Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 12:18
Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying,
18 27. The Question of the Sadducees Respecting the Resurrection
18. the Sadducees ] Hitherto the Sadducees, “few, rich, and dignified,” had stood aloof, and affected to ignore the disciples of the despised “Prophet of Nazareth.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
See this passage fully explained in the notes at Mat 22:23-33.
Mar 12:25
Are as the angels – That is, as the angels in respect to connections and relations. What those connections and relations may be we know not, but this passage teaches that the special relation of marriage will not exist. It does not affirm, however, that there will be no recollection of former marriages, or no recognition of each other as having existed in this tender relation.
Mar 12:26
How in the bush – At the burning bush. See Exo 3:16. The meaning is, in that part of the book of Exodus which contains the account of the burning bush. When there were no chapters and verses, it was the easiest way of quoting a book of the Old Testament by the subject, and in this way it was often done by the Jews.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Mar 12:18; Mar 12:27
In the resurrection.
More in Scripture than as first appears
These words of Christ show us how much more there is in Scripture than at first sight appears. God spoke to Moses in the bush, and called Himself the God of Abraham; and Christ tells us, that in this simple announcement was contained the promise, that Abraham should rise again from the dead. In truth, if we may say it with reverence, the All-wise All-knowing God cannot speak, without meaning many things at once. He sees the end from the beginning; He understands the numberless connections and relations of all things one with another. Every word of His is full of instruction looking many ways; and, though it is not often given to us to know these various senses, and we are not at liberty to attempt lightly to imagine them, yet, as far as they are told us, and as far as we may reasonably infer them, we must thankfully accept them. (J. H. Newman.)
Christs proof of immortality
Christ raises the question: Could God call Himself Abrahams God if He had permitted his hopes to be disappointed, and his whole life to be dissipated by the touch of death? Whatever we love we seek to keep alive, and, if God loved Abraham, would He let him die? If the Sadducee was right, Abraham was at the time a handful of desert dust in which certainly God could take no peculiar interest. The fact that man can engage the interest of God, speak to Him, enter into covenant with Him; be beloved, embraced, protected by God, is the proof of immortality. Because God lives, he will live also whom God loves. There are many arguments that go to prove immortality, but this is chief, that God loves man, delights in him, and would be Himself bereaved, and spend a desolate eternity, if death robbed Him of the spirits that trust Him. (R. Glover)
.
The error of the Sadducees
1. Knowledge of the Scriptures may be very superficial.
2. Christ shows us how to conduct controversy.
3. Jesus enlarges our thoughts of what life is.
4. We are not to measure the unseen by the seen.
5. We cannot ignore one truth without danger of losing our hold on others.
6. The future life differs from the present
(1) In its constitution;
(2) in its blessedness.
7. A higher existence hereafter suggests the folly of expecting perfection here.
8. Our friends, who sleep in Jesus are not dead. (F. Wagstaff.)
Materialism and the Resurrection
I. The argument. It may be presented in three aspects.
1. After the three patriarchs were dead, and had been in the grave for centuries, God spoke of Himself as their God. If the words assume their then conscious existence as spirits, then it followed
(1) that the negative portion of the system of the Sadducees was destroyed. There are spiritual existences.
2. Supposing they do not exist in a state of consciousness, still God considers Himself as sustaining relations to them; He is their God. This, again, disposes of materialistic Sadduceeism. For God cannot sustain that relationship to what has been annihilated-to what has ceased to be-to nothing.
3. The emphasis may be put on the term God. I am the God, etc. What is it to be God to a being who has a religious nature, is capable of worship and happiness through Divine relations? How had He shown them He was their God? He called, led, educated, tried them, and taught them to rest implicitly on His word. He promised them a wonderful possession. What seemed to be conveyed by the words was never actually enjoyed. Yet they lived in faith, and died in the exercise of this faith-that in bestowing this possession He would prove Himself to be their God. If the Sadducees were right, there was an end of them and of the Divine faithfulness. It was a commencement without a conclusion, a porch without a temple, a beginning of promise without the termination.
II. Now, this subject will cast light upon two others.
1. The manner in which Christ threw light upon the future condition of man. He did not bring life and immortality to light as a new thing. There were indications of it in the ancient Church. He brought out in distinctness, and clearness, and fulness what was involved in mist and fog. Speaking with Divine authority,
(1) He took the affirmative side-always took it: resisted the objectors, threw against them arguments from the power of God, and the Scriptures of God.
(2) He raised men from the dead.
(3) He threw light upon the resurrection-the life of men in glory-long after their bodies had passed away.
