others.

Sadducees, they that say that there is no resurrection. On the views of these sectarians, see notes in Vol. III, 430-440; cf. Acts 23:6-8; especially Josephus, Ant. XIII, 10, 6; XVIII, 1, 4; XX, 9, 1; Wars II, 8, 14. The Sadducees were a priestly party (cf. Acts 4:1-2; Acts 4:6; Acts 5:17) that demanded that everything be understood rationally and not based on hearsay oral tradition. (Cf. Sepher Yosippon, Aboth de Rabbi Nathan, Bab. Talmud Pes. 57a; Meg. Taan. Tebeth 28, cited by Bowker, Jesus and the Pharisees.) The basic attitude of this small but powerful faction was what might be termed ecclesiastical opportunism, using religion for private gain. They apparently prided themselves on being no-nonsense, realistic people who based their philosophy on the common-sense view of this material world while considering anything metaphysical as a hypothetical superstition. They ended up with a religion without the supernatural.

But why would Matthew need to explain the particular belief of the Sadducees especially to his Jewish readers? Merely to clarify the point of the following contest of wits? Or had the Sadducees-' aristocracy as a theological force in Israel disappeared by the time of the writing of Matthew's Gospel, a hypothesis calling for this historical note? Would not this, then, argue for a date after Jerusalem's fall for the compilation of Matthew's Gospel? This deduction is not necessary, if the following considerations be thought important:

The theological tenets of the less numerous Sadducees may not have been well-known among the common people in Israel, due to the superior hold on the popular mind enjoyed by the more orthodox Pharisees.

Further, if the Sadducees were interested in political power and the personal wealth that came with it far more than in influencing the people through teaching their personal views, their skeptical views may have been only vaguely known by those outside political and academic circles.

So, Matthew reviewed their position briefly, in order to make the following conversation clear to the common reader, and this fact need not decide the question as to when it was written or argue for dating the book late in the first century after 70 A.D., or even later.

Their affirmation that there is no resurrection does not begin to exhaust Sadducean theology, as if they believed nothing more. In fact, this emphasis on the one point appears badly one-sided, since their fundamental problem was not only denial of resurrection per se, but also denial of every phase of the world of the spirit. Apparently, they reasoned that to deny resurrection is to be rid of the entire question of the spirit world, since resurrection is conceivably the door into that world. Deny the door and you deny what is on the other side. Jesus-' answer, then, consisted essentially in showing that those living people who are on the other side of death's barrier really exist, and that those involved in that life must have gotten there somehow, a fact that argues for the existence of the door. That is, once one admits the world of the spirit, resurrection is no longer impossible, because an Omnipotent God can work it all out with ease. So, the Sadducean belief that there is no resurrection is so much an intermediate issue that it is practically a side issue in contrast to the more fundamental question, the world of the spirit. But where did the Sadducees (and their modern counterparts) go wrong?

As with most controversies, not all the opposition is raised by plain fools. Sadducean debaters could have cited texts that seem to deny life after the grave, like Psalms 6:5; Psalms 88:10 f; Psalms 115:17; Ecclesiastes 9:4-10; Isaiah 38:18 f. These seem to counterbalance other texts in its favor. However,and more central to this discussionthe Sadducees held seriously defective view of much of the Old Testament. On Sadducean principles, only what was clearly stated in the written Law was held to be of binding authority, hence nothing could be cited outside the Pentateuch. Two reasons for this may be suggested:

The Mosaic code confirmed the authority of the priesthood. So the Law would be especially dear to the Sadducean priesthood. Because the prophets exposed the perversion of the hierarchical aristocracy and preached the uselessness of ritual without righteousness, their writings would be particularly unwelcome.

A concomitant reason may be that Pharisean glorification of hearsay evidence for doctrine had so elevated oral tradition to the level of divine law (cf. Matthew 15:6) that even men like the Sadducees instinctively felt they must be stopped. But how? The Sadducean reactionaries wrongly opted for strict adherence to Moses at the expense of the prophets. Their blunder consisted, then, in rejecting those divine messengers who revealed more of God's will than Moses included in the Law. Thus, all prophetic revelations after Moses were demoted to merely sanctified opinion and their information ignored.

Although many texts suggest resurrection or express the hope of life after death, it is not explicitly at the center of Judaism as a clearly defined doctrine until late in the prophets. But the erudite presumption often repeated that the concept of resurrection was not known in Israel until just a century or so prior to the appearance of Jesus must be abandoned. It simply ignores Abraham's bold faith, who stedfastly confided in the power of God to raise Isaac from the dead, rather than disbelieve God's promise of descendants through this his only son (Genesis 21:12; Genesis 22:1-18 interpreted by Hebrews 11:19). Where did Abraham get that option? Does not this argue that resurrection was not only conceivable in Abraham's time but the very content of his hope nearly 2000 years before Christ? Let the scholars argue with Abraham!

It may also be that the Sadducees conceived of this theological development in Israel as wrong-headed because of the Pharisees-' gross literalism which obscured the true glory of a resurrection concept. The Liberals went wrong by failing to recognize divine authority behind the prophets who revealed resurrection and by letting the Traditionalists-' misunderstandings blind them to its truth.

So, because the resurrection doctrine was not explicitly stated in the Pentateuch and because the prophets-' writings were abased to the level of questionable oral tradition, the Sadducees felt safe in declaring life after death to be without final authority. For them it was but a bad hypothesis not to be taken seriously.

Were these inquirers before Jesus simply ignorant, however sincere, men seeking to know truth from him? No, the spirit of their story is one of scoffing and their intent is to make the resurrection doctrine laughable and Jesus ridiculous with it. Why were they so embittered by Jesus-' ministry that they too should now commit their forces to attack Him?

Being largely priests and responsible for the Temple, the Sadducees-' association was a sacerdotal aristocracy. They lost prestige when Jesus purified the Temple and felt personally flayed by His exposure of their corruption.

Similarly, their hostility was aroused because He had disturbed their profitable monopoly over the temple market. He had touched their purse!

These skeptics, whose one claim to fame was their denial of the world of spirits, supernatural messengers and life after death, were galled that the Galilean Prophet resurrected people from the dead in support of His claim to supernatural authority. (Study John 11:45-53, the ironic sequel to Jesus-' resurrection of Lazarus: John 11:1-44; then note Matthew 12:9-11!)

The embarrassment and apparent incompetence of the Pharisees may have spurred the Sadducees to try their hand at stopping Jesus. Edersheim (Life, II, 397) analyzes their motives:

Their object was certainly not serious argument, but to use the much more dangerous weapon of ridicule. Persecution the populace might have resented; for open opposition all would have been prepared; but to come with icy politeness and philosophic calm, and by a well-turned question to reduce the renowned Galilean Teacher to silence, and show the absurdity of His teaching, would have been to inflict on His cause the most damaging blow.

