And Sadducees come to him, that say there is no resurrection; and they demanded of him saying,
The Sadducees step forward next, and Mark names them by the belief that defined them: they deny that the dead rise. So who were these men? And why did the Lord treat their clever puzzle as more than a mistake?
Mark names them by their doctrine. But they were also the party with real power in Jerusalem, at home with the world around them.
The Sadducees were also a religious party, but they stood for the worldly side of religion. The high offices of the temple fell to them, along with a leading part in public affairs (Acts 4, 5). Their beliefs demanded less, and their practice was less strict, than those of the Pharisees. As for what they believed, they "say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit" (Acts 23:8; Matt. 22:23). So it is no surprise that they did not clash with our Lord as constantly and openly as the Pharisees did, yet they fiercely opposed the power of the Spirit and the witness to the resurrection that the apostles later gave.
Their denial of resurrection grew out of a view of what a human being is. That view is still with us.
They did not believe in the resurrection, nor in angels, nor in spirits. They held that the soul died with the body. Matt. 22:23; Acts 4:1-2; Acts 23:8. They were strict about the written law of Moses, but they rejected the traditions of the elders, what is called the oral law… The beliefs of modern rationalists have much in common with the Sadducees.
Mark 12 lines up the leaders of the nation one after another, and each group leaves the scene silenced.
The light of the Lord's presence had already exposed and silenced the Pharisees and Herodians. Now the Sadducees come to Him, only to have their own ignorance and unbelief laid bare. The Sadducees were the materialists of that day, and they stood for the unbelief of the flesh. As William Kelly said well, "The strength of unbelief lies in putting difficulties, in raising up imaginary cases which do not apply, in reasoning from the things of men to the things of God." So here these wicked men try to oppose the truth by ridicule.
Notice the oddity: men who say there is no resurrection ask a question that only works if there is one.
As usual, they gave away their ignorance of the Scriptures, despite all their show of learning. Otherwise they would never have put such a case. And what are difficulties to the power of God, even if they are difficulties to man?… The truth is that it took complete ignorance to suppose such a situation could arise in the resurrection state. Their question also took the resurrection for granted, and that was the very thing they denied. Scepticism is crooked by habit — no less false than superstition.
Another writer shows where their story came from, and why the mistake is so common.
They were used to the arguments of men, and did not expect to meet divine wisdom, or the unstoppable force of the word of God. Their case assumed that the relationships and conditions of this world carry on into the next. This is what men do: they mix their own thoughts in with God's word, and when those thoughts do not agree with it, they decide the word makes no sense and reject it.
The Sadducees rested their case on the five books of Moses. That is the very ground where the Lord meets them.
We can picture the scene. With an air of triumph a Sadducee might hold the scroll of the law in his hands. He would challenge the Pharisee to point out one passage where the word resurrection is found, or where life after death is stated… Yet the truth of the resurrection of the dead was buried in the writings of Moses. The Lord brought it out in a way that silenced the Sadducees on the spot. There was teaching that implied it, even though Moses never set the subject out formally.
The Lord named what produced their question, and the diagnosis outlives them.
They did not know the Scriptures — that was ignorance. They did not know the power of God — that was unbelief. These twin pillars held up their unbelieving error. Modern unbelief of the same kind rests on just the same two pillars. They constantly misquote, misread, or otherwise mangle Scripture. And they think of God as anything but Almighty — as just a man, though with greater powers than our own.
- Who — The Sadducees were the worldly religious party. They held the high temple offices, denied resurrection, angels and spirits, and taught that the soul died with the body.
- Ignorance — Their first pillar was not knowing the Scriptures. They mangled the text they claimed to honour.
- Unbelief — Their second pillar was not knowing the power of God. Difficulties that stop man are nothing to Him.
- Method — Unbelief invents cases that do not apply and reasons from human things to divine. Here it even assumed the resurrection it set out to deny.
- Answer — The Lord silenced them from the very books of Moses they accepted. Resurrection lies buried there, even if it is never stated outright.
Teacher, Moses wrote to us that if any one's brother die, and leave a wife behind, and leave no children, that his brother shall take his wife, and raise up seed to his brother.
The Sadducees bring Jesus a story built from one law of Moses — a childless widow passed from brother to brother, seven times — to make resurrection look absurd. Their opening words, "Moses wrote for us," turn out to matter as much as the puzzle itself.
These men were not trying to build a legal case against Him.
They were the materialists of their day... They probably cared little about His teaching. They seem to have been stirred into settled opposition only when the Apostles proclaimed the resurrection from the dead through Jesus (Acts 4:2)... The Pharisees, as we have seen, were looking for a charge to bring against Him before the religious or the civil court. The Sadducees had no such aim. Whatever His answer might be, it would not have given them grounds to prosecute Him.