(4) Then He illustrated and embodied in His own Person everything He taught. He died, was buried, was raised, was changed, was glorified.
(5) But greatest of all, by His redemptive work He shows how all could be done according to, and in harmony with, the principles of the Divine government, and the perfection of Gods nature.
2. Light is cast upon the state of the pious and holy dead. They live.
Martyred saints committed their spirits to the Lord Jesus.
1. If men choose to live without God here, they will find hereafter that there is a sense in which the actual relation between Him and them has not been destroyed.
2. The dignity and glory of a religious life. They are to be glorious immortals who love God, cherish religious faith, cultivate acquaintance with the infinite, and walk in holy obedience. The character of faithful worshippers is to be perpetuated and become eternal.
3. It is of infinite importance that all possess this Divine faith, and live the real life based upon the truth of God and the Gospel of Christ. (Thomas Binney.)
Immortality and love
I never saw a man that did not believe in the immortality of love when following the body of a loved one to the grave. I have seen men under other circumstances that did not believe in it; but I never saw a man that, when he stood looking upon the form of one that he really loved stretched out for burial, did not revolt from saying, It has all come to that: the hours of sweet companionship; the wondrous interlacings of tropical souls, the joys, the hopes, the trusts, the unutterable yearnings-there they all lie. No man can stand and look in a coffin upon the body of a fellow creature, and remember the flaming intelligence, the blossoming love, the whole range of Divine faculties which so lately animated that cold clay, and say, These have all collapsed and gone. No person can witness the last sad ceremonials which are performed over the remains of a human being-the sealing down of the unopenable lid, the following of the rumbling procession to the place of burial, the letting of the dust down into dust, the falling of the earth upon the hollow coffin, with those sounds that are worse than thunder, and the placing of the green sod over the grave-no person, unless he be a beast, can witness these things, and then turn away and say, I have buried my wife; I have buried my child; I have buried my sister, my brother, my love. (H. W. Beecher.)
A type of the Resurrection
One bright summer day I stood beside a large water butt, watching the insect life which skimmed its surface and the lower forms of life which revelled and rejoiced in its depths. Whilst thus engaged, I saw a little creature, in the shape of a worm, come up with zig-zag course apparently from the bottom of the butt to its surface. There was a little agitation-the shell broke, and a bright and beautiful insect flew away towards heaven. To my apprehension that was the most beautiful type of the resurrection ever beheld, and thus has our gracious God filled all nature with appropriate and instructive emblems of the glorious doctrine of the resurrection. (S. Cocks.)
The Resurrection
In Dr. Browns work on the resurrection, their is a beautiful parable from Halley. The story is of a servant, who, receiving a silver cup from his master, suffers it to fall into a vessel of aquafortis, and, seeing it disappear, contends in argument with a fellow servant that its recovery is impossible, until the master comes on the scene, and infuses salt water, which precipitates the silver from the solution; and then, by melting and hammering the metal, he restores it to its original shape. With this incident a sceptic-one of whose great stumbling blocks was the resurrection-was so struck, that he ultimately renounced his opposition to the gospel, and became a partaker of the Christian hope of immortality. (S. S. Teacher.)
Heaven will reveal itself
John Bunyan was once asked a question about heaven which he could not answer, because the matter was not revealed in the Scriptures; and he thereupon advised the inquirer to live a holy life and go and see. (Christian Age.)
Progressive knowledge of the Bible
It is curious to compare old and new maps, and to mark the progress of discovery. The black space of ocean is followed by a faint outline of a few miles of coast, marking the termination of an intrepid voyage. Then further portions of the same coast are laid down at intervals as supposed islands. Then by and by these portions are connected, and the outline of a great continent begins to be developed. The undiscovered passes into the region of the known and familiar. Thus it is with the Bible. What progress is being made in the discovery of its meaning! How much better acquainted is the Church of Christ now with its spirit, its allusions, its inner and outer history, than the same church during a former period! What a far more true and just idea of the mind of Christ, as manifested in and by the Apostolic Church, have we now than the Church of the fourth and fifth centuries possessed! Distance has increased the magnitude, the extent, the totality, the grandeur in the heaven-kissing mountain range. Individually I find in daily study of the Bible a daily discovery. What was formerly unknown becomes known, and what seemed a solitary coast becomes a part of a great whole, and what seemed wild and strange and lonely becomes to me green pasture and refreshing water-the abode of my fireside affections. And surely I shall read the Bible as an alphabet in heaven. It was my first school book here, and I hope it will be my first there. What I shall I never know the Spirit which moves the wheels, whose rims are so high that they are dreadful? The only true theory of development is the development of the spiritual eye for the reception of that light which ever shineth. (Norman Macleod, D. D.)