Matthew 22:24 Saying, Teacher, they mock respect. By addressing Him thus, they exalt Him to a level of superiority, but they really intend to expose Him as sadly deficient, as an incompetent, a teller of tales and unworthy of Israel's following.

Moses said: they intend to establish their diabolical doctrine of no less a basis than the universally acknowledged law-giver himself. So doing, they state Israel's nation-wide acknowledgment of the Mosaic paternity of the passages involved. Although the Sadducees-' quotation loosely follows the LXX of Deuteronomy 25:5 f., it freely borrows wording from Genesis 38:8, which shows that they clearly had the case of Onan definitely in mind.

If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up seed unto his brother. (Cf. application in Ruth 4.) The law of levirate (or brother-in-law) marriage was designed to preserve the family line and heritage by continuing the principle of family lineage and by blocking the dispersion of the family patrimony. The children received the dead brother's property and in the genealogical record carried on his name rather than that of their physical parent.

By citing Moses, the Sadducees attempt to reinforce their argument, because, granted that the so-called future world is but the extension of this life's relationships, it is man's obedience to this Mosaic (= divine) ordinance that creates a situation that must necessarily lead to the absurdity of heavenly polygamy. Because the Sadducees cited not only Moses but also the language of Jacob himself, they doubly reinforce the implication that the Law and the patriarchs hold a view which must render absurd the resurrection concept, because of the heavenly conflict ensuing from its observance. Obviously, in their view, God would have to make an arbitrary choice, pleasing only one brother and turning heaven into hell for the rest!

Matthew 22:25 Now there were with us seven brethren. Although this hypothetical case may sound fictitious, real life provides some most remarkable and highly exceptional cases, so who can successfully deny that the Sadducees had a real case in mind? Although debate had arisen in Judaism whether to apply the law in question beyond the third marriage (see Edersheim, Life, II, 400 note 2), some stricter (Pharisean?) family may have actually carried out the law to its logical conclusion, even though some strange twist of fate doomed each of the woman's husbands, leaving her alone to live. Seven brethren: the problem would have been real with even fewer brothers, but seven serves to underline the problem more vividly. The first married and deceased, and having no seed left his wife unto his brother. Their having no seed is critical for the law, since the difficulty would have instantly been removed at any one of the levirate marriages to which a legal heir were born to continue the lineage of the first brother who died, leaving his wife and house without continuance. It also forestalls the possible answer that she would have been considered wife of the man to whom she had borne an heir.

Matthew 22:26 in like manner the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. 27 And after them all, the woman died. Her death and consequent entrance into the realm of the dead is essential to the Sadducean argument, to create the domestic confusion they foresee as a necessary consequence of the resurrection doctrine.

Matthew 22:28 In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Their rationale behind this resulting conundrum is simple: how could a belief that produces so ridiculous a result be pronounced true? Because the Sadducees derided the resurrection doctrine, they were not really concerned whose wife the woman would be. But because Jesus believed in the resurrection, they pose Him a problem that would expose the disgusting extreme to which His position must lead, force Him to face it and declare them right.

What could the Sadducees have foreseen as Jesus-' possible options?

In the resurrection she would be the wife of all seven. In this case they could point out that this response teaches polyandry and creates confusion in God's original design for man, as Moses wrote in Genesis 2:16 f. and Genesis 2:23 f. Further, it contradicted His own teaching (Matthew 19:3-9).

She would be the wife of the first brother alone for whom she raised up children. But they could answer, But all the others had married her, therefore, she was wife also of each of them and they would have equal rights.

There is no resurrection, so the difficulty does not exist. They would cheer, because He would have abandoned His own position and declared theirs valid.

Nor could He repudiate the law of levirate marriages, for it was the decree of God. To put it in doubt would cost Him His following among Bible-believing Israelites.

He could not reject the continuation of individual personality and personal relationships either, because these were an integral part of the commonly accepted resurrection doctrine.

Because they, like the Pharisees, could not envision a world to come different from the mere extension of this life and its relationships, they were arguing from wrong premises and expected Him to do the same. Their surprise came when He simply exploded their commonly accepted world of tomorrow concept. The Jews had imagined resurrection life in its crudest form, a caricature of the true. Jesus now explains it in a superior form, commending it for their reevaluation.

II. THE SOLUTION: JESUS EXPOSES MATERIALISTS-' IGNORANCE (22:29-32)

Matthew 22:29 But Jesus answered and said unto them. The marvel is that He should condescend to respond to these perverse, frivolous triflers, It never escaped Him, however, that within learning distance there were open, sincere disciples. So He meekly taught these shallow theologians and furnished His students another model of excellence under fire. But Jesus did not answer their immediate question as formulated. Looking beyond that, He perceived a deeper condition of heart, an unrecognized, underlying need that could not be met simply by stopping with the answer to their specific test question. Their fundamental problem did not consist in learning whose wife the lady would be. It was rather their thinking it strange that God should raise the dead (cf. Acts 26:8).

He did not answer their question exactly as formulated, further, because had He done so, they would not have been one step closer to faith in the resurrection than they were before. Although their attack was open, without the flattering preliminaries others had used (Matthew 22:16), the Sadducees-' dishonesty and cunning really attempts to discredit Him. They came not to learn the truth by seeking honestly to remove what seemed to them an insurmountable objection to faith. In fact, when Jesus later arose from the dead, forever and personally proving the falsity of their reasoning, they not only did not repent, but proceeded to murder the fearless, unimpeachable witnesses to that fact, while totally discounting the evidence of the empty tomb (Acts 4:1 f., Acts 4:5 f.; Acts 5:17-40; Acts 7:1, Acts 7:54 to Acts 8:1; Acts 9:1 f.)!

Their theological rationalism was not a matter of indifference that could safely be ignored. Their rejection of penalties and rewards in an afterlife and their disbelief in the continuance of the spirit after death (cf. Wars, II, 8, 14) WIPED OUT GOD'S JUDGMENT ON MEN'S SINS AND OFFERED NO REAL INCENTIVE TO BE RIGHTEOUS BY GOD'S STANDARDS. These materialists-' anti-resurrection stance is deeply serious, because no one can form a proper judgment about his relationships and responsibilities in this life, unless he takes into serious account the life to come. It makes a big difference whether we think the grave ends it all or not. Belief in a fuller life after death cannot fail to influence character in every way, every decision, every thought. (Study Matthew 10:26-33.) This antisupernaturalism was no unimportant heresy for it is a belief that weakens man's fear of God and His judgment, destroys his character, undermines his sense of honor and truth and freezes his warmth and humanity. If the grave ends all, people no longer really matter and can be manipulated to achieve one's own ends.