They denied a great deal, yet they held the written law of Moses strictly.
They did not believe in the resurrection, or in angels, or in spirits. They held that the soul died with the body (Matt. 22:23; Acts 4:1-2; Acts 23:8). They were strict about the written law of Moses, but they rejected the traditions of the elders — what is called the oral law.
The rule they cite comes from Deuteronomy 25, and it protected a family line from dying out.
An Israelite had to marry his brother's widow if that brother had died childless, and raise up offspring for his brother. That way the dead man's name and inheritance were kept safe in the firstborn of that marriage. If he refused this duty to his dead brother, he faced public shame and a mark of disgrace.
The law was a mercy for family life on earth, and they pushed it where it did not belong.
In Israel, being childless was a disgrace. For a man's name to be blotted out — his family dying out — was seen as a special mark of God's displeasure. The Sadducees in our Lord's day might try to ridicule the truth of resurrection by bringing in this merciful provision, but they only showed their ignorance of "the Scriptures and the power of God." God made that provision for life on earth, not for the life to come.
Their strength is not argument. It is invention.
The Sadducees were the unbelieving party, and all the apparent strength of unbelief lies in raising difficulties, in inventing imaginary cases that do not apply, in reasoning from the things of men to the things of God. The whole basis is false assumption... Their question, besides, took the resurrection for granted, which was the very thing they denied.
It is not a weapon a believer should pick up.
For the Christian, ridicule is a dangerous weapon. Anyone who uses it may find himself in strange company, for it has always been the favourite weapon of the unbeliever who sets out to oppose Christianity... The Sadducees did not try to prove the resurrection false from Scripture; they opposed it with ridicule.
Their own words say more than they meant, and Jesus lets the words stand.
When the sceptics of that day came to Him with their supposed difficulty about the resurrection, they said, "Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife…", quoting from Deuteronomy 25:5... The Lord at once condemns their reading of Scripture: "You know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God." Notice, though, that He does not condemn them for saying Moses wrote Deuteronomy. What He refused was their absurd interpretation.
First He removes the assumption their puzzle rests on.
Whose wife would this woman be, who had the seven husbands one after another? The answer is that she would belong to none of them then. The resurrection does not restore earthly ties. People do not rise from the dead as husbands and wives, parents and children, masters or servants.
Then He proves resurrection from a promise God made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
God never gave Abraham or Isaac or Jacob actual possession of the land while they were alive in their natural bodies. Yet He did promise them the land — not just their children, but themselves. So they must rise again to receive the land promised to them... It is impossible that the promise He made them should go unfulfilled.
- Scripture misused. They quote a real law of Moses correctly and still get it wrong. They force a rule about earthly inheritance to answer a question about the life to come.
- Scripture assumed. Their own words, "Moses wrote for us," grant the very authorship they might have doubted — and the Lord lets it stand.
- Scripture unknown. Their case works only if the risen still live as husbands and wives. They do not, so the puzzle falls apart.
- Scripture sufficient. God promised Abraham, Isaac and Jacob a land they never owned. They must rise to receive it.
- Scripture honoured. Ridicule and invented difficulties are the weapons of unbelief. The answer is not cleverness but knowing the Scriptures and the power of God.
There were seven brethren; and the first took a wife, and dying did not leave seed;
The Sadducees, who denied any resurrection, come to Jesus with a story: one wife, seven brothers, each marrying her in turn and each dying childless. Verse 20 begins their case. The whole question is whether a law made for family life on earth still applies in the resurrection.
Their case rests on a real command in the law of Moses. It protected a dead man's family line.
There was a merciful provision in the law (Deuteronomy 25:5-10) that no man's family would die out while a brother lived to carry on the line. In Israel, to be childless was a disgrace. When a man's name was wiped out and his family died out, people saw it as a special mark of God's displeasure. The Sadducees of our Lord's day might use this merciful provision to ridicule the truth of resurrection. But they only showed their ignorance of the Scriptures and the power of God. God made this provision for life on earth, not for the life to come.
The number seven is no accident. They piled it up to make resurrection look absurd.
They were determined to prove there is no resurrection, and had thought up a case that was very unlikely, to say the least. They assume a case of seven brothers dying after they had all in turn had the same wife. In the resurrection, they ask, which man would have her? If only two had married her, they could have asked the same question. But they wanted to make the truth of resurrection look as ridiculous as possible.