Our knowledge of the future state imperfect
Whatever correct ideas we have about the heavenly state, are of course derived from the revelation God has made. And yet from the very nature of the subject our ideas must necessarily be vague, and perhaps even incorrect. The information may be, and doubtless is, the very best God could give us; but the unsatisfactoriness of it clearly remains, just because the subject is so far beyond our present attainments and conceptions. It is like talking of the higher mathematics to a child who has only begun to comprehend the simplest relations of numbers, and to whom the multiplication table is an Ultima Thule. (Christian World Pulpit.)
Like the angels
The children of God, in the resurrection, our Saviour says, shall be equal to the angels; or, perhaps, more properly, they shall be like the angels in attributes, station, and employments. Like the angels, they will possess endless youth, activity, power, knowledge, and holiness; enjoy the same immortal happiness, dignity, and Divine favour; be lovely, beautiful, and glorious in the sight of God, and shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Like the angels, shall they be sons, and kings, and priests to God, and live and reign with Him forever and ever. (Pres. Dwight.)
Individual relation to God
In our mysterious being we have a double existence; we are part of a body, and God deals with men collectively as communities: yet also we are as much single spirits as if we were alone in the world, each running separately and apart its individual course. To teach men from the first the awful, the difficult truth, that they have each of them a soul-this was the meaning of that discipline of Abraham and the Patriarchs; and the whole history has shown how necessary it was. The visible world is all about us, early and late, wrapping us around, occupying eye and thought and desire; we seem to belong to it, and to it alone; it seems as if we must take our chance with it. And, on the other hand, we know how easily men come to think that being one of a body-even though it were the seed of Abraham, or the Church of Christ-made it less necessary to remember their personal singleness, their personal responsibility. To belong to a good set, to a religions family, seems to give us a security for ourselves; insensibly, perhaps, we take to ourselves credit for the goodness of our friends, we look at ourselves as if we must be what they are. The soul has indeed to think and to work with others and for others, and for great aims and purposes, out of and beyond itself. For others, and with others, the best parts of its earthly work is done. But first, the soul has to know that sublime truth about itself: that it stands before the Everlasting by itself, and for what it is. Abraham learned it, like Moses, like Elijah, like Isaiah, like St. Paul: in Job and the Psalter we see the early fruits of that discipline. The soul knew itself alone with God; no words could tell the incommunicable secret of the presence of God; and in that secret was wrapped up the seed of its conviction of its mysterious immortality-God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. This is the first lesson of the masters of the spiritual life. This is the first opening of the eyes to the reality of religion, when it comes upon us in our heart of hearts, in the deep certainties of conscience, that in spite of all that fills the eye and is not ourselves, there is ourself and there is God; and we begin by degrees, as it has been said, to perceive that there are but two beings in the whole universe-two only supreme and luminously self- evident beings-our own soul, and the God who made it. (Dean Church.)
As the angels.–
Employment in heaven
What shall we do in heaven? Well, our employments will accord with our state and disposition. Some one of you may perhaps be an artist. Now to paint a fine picture to hang upon somebodys wall on earth is accounted a great thing. Pooh! In heaven, your canvas shall be a soul, and your picture a loving spirit which under your guidance shall become a being of grace and beauty for evermore. On earth, an artist generally paints to make himself a name and earn both money and glory, but in heaven the object and aim of an artist shall be, Oh, that I might train this soul to be like Christ! Oh, that my work might glorify God! Someone else here may, I think, be an architect in heaven, not with bricks, stone, mortar, ladders, and rubbish. No; you build houses here; there you shall build human souls into angels. If life in heaven is to be as the angels, we have the joy of knowing that useful and congenial occupation will be our lot. (W. Birch.)