Jesus well knew His opponents also denied the doctrine of an all-ruling Providence. Josephus (Wars, II, 8, 14) reports that the Sadducees suppose that God is not concerned in our doing or not doing what is evil in contrast to the Pharisees who ascribe all to fate and to God, and yet allow that to act what is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of men, although fate does cooperate in every action. The Sadducean view of God's disinterest in human behavior would definitely affect their view of God's power to transform human nature's body after death.

Is it any wonder, then, that Jesus countered instantly with Ye do err! Those who feel that Jesus-' answer only offers quiet, patient instruction to sincere, but ignorant, men, must remember Jesus-' understanding of their malignant purpose. Even if His total answer seems less severe, nothing can soften His blunt judgment: YOU ARE WRONG. QUITE WRONG! (Mark 12:27; Matthew 22:29). How could Sadducean priests, charged with the high duty of knowing and teaching God's Word in Israel, be anything but shaken and deeply humiliated by this charge of fundamental ignorance of GOD?

He incriminates them on two counts: Ye do err.

Not knowing the Scriptures which you pride yourselves on knowing so well! The Sadducees whose severest, unrelenting critics were the sharp-eyed, hard-nosed Pharisees, HAD to be ready to debate a Scriptural point at any moment. So how could it be truly asserted that they did not know them?

They did not know their true meaning, because they wrongly interpreted them.

They did not accept the Scriptures which they could correctly decipher, because they did not welcome them as the royal decree of an Almighty God who could command and expect their loyal submission.

In opposition to the plain meaning of Scripture, they set up their own mistaken philosophy, refusing to believe anything they held to be irrational, intangible or unempirical.

The Sadducees-' position was that no text of Scripture demanded belief in life after death. Beyond the text cited by Jesus, the Sadducees showed ignorance of texts like Genesis 21:12; Genesis 22:1-18 (= Hebrews 11:19; Hebrews 11:35); Job 19:25 f.; Psalms 16:9-11 (= Acts 2:27-31); Psalms 17:15; Psalms 23:4; Psalms 23:6; Psalms 49:13-15; Psalms 73:23-28; Ecclesiastes 12:5-14; Isaiah 26:19; Isaiah 53:10-12; Daniel 12:2-3; 2 Samuel 12:20-23. True, scholars differ on whether they considered all the Old Testament to be God's Word or only the Pentateuch. So, if these Jewish liberals did not consider the historical and poetic writings of authority equal to that of Moses-' Law, then they would not have been persuaded by citations from these texts.

In fact, they show amazing ignorance of the translation of Enoch (Genesis 5:24; Hebrews 11:5), because Moses-' record of this mystifying experience raises the possibility of a deathless life with God in another realm. They also ignored Elijah's marvelous rapture (2 Kings 2:11). Was this not true history? And what of the other actual cases of literal resurrection from the dead (1 Kings 17:22; 2 Kings 4:35; 2 Kings 13:21)7 Was this fiction or unbelievable legend? What of the unyielding hope for the future life affirmed of other Old Testament heroes? (Cf. Hebrews 11:13-16; Hebrews 11:35.) Were these all misguided dupes? Perhaps the Sadducean rebuttal would argue that the former were but cases of resuscitation, in that the resurrected died again later, whereas real resurrection at the Last Day must be to immortality and incorruption. It could be argued, further, that because Enoch and Elijah did not die, they constitute no evidence for resurrection from the dead.

Not knowing the power of God. But in what sense were they expected to know it? Could they have known what Jesus reveals here? How does a correct estimate of the power of God resolve the question about the resurrection life? God's unlimited ability to create a universe in which neither death nor marriage are necessary components is ignored by men whose entire worldview is too small and whose appreciation of God reduces His true power's potential to the creation of what is. They have no sanctified imagination to believe He could create a world somehow different from the present age. This severely limits their concept of God's power. They ignore His power to conquer and eliminate death from human existence. Even if no Bible text ever implied it, they should have seen that an adequate concept of God's power to effect it could also foresee it.

Even if Sadducean proponents rejected great texts like Isaiah 25:6-8; Isaiah 26:18 f.; Ezekiel 37:1-14; Hosea 6:1 f. and others, arguing that physical resurrection to permanent life is not unequivocally taught in them, on the other hand, these texts should have led them to recognize that the same mighty, creative, life-giving power of God who had been able to redeem Israel from Egyptian slavery and Babylonian exile, should be more than ample to bring about the total, physical resurrection of His people. If God is truly Giver of life, breath and all things, can He be thought to be unable to grant His children to share in His own life eternal through resurrection.

But the Sadducees had such a low view of God, because their denial of life after death was consistent with and bolstered by their rejection of the existence of angels and spirits (Acts 23:8). In fact, if spirits do not exist, how could there be a God who is Spirit (John 4:24; they must have dismissed Isaiah 57:15; Zechariah 12:1)? And could not such a Spirit really reveal Himself by supernatural messengers such as angels? Rationalists all, these shallow, dogmatic men simply took for granted that what to them was inconceivable or incomprehensible must also be dismissed as incredible. Nevertheless, THEIR ABILITY TO CONCEIVE IT DOES NOT DIMINISH GOD'S POWER TO EFFECT IT! Their view is typical of modern rationalists who would deny the resurrection's truth because they cannot conceive how it could occur: To presuppose a resurrection is to involve incredible or impossible conditions. The plain answer of Jesus meets all these objections: God's power is sufficient! The Jewish materialists had surrendered the clearly Bible doctrine of the omnipotence of God for whom nothing is impossible! Could they have so easily forgotten Deuteronomy 3:24; 1 Chronicles 29:11 f.; 2 Chronicles 20:6; Psalms 66:7; Jeremiah 32:17? These had not the faith of Abraham! (Cf. Romans 4:18-22.) Cannot the Creator of Adam, who originally gathered the scattered, unliving dust and made man live, regather all the particles of all the dead and raise them to eternal life? What kind of a god do these unbelieving priests have anyway?!

Jesus-' debating tactic involved two steps: He first refuted the Sadducees-' objection by showing the fallacy upon which it was founded, i.e. their underestimating God's power to transform everything in the new world (Matthew 22:30). He then furnished positive proof of the resurrection by citing Scripture (Matthew 22:31 f.). In so doing, He showed how their citation does not prove what they supposed it did, and demonstrated that Moses-' doctrine, given elsewhere, completely and truly disproved their notion. They had constructed an invalid argument, because it was established on false assumptions foreign to Moses.