The puzzle is not a real problem. It is a made-up difficulty, and that is how unbelief usually works.
Here, again, it was only a difficulty. The Sadducees were the unbelieving party. All the apparent strength of unbelief lies in putting forward difficulties. It raises imaginary cases that do not apply. It reasons from the things of men to the things of God. The whole basis is false assumption… But in truth, only complete ignorance could suppose that such a situation could arise in the resurrection state. The question, besides, took for granted the resurrection, which was exactly what they denied. Scepticism is crooked by habit — no less false than superstition.
They open with "Moses wrote to us," treating the words as settled Scripture. Jesus corrects how they read those words. He never questions who wrote them.
The rationalists of that day came to Him with their supposed difficulty about the resurrection. They said that Moses wrote to them about a man whose brother dies and leaves his wife behind him. They were quoting Deuteronomy 25:5, and out of it they built what they thought was a very complicated objection (Mark 12:18-23). The Lord at once completely condemns their interpretation of Holy Scripture, saying, "You know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God." But it is important to notice that He does not condemn them for ascribing Deuteronomy to Moses.
Their question assumes that marriage carries on after death. Scripture never says that.
There is not a line in Scripture to say that the relationships of earth will continue in heaven. We shall not rise as husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and servants. In this respect we shall be like the angels. We shall not be angels, as some people wrongly imagine, but like them in being free from earthly relationships.
Jesus answers from the books the Sadducees themselves valued. A promise God made there settles the matter.
He takes this portion, not because it is the clearest Scripture in the Old Testament, but because it is in the books of Moses, which these Sadducees valued most. God never gave Abraham, Isaac or Jacob actual possession of the land of Israel while they lived in their natural bodies. Yet He did promise them the land — not only to their children, but to themselves. So they must rise to receive that land as promised to them… The promise He made them cannot fail.
- Provision — The law of the surviving brother was mercy for life on earth. It guarded a family name from dying out. It never described the world to come.
- Distortion — The Sadducees stretched that earthly law into the resurrection. They invented seven brothers to make the truth look ridiculous.
- Contradiction — Their question only worked if the resurrection they denied were true. Unbelief draws its strength from imaginary cases that do not apply.
- Correction — Earthly relationships do not carry into the resurrection. Believers rise free of them, like the angels in that one respect — but they do not become angels.
- Confirmation — Jesus answers from the books the Sadducees accepted. God promised the land to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob themselves, so they must rise to receive it.
and the second took her and died, and neither did he leave seed; and the third likewise.
Mark 12:21 is the second link in a chain the Sadducees invented. Brother after brother marries the same woman, and each dies childless. The verse only matters as part of their bigger question. It raises two issues: what law were they using, and why pile up so many deaths?
The Sadducees framed their attack as a Bible question. They built it on a real command in Israel's law, which is why "leaving no offspring" keeps repeating.
They came to Him with a difficulty that claimed to rest on the Word of God. So they made Holy Scripture a ground for disbelieving a truth of revelation that cannot be disputed. The law made a special provision for what is called a levirate marriage. If a man died childless, his surviving brother had to marry the widow. This kept the dead man's share of the inheritance, so that his name would not be blotted out of Israel (Deut. 25:5-6). Now a case had happened, they said, where seven brothers married the same woman, one after the other, in keeping with this law. All had died without children.
One repetition would have been enough to raise the puzzle. Piling on a second, a third and a seventh was a choice, and commentators read it as mockery rather than honest enquiry.
They imagine a case of seven brothers who die after each of them in turn had the same wife. In the resurrection, they ask, which man would have her? Of course, if only two had her, they could have asked the same question. But they wanted to make the truth of resurrection look as ridiculous as they possibly could.
The men behind the question had already decided the answer. Their whole outlook shut out the world they were asking about.
Next come the Sadducees, another sect of the Jews. They did not believe in the invisible world, nor in angels, nor in the resurrection. God had given a law to His people Israel, and that was all. They were used to the arguments of men. They did not expect to meet divine wisdom, or the unstoppable force of the word of God. They put forward a case that made the resurrection look ridiculous and impossible — if you first grant the foolish thing they imagined. For they suppose that the relationships and state of this world continue in the next.
The question was never an honest problem. It shows how unbelief argues.
Here, again, it was merely a difficulty. The Sadducees were the unbelieving party. All the apparent strength of unbelief lies in raising difficulties, in inventing imaginary cases that do not apply, and in reasoning from the things of men to the things of God. The whole basis is false assumption… Besides, the question took the resurrection for granted, and that was exactly what they denied. Scepticism is habitually crooked — no less false than superstition.