Congenial occupation in heaven
A lad, who served as a milk vendor, stood one day in Antwerp cathedral before the glorious picture by Rubens of the bringing down of Christ from the cross. The boy drank in all the beauty of the painting as if it were a thing of life; and it seemed as if the hunger in his soul were satisfied while he gazed upon the marvellous glory of that scene. At length, he turned away with a sigh in his heart, but a light in his eye, saying, I, also, have in me the soul of a painter! But he was only a poor boy, who went with a dog and a little cart carrying milk cans from the country to the people of Antwerp. In his soul he said, I in soul am an artist! But he had to go back to his dog and cart and milk cans, and that sort of humdrum work continued to be his daily employment, until having lost his living through a false accusation, and he and his dog being refused bread, they wandered up and down in the cold of the winter until one day they found themselves weary and starving at the door of the cathedral. The poor boy, with the soul of an artist, followed by his dog, more faithful to him than men and women, walked up the grand aisle of the cathedral, and stood before the glorious picture of Christ. Being weary, he lay down, when the poor dog crouched close to his starving master to warm him, and the boy kissed the head of the faithful beast and fixed his eyes on the sacred canvas. In the morning, the people found a boy and dog both dead, and clasped together. He had the soul of a painter, but he was poor and cold and hungry, yet he died feeling the love of his dog and beholding the picture whose glory had inspired his soul. And the people wept, and mourned over the poor boy whose circumstances had prevented the realization of his hearts desire. In the other world there will be no obstruction to lawful desires, and the possibilities of the human heart shall be granted. Every one of us shall have our opportunity of congenial employment. That which is within the soul and forms our real nature shall come out and have an opportunity of being employed in the service of God and mankind. A man with a musical soul one day went into a shop where he saw a beautiful violin for sale, and with all the money he had, he bought it. He came exultingly out of the shop the possessor of the glorious instrument. Then somebody said to him, My friend, where is the bow? He had the fiddle, but he had no bow. In a corresponding way, many of you have the violin in your nature, the capacity for harmony, but circumstances are against you; you cannot realize your earnest resolves because there is something wanting, You were meant to be a poet, and yet are, perhaps, a brick setter; or you were made to be an artist, and may be only a chimney sweep; or you may have the instincts of an engineer, and yet are probably chained to a desk in some dingy office, or may be a shoemaker sitting at a stall all day mending boots. These are some of the disciplinary contradictions of this life, where round people are continually found in square holes, and square people in round holes. But in the better land all these odds shall be made even, and an opportunity given to everyone to bring out that which God has put within us, and we shall be and do that which harmonizes with our angelic nature and inclination. (W. Birch.)
Leisure in heaven
Most earnest men are too busy in this world to find time to really live and know themselves. They are too much engrossed in the maddening maze of things to watch and pray and practise self-examination. They are like a steamer which is of excellent build and power of speed, and which is so profitable to its owners that they send it about from port to port and never put it into harbour to survey and restore it; and at length when stress of weather comes, the beautiful, powerful steamer gives way and sinks. Thousands of business men are like that steamer; they perish for want of overhauling and renovation. They are too busy to think of God, and death, and judgment. They are too busy to do a good deed in any way except putting their hand into their pocket to give something to a charitable institution, or throwing a copper to some unfortunate beggar. In the other world these over busy men will bare time to think of God and of themselves. The life of the other world will without doubt be progressive. Progress or development is the law of creation. There is progress on earth, and there will be progress in heaven. Your life is to be as a pure river which cannot be defiled or overshadowed by evil. We shall have to learn to forgive, learn to be pure, learn to be loving, learn to be kind. Have you learned these things on earth? Not fully; but you are trying to learn them; if so, you shall be as the angels and finish your education in heaven. There has been only One who went perfect into heaven. That perfect being was Jesus, and He has promised that His Spirit shall be with everyone who desires to follow Him. (W. Birch.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 18. See this question, concerning the resurrection, explained in detail on Mt 22:23-32.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
18. Then come unto him theSadducees, which say there is no resurrection“neitherangel nor spirit” (Ac 23:7).They were the materialists of the day. See on Ac23:6.
and they asked him, sayingasfollows:
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then came unto him the Sadducees,…. The same day, immediately after he had silenced the Pharisees and Herodians: these were a set of men distinct from the former, in some of their sentiments, especially in their religions ones, and particularly in the following:
which say there is no resurrection: of the dead, in a literal sense, either general or particular; [See comments on Mt 22:23];
and they asked him, saying; as in the next verse.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| The Question of the Sadducees. |
| |
18 Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying, 19 Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man’s brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 20 Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed. 21 And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise. 22 And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also. 23 In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. 24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? 25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. 26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.
The Sadducees, who were the deists of that age, here attack our Lord Jesus, it should seem, not as the scribes, and Pharisees, and chief-priests, with any malicious design upon his person; they were not bigots and persecutors, but sceptics and infidels, and their design was upon his doctrine, to hinder the spreading of that: they denied that there was any resurrection, and world of spirits, any state of rewards and punishments on the other side of death: now those great and fundamental truths which they denied, Christ had made it his business to establish and prove, and had carried the notion of them much further that ever it was before carried; and therefore they set themselves to perplex his doctrine.