The Sadducees-' presupposition that gave meaning to their question is this: If there is a world beyond this life, it must necessarily resume or extend common characteristics, categories and elements typical of the good life here, including this life's relationships, especially marriage. As with other uniformitarians who assert that the past is the measure of the present, these argued that the past and the present is the measure also of the future for all time and eternity,

They further assumed that our present, natural body, with all its present, fleshly, earth-life needs and appetites, must be identical to that glorious, future, spiritual body with which we will be raised. (Study 2 Baruch 49-51; contrast 1 Corinthians 15:35-38.) They undoubtedly eliminated some of the negative features, but the basic assumption remained.

Worse yet, apparently the Pharisees too shared this view, even perpetuating it. This would explain why they had been so spectacularly unsuccessful in refuting the Sadducees. Only someone who knows infallibly that marriage is not to be continued in the future world could definitively confute it. And yet their presupposition is clearly not taught by Moses, but merely added to their understanding of the Bible, as if it too were undoubted truth. The absurdity lay, therefore, not in what the Bible actually affirmed, but in this false assumption. No Bible text ever asserted that ALL relations and categories of this present age must extend over into the future world. Jews of Jesus-' day argued that full recognition of the resurrected dead depended on their being in every respect like themselves in this life, including every physical trait and every social relation they bore before death. The same old warts and the same old wife for ever and ever! (Cf. Edersheim, Life, II, 399 However, 2 Baruch 49-51 sees a transformation to glory after the resurrection.)

MORMONS TOO ARE IGNORANT OF GOD'S POWER

The basic presupposition behind the Mormon temple marriages for time and eternity is essentially the same as that of the Sadducees. They too see eternal life as continuing the marriage relation contracted in this life, and the multiplication of the human race exalted by the special LDS formulas. Hence their invention of temple marriages wherein earthly relationships are solemnized for eternity either with the same earthly marriage partner or with a number of others with whom earthly marriages was not possible because of civil legislation against polygamy. (Cf. Doctrine and Covenants,§132. See also MormonismShadow or Reality? 455ff.; 475, on the temple ceremonies involved.) This simply discounts God's ability to create an entirely new and better reality where marriage and present earthly family has no significance.

To the Mormons and the Sadducees and anyone else like them, Jesus answered as follows:

Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven. These materialists had imagined a situation that cannot exist, so their illustration collapsed because inapplicable. Their use of Scripture was mistaken on the ground that they had quoted a text that addressed a problem limited to this life, but were attempting to use it to establish conclusions concerning life after death in which marriage and reproduction have no meaning. Their proof-text did not even contemplate, much less deny, the possibility of a future change in human mortality effected by a resurrection to eternal life and immortality. So, quite different rules would govern that entirely new, transformed life, not the old regulations concerning succession and inheritance intended to regulate affairs in this mortal, corruptible existence. In fact, as Luke put Jesus-' words: The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage (Luke 20:34 ff.). Evidently God instituted marriage for the multiplication and consequent preservation of a human race cursed by death. Rather than create a fully populated earth, He created only two human beings. Sexual multiplication by the marriage of these two and by that of their children was His design for populating it (Genesis 1:28; cf. Genesis 9:1; cf. Genesis 9:7). Foreseeing that man would sin and bring death upon himself, God was thus providing for the preservation of the race beyond the death of its individuals. Thus, children are born of marriage to outlive their parents and so continue humankind, providing a plan for succession through inheritance, as contemplated by the Mosaic text cited by the Sadducees. So far, this is our state of being. But what does that affirm about a DEATHLESS society already fully developed numerically to the full extent God desires. In fact, the redeemed who rise again, never to die again, are already a fully developed society where the need for numerical growth and primitive replenishing would not necessarily exist. Hence, there would be no need for that earthly institution that guaranteed these two results. This is why Jesus reveals that marriage is a foundational institution of this world, but not of the eternal world.

Although Jesus did not touch other questions specifically, like: In the next world do we expect to hunger and thirst? (cf. John 6:35; John 6:39; John 6:51-58; John 6:63-68 f.), His reply provides a clue to other things that puzzle us about eternity, such as our fleshly kinships. If some of our loved ones die without Christ, would not our joy in God's presence be marred? To deal with this, Jesus refers us to two glorious realities (Luke 20:34-36):

The power of God to create a world of reality so new and different from this earth's present reality and relationships (marriage, birth or other) is such that we can scarcely conceive of it any more than we can imagine a world where marriage is not necessary because death will be no more. And yet it is His projected plan. He can also make us forget earthly ties in the blinding glory of greater ones. Earthly families are not eternal; only their individuals.

The other reality is God's great family: They cannot die anymore because they. are sons of God (Luke 20:36). This new family must so overpower our present vision that we do all in our power to bring our loved ones into it by faith. But we may rejoice in that vision, knowing that God's will shall have reunited into His house all those who love Him. Who would WANT to spend eternity with those who know not God nor love our Lord Jesus Christ?! Whatever else it means to be sons of God, this glorious relationship shall so supersede and so transform all other kinships as to remove all sorrow or sense of loss when our ungodly, earthly kin shall not have been saved. HOWEVER, in no way must this comfort compromise our concern for their salvation any more than it compromise the stability of our earthly marriages. The present rightness and permanence of our earthly marriages must be as real as our deep concern for the salvation of our loved ones. But once this earth's testing is over and death has come, resurrection (and all that it entails) is next! The revelation of the sons of God at last and the chance to be at home with our Father forever will more than compensate any sense of loss of the temporary things of the past earth-life.

They. are as angels in heaven. Two preliminary observations must be made:

He does not say, They are in heaven, as the angels, nor as angels: in heaven. This would have required a different construction in Greek. (Alford suggests: en tô ouranô eisin, hôs àngeloi.) Punctuated differently, Matthew's text could be ambiguous (all-'hôs àngeloi, en tô ornanô eisìn: note the comma: but as angels, in heaven they are.). Luke, however, removes the ambiguity by reducing the longer expression to one word, isàngeloi, equal to angels, thus eliminating in heaven. So, being in heaven is not the major consideration, but similarity to angels. Rather, in heaven describes the angels, not the place where the saints dwell. But so saying, Jesus points to an entirely different manner of life in that reality which even now exists in heaven, just as real as, if not more so than, that which materialists insist is the only true one here on earth.