If earthly marriage does not carry over, the second brother, the third and the seventh no longer matter.
There is not a line in Scripture to say that the relationships of earth will be continued in heaven. We shall not rise as husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and servants. In this respect we shall be like the angels. We shall not be angels, as people wrongly imagine, but like them in being free from the ties of earth. The believer will enjoy privileges and heavenly relationships far above those of angels, and far above the passing relationships of this present life.
The Lord did not stop at dismantling the story. He proved the doctrine from the books these men themselves valued.
He takes this passage, not because it is the clearest Scripture in the Old Testament, but because it is in the books of Moses, which these Sadducees valued most. God never gave Abraham, Isaac or Jacob actual possession of the land of Israel while they were alive in their natural bodies. Yet He did promise them the land — not only to their children, but to themselves. So they must rise to receive the land He promised them… The promise He made them must be fulfilled.
- Law — Deuteronomy 25:5-6 told a brother to marry a childless widow. It kept the dead man's name and inheritance alive in Israel. That command explains the repeated "leaving no offspring."
- Ridicule — a second and third brother added nothing to the puzzle. The Sadducees piled them up to make resurrection look as absurd as possible.
- Assumption — they imagined that the relationships of this world carry on into the next. Then they rejected whatever did not fit that picture.
- Method — unbelief invents cases that do not apply and argues from the things of men to the things of God. Their question even assumed the resurrection they denied.
- Answer — Scripture never promises that earthly ties resume. And God's word to Moses proves the dead rise: the land promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob themselves must still become theirs.
And the seven [took her and] did not leave seed. Last of all the woman also died.
The Sadducees, who denied that anyone rises from the dead, build their story to a climax: seven brothers marry the same woman, all die childless, and then she dies too. Every person in the story ends in the grave, and on that pile of deaths they raise a question meant to make resurrection look ridiculous.
Their story rests on a command in the law of Moses. If a man died, his brother was to marry the widow so she could bear a child to carry the dead man's name. In their tale that provision fails seven times over.
Deuteronomy 25:5 made provision for a man to marry his brother's wife if his brother died, so that she could have children to carry his brother's name. They imagine a case of seven brothers who die after each in turn has had the same wife. In the resurrection, they ask, which man will have her? If only two had her they could have asked the same question. But they wanted to make the truth of resurrection look as ridiculous as they could.
The men telling this story did not believe anyone rises at all. So their question assumes the very thing they came to destroy.
All the apparent strength of unbelief lies in raising difficulties, in inventing imaginary cases which do not apply, in reasoning from the things of men to the things of God. The whole thing rests on a false assumption… Besides, the question took for granted the resurrection, which was the very thing they denied. Scepticism is crooked by habit — no less false than superstition.
Jesus does not begin by untangling the puzzle. He names what produced it — and writers point out that the same two supports hold up much unbelief today.
Next came the Sadducees, asking Him to untangle the marriage puzzle they put forward. He did this and showed them their folly. But before doing so He exposed the causes underneath it. They did not know the Scriptures — that was ignorance. They did not know the power of God — that was unbelief. Their unbelieving error stood on these two pillars. Unbelief of the Sadducee type today stands on just the same two pillars. They constantly misquote, misinterpret, or otherwise twist Scripture. And they think of God as anything but Almighty — as just a man, though with greater powers than ourselves.
Their case would only work on two conditions. Neither one holds.
If Scripture had said that people marry in the resurrection state, their imaginary case would be a real difficulty. If God had no power, the resurrection itself would be impossible.
Their whole riddle depends on the seven marriages surviving death. Commentators answer that none of those ties survive it.
There is not a line in Scripture to say that the relationships of earth will continue in heaven. We shall not rise as husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and servants. In this respect we shall be like the angels. We shall not be angels, as some wrongly imagine, but like them in being free from earthly relationships. The believer will enjoy privileges and heavenly relationships far above the angels, and far above the passing relationships of this present life.
Jesus then proves the resurrection from the books of Moses, the part of Scripture these men valued most. The argument turns on a promised land.
He takes this passage, not because it is the clearest Scripture in the Old Testament, but because it stands in the books of Moses, which these Sadducees valued most. God never gave Abraham, Isaac or Jacob actual possession of the land of Israel while they lived in their natural bodies. Yet He did promise them the land — not just their children, but themselves. So they must rise to have that land promised to them… It is impossible that the promise He made them should fail.
The proof turns on how God spoke to Moses at the burning bush.
When the incident at the bush happened, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had been dead a long time. Yet God still speaks of Himself as their God. He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. Though dead to this scene, they still live. They will rise again to enjoy the promises of God. Since sin has come in, God can only fulfil those promises on resurrection ground.
- Manufactured. Two husbands would raise the same question as seven. The number is there to make resurrection look absurd, not to raise an honest problem.
- Borrowed. Their question assumes the resurrection they meant to deny. Unbelief draws its strength from imaginary cases that do not apply.
- Twin causes. Not knowing the Scriptures is ignorance. Not knowing the power of God is unbelief. The error stands on both.
- Released. No line of Scripture carries earthly ties into heaven. The raised are free of them, like the angels, and given higher relationships still.
- Living. Their story ends with everyone dead. God's word ends with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob still His — promised a land they never owned, and therefore certain to rise.
In the resurrection, when they shall rise again, of which of them shall she be wife, for the seven had her as wife?
The Sadducees end their story with a question they think has no answer. Seven brothers married the same woman. So whose wife is she when the dead rise? It sounds like a legal puzzle. But the men asking it did not believe in resurrection at all. The real issue is not the woman's marriage. It is what resurrection life is like.
Their story starts from a real law of Moses and stretches it to breaking point.
They were determined to prove there is no resurrection. So they thought up a case that was very unlikely, to say the least. Deuteronomy 25:5 allowed a man to marry his brother's wife if his brother died, so that she could have children to carry his brother's name. They imagine seven brothers who die after each of them in turn has had the same wife. In the resurrection, they ask, which man would have her? Of course, if only two had her they could have asked the same question. But they wanted to make the truth of resurrection look as ridiculous as they could.
These questioners had paid little attention to Jesus until now. Something drew them out.
They were the materialists of their day. They denied the resurrection and the existence of angels or spirits (Acts 23:8), and they probably paid little attention to His teaching... Now the Pharisees had been silenced, and the Sadducees were not sorry, we may believe, to see their rivals beaten. So they came to the Lord with what we may call a test case. To their minds it settled the matter: resurrection was impossible... But if they could put a question He could not answer properly, what a triumph that would be.
The question itself assumes the very thing these men denied. Doubt often argues this way.
The Sadducees were the unbelieving party. All the apparent strength of unbelief lies in raising difficulties, in inventing imaginary cases that do not apply, in reasoning from the things of men to the things of God. The whole basis is false assumption... As for difficulties, what are they to the power of God, even if they are difficulties to man?... The question, besides, took the resurrection for granted, which was exactly what they denied.
Their puzzle rests on one silent assumption. They think the next world repeats this one.
They present a case which, if the foolish thing they imagined were true, would make the resurrection ridiculous and impossible. For they suppose that the relationships and state of this world continue in the next one. This is what men do: they mix their own thoughts in with God's word, and since these thoughts do not agree with it, they decide it makes no sense and reject it.
So what happens to those seven marriages? Nothing carries over, and what replaces them is better.
There is not a line in Scripture to say that the relationships of earth will continue in heaven. We shall not rise as husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and servants. In this respect we shall be like the angels. We shall not be angels, as people wrongly imagine, but like them in being free from earthly relationships. The believer will enjoy privileges and heavenly relationships far above angels, and far above the passing relationships of the present state.
Why does marriage stop? The reason has to do with death.
The Sadducees of that day, like many people in later ages, could imagine nothing different from what they had known. Here marriages take place. So in their thinking, if there was a resurrection, marriages must be arranged in heaven too. Their conclusion was wrong... And the Lord gives a reason for that... "for they cannot die anymore." Death does not rule there. So marriage, which keeps the human race going on earth, has no place in heaven. Further, they are equal to angels, and all of them are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
- The trap — Seven husbands, one widow, one question they thought had no answer. They built it on a real law about a brother marrying his brother's widow, to make resurrection look absurd.
- The blind spot — Unbelief invents difficulties and reasons from what men know up to what God can do. Their question even assumes the resurrection it was meant to disprove.
- The false floor — They imagined the next world as a copy of this one. Men mix their own thoughts into God's word, then reject what will not fit.
- The answer — She will belong to none of them. Earthly ties do not carry over. In that way the raised are like the angels, and believers gain relationships higher than angels have.
- The reason — Marriage keeps a dying race going. Where no one dies, marriage has no purpose. The raised are sons of God, sons of the resurrection.
And Jesus answering said to them, Do not ye therefore err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God?
The Sadducees denied that the dead rise. They brought Jesus an invented puzzle: a woman married to seven brothers in turn. The story was built to make the resurrection look absurd. Before answering it, Jesus named the two roots of their mistake — ignorance of Scripture, and blindness to God's power.