In the face of Sadducean disbelief Jesus dares affirm the true existence of the angels in heaven. He knew He stood on unassailable ground because this truth can be sustained even on Sadducean principles. Angels appear constantly in writings of unquestionably Mosaic authorship. (Genesis 16:7-11; Genesis 18:1 to Genesis 19:1, Genesis 19:15; Genesis 21:17; Genesis 22:11; Genesis 22:15; Genesis 24:7, Genesis 24:40; Genesis 28:12; Genesis 31:11; Genesis 32:1; Genesis 48:15 f.; Exodus 3:2; Exodus 14:19; Exodus 23:20; Exodus 23:23; Exodus 32:34; Exodus 33:2; Numbers 20:16; Numbers 22:22 ff.) Angels appeared at great signal events in Hebrew history which reflected the very reason for the nation's existence, its call from God, its blessing and protection during its wilderness pilgrimage. Could they doubt this?

But what is Jesus-' basic thrust in saying they. are as angels in heaven?This state of being is, according to Jesus, the antithesis of marriage. But this question is complicated by the fact that, while Matthew and Mark contrast earthly marriage and our future likeness to angels, Luke contrasts our equality with angels and earthly mortality: they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection (Luke 20:36). Both are unquestionably true, but is there something to learn here about angels and our future nature as well as about our selves even now? If so, what? Jesus affirms that.

We will be marriageless. The future life is not just a repetition of this age. He urges us to rethink, because there CAN be something richer and fuller, more deeply satisfying to the soul than even marriage and family as we now know it. Marriage is an institution of this cursed earth populated with mortals. But where a redeemed society is already numerically complete and lives deathlessly with God, the primitive needs of a mortal race would also become obsolete along with their solution, marriage. Marriage's joy of close, intimate and lasting fellowship will not be replaced by solitude. Rather, it will be replaced by fellowship far closer, more intimate and longer lasting than anything we can now imagine. The Lord's point is that we will have no more need to reproduce our kind in the future world, than the angels to reproduce theirs. Succession is not needed where death is no more.

Some Jews believed that 200 angels, by marriages with human women, brought on the flood. (Cf. Enoch 6:1ff.; 12:4ff.; 15:3-7; 19:1f.; 2 Baruch 56:12; Jubilees 5:1, traditions attempting to interpret Genesis 6:1-4.) However, Jesus-' affirmation that angels do not marry corrects this mistaken concept, and leaves viable the interpretation that sees the sons of God as descendants of Seth and the daughters of men as Cainites, in any case fully human. (For other arguments against that theory, see Keil & Delitzsch, Pentateuch, I, 127ff.)

We will be deathless. This eliminates the need to perpetuate the race through marriage and procreation, since the resurrected saints cannot die anymore (Luke 20:36). Angels furnish, therefore, an appropriate model by which to understand human nature after the resurrection, i.e. after death's effects shall have been removed. Jesus refers not to the absence of passions or sensitivity to earth's pleasures, but to angels-' immortality to illustrate our own after the resurrection.

We will be sons of God (Luke 20:36). Even this trait explains man's deathlessness:

As creatures of God, angels too are called sons of God (Job 1:6; Job 38:7; Psalms 89:6 f.). The redeemed too are properly called sons of God being created, like the angels, to share in the glorious happiness of the direct presence of their common Creator. So, created deathless to live in God's presence, redeemed mankind also will rise immortal, dependent on God, enjoying the fellowship of His presence. (Cf. 1 Enoch 69:4f., 11.) So, redeemed man will be restored to his original immortality, lofty glory and divine fellowship in God's family which he enjoyed before the fall into sin in Eden. But his new creation will occur at the resurrection: they are. sons of God, being sons of the resurrection, (Luke 20:36), i.e. produced by the resurrection, finding their new life or origin in it.

Further, they are sons of God, because, having risen, they share the immortal divine nature, made like the Lord Himself (1 John 3:1-3; 2 Peter 1:3-4; Philippians 3:20 f.; Romans 8:28 ff.). They will have been made partakers of the divine nature more fully than ever before in this life, because they will then be finally and fully in possession of the full privileges of their adoption, their inheritance and their final liberation from all of sin's effects on their spirit (Romans 8:21 ff.).

People take part in this age by natural birth. In that age, by resurrection. In this world babies are born as sons of men. In that world each will receive his new spiritual body directly from God Himself by the stupendous transformation that will occur at the resurrection. All, like the angels, will be considered sons of God, a fact already reflected in the new birth (James 1:18; John 1:12 f.; 1 John 3:1 ff.).

MORMONS ARE IGNORANT ALSO OF SCRIPTURE

They ... are as angels in heaven (Matthew and Mark) and they are equal to angels and are sons of God (Luke) are Scriptural affirmations contradicted by Mormons-' affirmation that Mormons who are eternally married by the proper solemnities in their temples are SUPERIOR to angels and gods (Doctrine and Covenants, 136:16ff.) whereas those married only for this life are appointed [to be?] angels. The eternally married Mormons become gods, because they have no end (ibid., v. 20). In saying They neither marry nor are given in marriage.. They cannot die anymore, Jesus contradicts Mormon theology, because He implies that deathlessness eliminates the need for marriage since immortals have no need to multiply themselves in marriage. But Mormons teach that polygamous Mormon priests eternally married in the eternal worlds are to bear the souls of men (Doctrine and Covenants, 132:63; cf. Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, VI, 275; VIII, 208).

From the standpoint of these materialists, Jesus-' revelation of the power of God does not answer the Sadducees-' doubt. True, it conclusively replied to their false presupposition by furnishing a reasonable alternative to their grossly materialistic view of the question. Now, however, He must answer their doubt by furnishing positive proof that they would be compelled to admit: the authoritative Word of God through Moses! Not satisfied to win a debate against His enemies, He remembers that error entangles their mind. So He seeks to free them by teaching what they had not yet learned. Now He must say, Your ignorance of God's Scripture blinds you to that text of all texts that reveals that God is still worshipped by living men.

Matthew 22:31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, i.e. that the dead do rise (Mark and Luke), is to be proved by their own Bible of which they were sadly ignorant. Jesus knew His Bible and understood its implications better than they did. He depends not only upon His own authoritative revelation or personal understanding of the after-life, but leads them to the already well-attested revelation of God in the Old Testament, the source whence any ordinary Jew could have argued the greatness of God and His power to eliminate death and bless man with an eternal life different from this one in all significant respects.

Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God? This one question alone hammers home three massive truths useful in our defense of the faith:

Jesus emphatically vindicated the Mosaic authorship of Exodus 3:6 furnishing solid proof that rings like iron: Moses showed (Luke 20:37) in the book of Moses (Mark 12:26). Clearly, the Sadducees themselves accepted this fact. Otherwise, they could have objected that no doctrine was to be accepted as final or authoritative except what was of undoubted Mosaic authorship. The Sadducees rejected the Pharisees-' position that the oral law was also binding. Both, however, agreed that Moses-' Law was the definitive voice of God. So Jesus quoted Moses, and by so doing, confirmed his authorship in the presence of Jewish authorities dedicated to destroy Him, should anything He said prove vulnerable. Obviously, then, for the rulers of Judaism, the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, especially Exodus, was a long-settled issue.

Moses-' writing was the Word of God: that which was spoken unto you by God (Matthew 22:31). As such, it commands attention and obedience by all men under its authority. What the Old Testament Scripture says is the voice of God speaking to us. Man does not need a mystical illumination or special inspiration to receive God's message. Jesus proves conclusively here that empathetic study of the written text of the Bible will communicate God's message to the reader as truly as if God Himself were addressing directly from heaven. That such truth was first revealed to an ancient people living thousands of years ago, does not lessen any of its force for us. In fact, Jesus expected the Sadducees to have learned from what God said to Moses! For Him, the Old Testament was no dead letter, but the living voice of God.

The Sadducees had cited Moses as their supreme authority (Matthew 22:24). So, rather than quote the Psalms, Isaiah or Daniel, Jesus goes all the way back to Moses, the source of the supposed refutation of the resurrection. From this two more points are gained for our instruction:

He began on common ground with His opponents: their shared belief in the Pentateuch. He proceeded to demonstrate that His own position was both implicit in and demonstrated by what they accepted, but that their position was disproved by that same source.

Contrary to modern critics who see Israel's concept of resurrection or of life after death as gradually learned from Egypt, Mesopotamia or Greece, Jesus leaves no room for a late discovery of the resurrection idea. Rather, He traces its origin to GOD and in that which was spoken unto you by God! In so doing, our Lord exploded the hypothesis of the evolutionary development of this concept, citing one of the earliest writings of the Old Testament. While Israel's understanding of it certainly developed over the centuries, the objective concept itself had already been revealed by God.

So, by tracing the resurrection's truth to God, Jesus appealed to every wavering bit of faith in God that each Sadducee present could muster to be persuaded by the truth.

How could it be truly affirmed that God addressed the Sadducees of Jesus-' day, when Exodus 3:6; Exodus 3:16 is God's conversation with Moses? God's statement to Moses contained a true principle that held implications not merely for Moses and his age, but for every age. It was a truth about God and man just as true in Jesus-' day as when God first said it to Moses, and especially in this case, will be true and significant until the judgment.

CAUTION should be used, however, in seeking to apply to Christians the message of the Old Testament. Christians are not subject to the old covenant made with Israel, hence may not properly claim every promise or consider themselves obligated to obey every statute of the Old Covenant Scriptures. What was required of old Israel is NOT NECESSARILY required of the new Israel of God, the Church. (Cf. Romans 6:14, a summary of Romans, Galatians and Hebrews, the major epistles that discuss and clarify this important hermeneutical distinction.) But with this caution clearly in view, we must scan the Old Testament as well as the New Testament for truth that God intends men of every age to learn, regardless of the particular covenant under which they serve Him.

Matthew 22:32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob (Exodus 3:6; Exodus 3:16). Our Lord could not have selected a more familiar text. There was no phrase dearer to the heart of all Judaism, no language more expressive of the old covenant. This is no text taken out of context for a pretext, but one of the highest revelations of God! According to Jesus, this most famous title for God, this name that expresses His covenant with Israel through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, fairly SINGS the necessary truth of the resurrection.

And yet, there is no reason to doubt that Jesus would have laid before these enemies the most convincing passage possible. Surprisingly, however, His choice falls upon a passage that merely implies life after death from which the resurrection could only be inferred. In fact, without penetrating beneath this text's surface, the whole point that Jesus sees there would be missed entirely. Most readers who pass over this Bible statement would conclude that the only message conveyed there is the fact that the God who appeared to Moses is to be identified with the God who was worshipped by the patriarchs. This much it does say. But Jesus sees something else in this text as yet unrecognized by all its usual interpreters in Israel.
According to the Son of God, to say I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob must lead irresistibly to the conclusion that God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. How did Jesus arrive at this conclusion? What does He mean?

Is Jesus arguing, as would any rabbi, that the verb in Exodus 3:6 must be interpreted in the present tense? No, because Mark and Luke both reflect the Hebrew original by omitting this verb. It is highly unlikely that any argument can be established on a verb that can be omitted. The point then, is the title God of Abraham, not so much the verb I am. It is pointless, therefore, to argue that God would have had to say, I used to be the God of your forefathers back when they were alive. It is not a question of tense but of title. To base the true conclusion on the present tense is coming at the question the wrong way.

The main question is: what does it mean to be the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob?

Consider Who said this: God. Jesus is arguing on the basis of the very nature of God. But God is Spirit (John 4:24), the central figure of the very spiritual world these materialists deny. But if you Sadducees dare admit this one Spirit, your wholly materialistic world-view is already compromised, because where there is one undeniable spirit, there can be more than just one, in fact, a whole spiritual universe inhabited by spirits of just men made perfect (Hebrews 12:23).

This God is Abraham's God. This is not the same as Creator or Owner. Although these words correctly describe what may once have been true, they are nonetheless irrelevant to prove the present existence of the creature after death. On the other hand, if in some true sense God is still the covenant-keeping God of Abraham, then Abraham is still worshipping Him, still experiencing a covenantal communion with God in a way that is intimate and abiding, hence a LIVING being. If, on Sadducean principles, the patriarchs died and were consequently annihilated, this would mean the termination of God's association with them as their God. In fact, the relationship of worshipper to worshipped is one that is chosen by the worshipper. But, if God can describe Himself meaningfully as the God of Abraham, then, Abraham must be alive in the time of Moses, long after the patriarch had been gone from his body for centuries.

To ask what it means to say the God of Abraham in its highest, truest, richest significance is to recall what God had been to Abraham. If He had been Abraham's highest shield and greatest reward for a life of faithful obedience (cf. Genesis 15:1), what special happiness, dignity or distinctions marked the lives of these patriarchs, that would justify such high promises God Almighty made to them? Were these limited only to this life, and not rather something projected beyond it? (Contrast Genesis 47:9; see also Hebrews 11:13 ff.) If God had provided them nothing more than the usual miseries attendant upon this life, He should have been ashamed to be called their God. But He was not ashamed (Hebrews 11:16). Rather, His faithfulness and lovingkindness demand that He actually do for them the very thing that fully justifies His highest promises to them. But without another life after death, how could He fulfill the true purpose and full measure of His obligations sworn to them? But, if God really blessed Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in harmony with the highest intent of His word to them, there must be a state of rewards, and its corollary, a state of punishments. Since it is incredible that all of God's rewards or punishments are meted out upon their recipients in this life, it would logically follow that there must be another life after this one. In short, The God of Abraham needs more time, time beyond this life, to fulfill all His good promises to Abraham, to the full extent of their intended meaning.