The question was never sincere. It was a difficulty invented to trap Him. Unbelief has always worked this way.
The Sadducees were the unbelieving party. All the apparent strength of unbelief lies in raising difficulties. It invents imaginary cases that do not apply. It reasons from the things of men to the things of God. The whole basis is a false assumption... As usual, they showed their ignorance of the Scriptures, despite all their grand claims. Otherwise they would not have raised such a case. As for difficulties, what are they to the power of God, even supposing they were difficulties to man? Besides, their question took for granted the resurrection — the very thing they denied.
The Lord names two failures, not one twice over. One concerns knowledge. The other concerns trust.
They did not know the Scriptures — that was ignorance. They did not know the power of God — that was unbelief. Their unbelieving error was upheld on these twin pillars. Modern unbelief of the Sadducee kind rests on the same two pillars. Such people keep misquoting, misinterpreting, or otherwise mangling Scripture. And they think of God as anything but Almighty — as just a man, though with larger powers than ourselves.
Their whole scenario assumed that marriage carries over into the world to come. Scripture never says this. The Lord corrects the assumption instead of solving the riddle on their terms.
Not one line in Scripture says that the relationships of earth will continue in heaven. We shall not rise as husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and servants. In this respect we shall be like the angels. We shall not be angels, as some wrongly imagine. We shall be like them only in being free from earthly ties. The believer will enjoy privileges and heavenly relationships far above those of angels. They stand far above the passing relationships of this present life.
The second half of the rebuke touches how they thought of God Himself.
"You are wrong," was His plain word. He pointed to the source of their error. They knew neither the Scriptures, which they claimed to expound, nor the power of the God whom they claimed to serve... In their minds God is so stripped of His power and glory that endless difficulties appear. Admit His power, and the difficulties cease to exist.
The Lord did not stop at exposing the error. He proved the resurrection from the tense of a single verb.
When our Lord spoke these words, the bodies of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had been dead for hundreds of years. Yet our Lord did not say, "I WAS" (past tense). He said, "I AM (present tense) the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." So our Lord claimed they were alive in spirit at that very moment, even though their bodies had long since crumbled into dust.
The Lord's words were not aimed only at one group in Israel. They still fall on anyone who sits in judgement over the Bible while claiming to explain it.
The men who tell us these things may be very clever and very learned. But we have no hesitation at all in telling them that, in this matter, "they are wrong, because they know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God." We do want to give all due respect to learning, genius and talent, when we find them in their right place and at their proper work. But when we find them lifting their proud heads above the Word of God, sitting in judgement and casting a slur on that unmatched revelation, we feel that we owe them no respect at all.
- Two pillars. The error here stands on two supports. Not knowing the Scriptures is ignorance. Not knowing the power of God is unbelief.
- Pillar one. Their puzzle only worked if Scripture taught that marriage carries on after we rise. It does not. Earthly ties do not carry over.
- Pillar two. Their difficulty also assumed a God too small to raise the dead. Admit His power and the difficulty disappears.
- The remedy. Jesus does not debate their invented case. He goes to the words they claimed to revere. "I am the God of Abraham" means those men live.
- Still standing. The same two pillars hold up unbelief today. People mishandle Scripture. And they shrink God to a larger version of themselves.
For when they rise from among [the] dead they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels [who are] in the heavens.
The Sadducees denied any resurrection, so they asked Jesus whose wife a woman would be if she had married seven brothers in turn. His answer is that risen life is not a copy of this life, and that their difficulty came from not knowing Scripture or the power of God.
The case was built to make resurrection look absurd. One writer names the method behind it.
Here again, it was merely a difficulty. The Sadducees were the unbelieving party. All the apparent strength of unbelief lies in putting difficulties. It raises up imaginary cases that do not apply. It reasons from the things of men to the things of God. The whole basis is false assumption... Their question also took the resurrection for granted, and that was the very thing they denied... Whose would this woman be who had the seven husbands one after another? The answer is, she would belong to none of them then. There is no such thing as a resumption of earthly ties in the resurrection. People do not rise from the dead as husbands and wives, parents and children, masters or servants.
The men questioning Jesus could picture the next world only as a copy of this one.
Their earthbound minds were not prepared for the simplicity of the Lord's answer. He tells them their very question was in error because of their ignorance of Scripture and of the power of God. Marriage was a provision of God only for earth. In resurrection there is no such thing, but people are as the angels... At least they should have credited God with power to bring in greater things than earth has seen.
The comparison is often stretched further than the words allow. Jesus draws one line of likeness, not a full identity.
There is not a line in Scripture to say that the relationships of earth will be continued in heaven. We shall not rise as husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and servants. In this respect we shall be as the angels. We shall not be angels, as people vainly imagine, but like them in being free from earthly relationships. The believer will enjoy privileges and heavenly relationships far above angels, and far above the passing relationships of this present state.
Another writer marks where the likeness stops.
In the resurrection they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but will be like the angels. They are like angels in that respect, not in all things, for they will judge angels. The likeness goes this far: there will be no distinction of sex.
They held more than one error. One sentence answers both.
The Lord answers their question first, and then rebukes the unbelief that had inspired it. He answers the question with a simple statement. In it He contradicts another article of their unbelieving creed — that there were no angels (Acts 23:8). It was enough to meet a mere argument from their ignorance with His own perfect knowledge. Angels do exist, and in the resurrection the saints would be like them, neither marrying nor giving in marriage. They did not know the power of God. They could imagine nothing but a copy of earthly conditions.
The wording of this verse sets the rising of God's people apart from the rising of the wicked. Older translations read "rise from among the dead," where the ESV has "rise from the dead."
The resurrection of the saints is also different from that of the wicked. Like the resurrection of the Lord and of Lazarus, it is "out from among (ek) the dead." Mark 12:25. It was the earnest desire of Paul to attain this. Phil. 3:11.
Many hear this verse as a threat to the people they love most. One writer answers that fear with ties that already end in this life.
Many minds now hold a monstrous distortion of unbelief. They think that because earthly ties and relationships cease in heaven, people will not know each other there, and our interest in one another will not last. The stupid folly of the thought is shallow. I know and love many who were once either my masters or my servants on earth, and they know and love me. The relationship has passed. But thank God, the mutual love and esteem our hearts formed in it has not passed. A child, when married, ceases to be a child in the parent's house... but the love and interest go on.
- Question — The seven-husband case assumed the very resurrection it denied. It reasoned from the things of men to the things of God — the method of unbelief.
- World — Marriage was God's provision for earth. Their error was to picture the next world as a copy of this one. God can bring in something greater.
- Likeness — Believers will be like angels in one way only: no earthly ties, no distinction of sex. They do not become angels. God gives them relationships far above them.
- Limit — One sentence overturns two errors: the denial of angels and the denial of resurrection.
- Love — Ties end; love does not. Masters, servants, parents and grown children lose the tie here but keep the love. So it will be there.
But concerning the dead that they rise, have ye not read in the book of Moses, in [the section of] the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, *I* [am] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
The Sadducees denied the resurrection, and they argued from the books of Moses. Jesus answers them from Moses too, and the whole case turns on the tense of one verb.
The Lord could have quoted a plainer resurrection passage. He chose this one because of who was asking, and because of a promise never kept while Abraham, Isaac and Jacob lived.
He takes this passage, not because it is the clearest Scripture in the Old Testament, but because it is in the books of Moses. These Sadducees valued those books most. God never gave Abraham, Isaac or Jacob the land of Israel to own while they were alive in their natural bodies. Yet He did promise them the land — not just to their children, but to themselves. So they must rise to have that land as promised to them.
By calling His source "the book of Moses," Jesus also says who wrote Exodus.
Our Lord Jesus Christ, the infallible Son of God, perfect in knowledge, said these words to the Sadducees. In this way He gives positive evidence that Exodus is the book of Moses. Christ and His apostles quote Exodus twenty-five times. To reject the inspiration of Exodus is to reject the inspiration of the entire New Testament. Worse than that, it is to reject the testimony of the Son of God.
God spoke at the bush long after those three men had died. What He called Himself then settles the question.
When the incident at the bush happened, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had been long dead, yet God still speaks of Himself as their God. He is not, however, the God of the dead, but the God of the living. Though dead to this scene, they still live. They will rise again to enjoy the promises of God. Since sin has come in, those promises can only be fulfilled on resurrection ground.
The setting matters here as much as the wording.
God sent Moses out from the bush to be their deliverer. He sent him under that title, "the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob" — as that "I am" who had looked on His people and cared for them. The Sadducees' creed could never have been the good news of that deliverance, nor its inspiration. A living God in covenant with men meant life, not death; and if death was there, then a life supreme above it. So resurrection was the necessary filling out of such a declaration. The hand God held out to man was not to clasp the listless fingers of a corpse.
Surviving death and rising from death are not the same claim. This verse reaches the second, not just the first.
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had died long before God spoke to Moses this way; yet He was still their God. So they did exist, for He is not a God of that which has no existence. Further, though they were dead, their body was an essential part of their person. Resurrection of the body must therefore take place. Abraham could not be complete without his body. So Exodus 3:6 taught by implication the truth the Sadducees denied. From the Lord's use of it we learn this: where a truth has no direct statement, Scripture may still teach it by implication.