Jesus-' argument implies that, if the patriarchs are forever to remain lifeless handfuls of crumbling dust in the Macpelah cave, then the Sadducean uniformitarian argument must conclude that ALL qualities of this earth must continue forever, even death itself. But is annihilation greater than GOD?! Must the Almighty continue to surrender to extinction hence lose, His godly children who trust him? Will death never be conquered? Is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that name upon which Israel's covenant with God hinged by virtue of their physical connection with these very patriarchs, at last discovered to be meaningless phrase? No, cries Jesus, this glorious title of God means something! God is not the (losing) God of the dead, but the (victorious) God of the living! Is it thinkable that the great God Almighty should deign to entitle Himself: The God of molding bones, dust and ashes?! Worse, for the Sadducees, the dead no longer existed. Accordingly, from their point of view, to say, I am the God of the long-dead patriarchs, is equivalent to: I am the God of non-existent things, the God of nothingan obvious absurdity. (The Lord is using dead in the sense intended by the Sadducees.) But put this way, not even these liberals themselves would accept the logical conclusion of their argument and must agree with Jesus that God is the continuing object of worship of really existing people, even if these have already passed through death's door into the realm of the spirit.

In fact, if God meant no more than I am the God of dead, senseless ashes, when calling Moses to the herculean enterprise of Israel's liberation from Egyptian bondage, how could such an ill-chosen reference have inspired Moses to rise to the challenge with the necessary trust and courage? For, if death ends all, to what purpose had the patriarchs themselves trusted God? Indeed, the hope of life after death is guaranteed not merely for the ancient fathers with whom God's covenant had originally been sealed, but really extended to all the people who respected that covenant. The proclamation at the head of the Ten Commandments reads: I am the Lord YOUR GOD (Exodus 20:2). Is He to be Israel's God for only so long as each Israelite shall live, and not, rather, forever? Only this latter, high view does justice to God and gives sense to the Old Testament which, without victory over death, would be like so many other ancient texts: just the dusty chronicle of the past struggles, victories and defeats of an ancient people and their god, but not the history of genuine redemption from all the losses of Eden, including death!

To be the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob is not something that can be affirmed of now-extinct historical figures, except by historical allusion or wistful memory. How could these names in any meaningful sense refer to dead, senseless ashes? These are the names of people who are alive somewhere. And by repeating each single name, linking each man to God, Jesus is not reverting to a mere archaic form of speech. Rather, He intends to underline the personal relationship enjoyed by God with each individual patriarch.

But how does Jesus-' citation of Moses prove something about resurrection? Since the quotation does not mention it directly, and since He argues by inference, is He not arguing, rather, for an intermediate state of existence between death and resurrection, rather than for resurrection directly, as He claimed in Matthew 22:31? To answer this question correctly, it must be understood by approaching it from the Sadducees-' standpoint.

The Sadducees taught that souls die with the bodies (Josephus, Ant. XVIII, 1, 4). With this Jehovah's Witnesses agree (Harp of God, 41-48; Let God Be True, 66-75). A Sadducee could have written, Death is the loss of life, the end of existence, the complete cessation of conscious physical or intellectual activity. although a Jehovah's Witness authored this definition (Make Sure of All Things, 86). The fundamental confusion shared by the ancient Sadducees and their modern counterpart is their confusion of soul with spirit, so that all that may be affirmed of the one must also be true in all respects of the other. It is not impossible that Sadducean thought, like that of the Watchtower, was influenced by texts that affirm the similarity of human souls with those of animals (Psalms 49:12; Ecclesiastes 3:18 f.), by texts that affirm the mortality of souls (Ezekiel 18:4; Joshua 10:28-39 ASV; Psalms 22:20; Psalms 22:29; Psalms 89:48 ASV; Isaiah 53:10-12) or by texts that speak of the unconsciousness of the dead (Psalms 13:3; Psalms 146:4 ASV; Ecclesiastes 8:5 f., Ecclesiastes 8:10). Bible statements that rightly describe a mortal living on earth they mistook for information that must only be understood of the state of the spirit of man after this life. Hence, they discounted texts that teach that every person shall really survive death. True, death dissolves that unique combination of body and spirit called soul in most texts. In this sense, of course, the soul dies, the body sleeps in the dust. But THE SPIRIT neither dies nor sleeps, but, rather, returns to its Maker and is alive unto God and returns with Him at the resurrection (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Luke 20:38; 1 Thessalonians 4:14). The popular confusion of soul and spirit for all that there is to man makes the interpretation of many texts difficult. This is not so much because the texts are unclear, but because the interpreter unconsciously brings his own understanding of soul or spirit to the text, then tries to fit it into his preconceived scheme of reality.

Further, it is also apparent from Jesus-' mode of reasoning that the Sadducees shared the general Hebrew idea that God's love and concern for man involves His interest in the whole man, body and soul. Rather than consider the body the prison of the soul, as did Romans and Greeks, the Hebrews were taught to conceive of the human spirit as originally formed to express itself through a body.

While it may be argued that nothing can be concluded about the resurrection body by comparing it with our first creation (Adam's body), it should be noted that there is no Scriptural evidence that there has been or will be a change in our spirit's mode of expressing itself, i.e. in some form of expression other than in a body. Rather, our long-awaited perfection through transformation at the resurrection will complete our redemption by furnishing us a glorious, immortal BODY (Romans 8:23; 1 Corinthians 15:44; 1 Corinthians 15:49; 1 Corinthians 15:53; Philippians 3:21). So this divine choice evidences His desire that our spirits continue to express themselves by means of a new body like that of Jesus.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 turns out not to be a new revelation so much as the confirmation of this ancient view. (Cf. also psuchè in Acts 2:27, an Old Testament concept where soul = the entire person is the parallel.)

The Sadducees apparently turned this concept against resurrection by questioning the immortal duration of the soul (cf. Wars, II, 8, 14), since, if the body apart from the spirit is dead, the spirit apart from the body must be dead too! The one has no independent existence without the other. There could be no life after death, except that life realized in some kind of a body, since there could be no life but that in a body. Implicit in their argument, then, is the practical equation of resurrection and life after death. Thus, to prove the truth of the one is to establish the other also.

To refute their position, all Jesus had to demonstrate was that spirits have an existence separate from the body. This He did by proving from Scripture that the great patriarchs of the Hebrew faith are still alive centuries after leaving their bodies, that they returned to their Maker and God, hence are not totally extinct at all. Death did not extinguish their spirits. They were even then living in the sphere of God. (Cf. the New Testament doctrine; 2 Corinthians 4:16 to 2 Corinthians 5:9; Revelation 6:9; Matthew 17:3; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, esp. 1 Thessalonians 4:14.) Jesus did not affirm the resurrection of these Old Testament worthies; only their survival after the death of their bodies. But given the Sadducees-' (Hebrew) view of man's wholeness of soul and body, the soul and body, the resurrection of the body was no longer impossible, but must necessarily follow.

III. THE RESULT: JESUS-' MASTERFUL REBUTTAL INSPIRES PRAISE (22:33)

Matthew 22:33 And when the multitudes heard it, they were astonished at his teaching. Not only were the crowds deeply impressed by the penetrating insight of Jesus-' wisdom and instruction, but even some of the theologians in that group had to admit, Teacher, you have spoken well (Luke 20:39). Rather than beat Him, the Sadducees-' attempt had only succeeded in establishing Him more securely in the crowds-' admiration. Should not the crowd be astonished that only this young preacher could with such marvelous ease unravel the ancient problem with so indisputable a text?

Undoubtedly some Pharisees too had seen the crowd and joined in to listen. They had been crushed endlessly by their personal failure to answer that old Sadducean trick question many times before. Could they do anything but rejoice to have this thorn in their side removed by the sound defence of the resurrection now completed by Jesus? Even in this moment charged with tense emotion, it must have required no little courage so quickly and so publicly to announce their concurrence with Jesus-' deeply satisfying spiritual victory over the unbelief which their own best answers could not eradicate. He had used their own familiar weapons with a mastery they could not equal! One of these Pharisees could hardly wait to inform his cohorts of the Sadducean debacle (cf. Matthew 22:34).

THE EFFECTS OF JESUS-' DOCTRINE-'

THE DOCTRINE OF MATERIALISM IS PROVEN FALSE. Jesus-' principles establish the reality of the human spirit, because it survives the death of the material body. Therefore, man is more than matter. At death his spirit survives alive in the spiritual realm of the living God and must answer to Him!

THE PROPHETIC DIGNITY OF JESUS RECEIVES FURTHER CONFIRMATION. How could Jesus answer with such certainty that marriage does not exist in the spirit world? While some might suppose this statement to result from His careful meditation, He simply stated the truth the way He who came from heaven knew it to be.

THE RESURRECTION WILL NOT MERELY RESUME THIS LIFE, BUT INTRODUCE A NEW LIFE FAR BETTER. There will be no death in the new family of God. The frontiers of this new life are limited only by the unlimited creative power of God who makes it possible.

THE AUTHORITY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES IS FURTHER VINDICATED. What a tremendous impact the Old Testament had on Israel, particularly that section of the Scriptures the scholars of today question as non-Mosaic! Is it not instructive that these rankest unbelievers in Israel (the Sadducees) wholeheartedly embraced precisely this part of the Scriptures, and that our Lord, while informing their ignorance, founded His argument exclusively on it? Can theologians escape the Lord's condemnation, if they deny what Jesus affirms concerning the validity of the Old Testament's witness as specifically from Moses?

THE GREATNESS OF GOD'S POWER TO PERFORM ALL HE PROMISED AND MORE (Romans 4:21; Hebrews 11:19). All is well with those who trust God. Death holds no terrors for His people.

GOD'S JUDGMENT IS A DECIDED CERTAINTY! Hitting hard at Sadducean denial of God's judgment (cf. Wars, II, 8; 14), Jesus proved that God's menace to destroy the wicked and unbelieving in eternal punishment is no idle threat. If no one had survived physical death, it might have been assumed that death were but a freak accident of human evolution, not a divine judgment. It might have been assumed, further, that the ancient story of God's punishment of Adam and his descendants with bodily death were but an ancient legend attempting to explain a natural phenomenon. But, because Jesus conclusively proved that men really do survive death to live in another world, He proved thereby that the ancient record was no myth. Rather death meted out to Adam and his children is really a divine judgment. So, if men really survive their personal punishment for Adam's sin (= death), they must answer for their own personal conduct before God in that immortal world. So, by punishing men with death for Adam's transgression, God gave assurance of His future justice to be faced by a race entirely resurrected. Death is God's assurance to all that He means business. Resurrection is His assurance that divine justice has not been totally satisfied by the physical death of each individual child of Adam. Rather, judgment must yet be faced, because there is life after death!

THE COMMUNION OF THE SAINTS IS REAL. If Abraham, Isaac and Jacob live, what of the rest of the Old and New Testament saints, yes, and all those who have died since? Duckworth (P.H.C., XXIII, 445) reminds us of.

... the indestructible bond that knits in holy communion and fellowship the whole redeemed family of God. We talk and act as though we on this side of the veil constituted the whole Catholic Church; we forget that the majority is elsewhere, that we are but a fraction of it: we forget the great cloud of witnesses gathered during the ages growing day by day, the unseen multitude which no man can number; we think but seldom of that paradise of God, that land of the living, where loyal hearts and true stand ever in the light. Ah brethren, it is we who are in the shadows and the darkness, not they..

FACT QUESTIONS

Who were the Sadducees? What did they believe? Describe their position in the religio-political spectrum in Israel. What else does the New Testament say about them? In what major points did they differ from the Pharisees?

What was the law they cited? What practical problem in Israel was this law intended to solve? Why underline the childlessness of each marriage?

Show how the Sadducees-' practical case seemed to them to enjoy Mosaic sanction for their position regarding the resurrection.

What is the importance of Jesus-' remark about their ignorance? Show how this is no mere jab to hurt them but an integral part of His answer.

Show in what way the Sadducees were signally ignorant of the power of God.

Why is Jesus-' allusion to angels particularly significant in this conversation with Sadducees?

In what way are resurrected humans like angels in heaven? What additional light does Luke throw on this question?

In what way does marriage have only to do with this life?

In what way were the Sadducees tragically ignorant of the Scriptures, according to Jesus?

10.

What Bible text did He cite in proof of the resurrection? What other Old Testament texts COULD He have cited with equal force?

11.

Show how the text cited actually proves the truth of the resurrection. Show how the same text could be used to deal with other Sadducean disbelief.

12.

Why did Jesus choose to cite a text out of the Pentateuch for the Sadducees?

13.

Show how Jesus defended the divine and human authorship of the text cited. (Cf. Mark and Luke.)

14.

What was the crowds-' reaction to Jesus-' answer?

15.

According to Luke, what was the reaction of the theologians present?

C. THE QUESTION OF THE GREAT COMMANDMENT IN THE LAW

(Parallel: Mark 12:28-34; cf. Luke 10:25-28 not parallel)

Continues after advertising