The Lord traced their mistake to two things. The second shapes how we read the first.
They "knew not the Scriptures, nor the power of God." These are the two things needed. If we do not recognise and own the power of God, we limit the working and reach of the Scriptures to our own. Then we go astray even in interpreting them. That is a great evil, and perhaps not a rare one. The testimony comes from God. He views things in His own light, and He accomplishes His own thoughts by His own power. Leave this out, and we are shut up to the small conclusions, results and measures of our own minds and strength.
- Living. God said "I am," not "I was," of three men long buried. He is the God of the living, and that one word carries the argument.
- Promised. God promised the land to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob themselves. They never owned it, so they must rise to receive it.
- Complete. A man is not himself without his body. So life with God after death still needs resurrection — a truth this verse teaches by implication.
- Covenanted. At the bush God sent out a deliverer. A living God in covenant with men means life — not a hand reaching out to clasp a corpse.
- Grounded. Their error had two roots: not knowing the Scriptures, and not knowing the power of God. Christ answered from "the book of Moses" and staked His own authority on it.
He is not the God of [the] dead, but of [the] living. *Ye* therefore greatly err.
The Sadducees came to Jesus with a marriage puzzle meant to make resurrection look absurd. He answered them from the books of Moses, which they valued most. His closing words settle far more than their puzzle. They touch what death is, and whether God keeps His word to people who have already died.
Before untangling their story, Jesus named what lay underneath it.
Next came the Sadducees, asking Him to unravel the marriage tangle they put forward. He did this and convicted them of their folly; but before doing so He revealed its underlying causes. They did not know the Scriptures — that was ignorance. They did not know the power of God — that was unbelief. These twin pillars held up their unbelieving error. Modern unbelief of the Sadducee type rests on exactly the same two pillars. They constantly misquote, misinterpret, or otherwise mangle Scripture. They think of God as anything but Almighty — as just a man, though with larger powers than ours.
The force of the sentence depends on what the Sadducees meant by death. In their view, the dead had stopped existing altogether.
"I am the God of Abraham" meant that Abraham existed when He spoke. He could not be the God of one who had no existence. He could not be in relationship with a person who did not exist. He could not be — in the Sadducees' idea of what the dead were — "the God of the dead."
Jesus chose His text with these men in mind. From it He drew an argument about a promise never yet kept.
He takes this passage, not because it is the clearest Scripture in the Old Testament. He takes it because it is in the books of Moses, which these Sadducees valued most. God never gave the land of Israel to Abraham, Isaac or Jacob to own while they were alive in their natural bodies. Yet He did promise them the land — not merely to their children, but to themselves. So they must rise to have that land as promised to them... God declared Himself to Moses as the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, and that proves the resurrection. God cannot fail to keep the promise He made them.
Denying resurrection was no small mistake about the afterlife.
It was in this view a fatal error, for it struck at the root of God's faithfulness to His promises. Indeed we now know that it is the very centre of all our hopes.
A present-tense relationship carries a future with it.
When the incident at the bush happened, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had been dead a long time. Yet God still speaks of Himself as their God. He is not, however, the God of the dead, but the God of the living. Though dead to this scene, they still live. They will rise again to enjoy the promises of God. Since sin has come in, God can only fulfil those promises on resurrection ground.
A living spirit is not yet the finished picture.
The bodies of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob have died, but their spirits live. So they must be raised in the end, because man is not complete without his spirit and soul and body (1 Thess. 5:23). The Lord therefore emphasised a second time how great the error of the Sadducees was.
His answer appeals to something a person can recognise without being taught.
Our Lord is now attacked by another form of unbelief — the Sadducee kind. Now see the beautiful simplicity of the wisdom of the mind of Christ. He brings them back to the burning bush and the voice of God that spoke from it. His point to them is that "He is not God of the dead, but of the living." Our natural conscience tells us that He is the God of the living.
- Error — Their trouble had two sources: not knowing the Scriptures, and not knowing the power of God. Modern unbelief stands on the same two pillars.
- Name — At the bush God still called Himself their God, in the present tense. He cannot be the God of someone who does not exist, so Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were not gone.
- Promise — God promised the land to those three men themselves, and they never owned it. To deny resurrection strikes at the root of God's faithfulness.
- Body — Their spirits live now. But man is not complete without spirit, soul and body, so the living must be raised.
- Verdict — Jesus did not soften it. He told them a second time that their error was great.