I. See here the method they take to entangle it; they quote the ancient law, by which, if a man died without issue, his brother was obliged to marry his widow, v. 19. They suppose a case to happen that, according to that law, seven brothers were, successively, the husbands of one woman, v. 20. Probably, these Sadducees, according to their wonted profaneness, intended hereby to ridicule that law, and so to bring the whole frame of the Mosaic institution into contempt, as absurd and inconvenient in the practice of it. Those who deny divine truths, commonly set themselves to disparage divine laws and ordinances. But this was only by the by; their design was to expose the doctrine of the resurrection; for they suppose that if there be a future state, it must be such a one as this, and then the doctrine, they think, is clogged either with this invincible absurdity, that a woman in that state must have seven husbands, or else with this insolvable difficulty, whose wife must she be. See with what subtlety these heretics undermine the truth; they do not deny it, nor say, There can be no resurrection; nay, they do not seem to doubt of it, nor say, If there be a resurrection, whose wife shall she be? as the devil to Christ, If thou be the Son of God. But, as though these beasts of the field were more subtle than the serpent himself, they pretend to own the truth, as if they were not Sadducees, no not they; who said that they denied the resurrection? They take it for granted that there is a resurrection, and would be thought to desire instruction concerning it, when really they are designing to give a fatal stab, and think that they shall do it. Note, It is the common artifice of heretics and Sadducees to perplex and entangle the truth, which they have not the impudence to deny.
II. See here the method Christ takes to clear and establish this truth, which they attempted to darken, and give a shock to. This was a matter of moment, and therefore Christ does not pass it over lightly, but enlarges upon it, that, if they should not be reclaimed, yet others might be confirmed.
1. He charges the Sadducees with error, and charges that upon their ignorance. They who banter the doctrine of the resurrection as some do in our age, would be thought the only knowing men, because the only free thinkers, when really they are the fools in Israel, and the most enslaved and, prejudiced thinkers in the world. Do ye not therefore err? Ye cannot but be sensible of it yourselves, and that the cause of your error is, (1.) Because ye do not know the scriptures. Not but that the Sadducees had read the scriptures, and perhaps were ready in them; yet they might be truly said not to know the scriptures, because they did not know the sense and meaning of them, but put false constructions upon them; or they did not receive the scriptures as the word of God, but set up their own corrupt reasonings in opposition to the scripture, and would believe nothing but what they could see. Note, A right knowledge of the scripture, as the fountain whence all revealed religion now flows, and the foundation on which it is built, is the best preservative against error. Keep the truth, the scripture-truth, and it shall keep thee. (2.) Because ye know not the power of God. They could not but know that God is almighty, but they would not apply that doctrine to this matter, but gave up the truth to the objections of the impossibility of it, which would all have been answered, if they had but stuck to the doctrine of God’s omnipotence, to which nothing is impossible. This therefore which God hath spoken once, we are concerned to hear twice, to hear and believe, to hear and apply–that power belongs to God,Psa 62:11; Rom 4:19-21. The same power that made soul and body and preserved them while they were together, can preserve the body safe, and the soul active, when they are parted, and can unite them together again; for behold, the Lord’s arm is not shortened. The power of God, seen in the return of the spring (Ps. civ. 30), in the reviving of the corn (John xii. 24), in the restoring of an abject people to their prosperity (Ezek. xxxvii. 12-14), in the raising of so many to life, miraculously, both in the Old Testament and in the New, and especially in the resurrection of Christ (Eph 1:19; Eph 1:20), are all earnests of our resurrection by the same power (Phil. iii. 21); according to the mighty working whereby he is able to subdue all things to himself.
2. He sets aside all the force of their objection, by setting the doctrine of the future state in a true light (v. 25); When they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage. It is a folly to ask, Whose wife shall she be of the seven? For the relation between husband and wife, though instituted in the earthly paradise, will not be known in the heavenly one. Turks and infidels expect sensual pleasures in their fools’ paradise, but Christians know better things–that flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. xv. 50); and expect better things–even a full satisfaction in God’s love and likeness (Ps. xvii. 15); they are as the angels of God in heaven, and we know that they have neither wives nor children. It is no wonder if we confound ourselves with endless absurdities, when we measure our ideas of the world of spirits by the affairs of this world of sense.
III. He builds the doctrine of the future state, and of the blessedness of the righteous in that state, upon the covenant of God with Abraham, which God was pleased to own, being after Abraham’s death, Mar 12:26; Mar 12:27. He appeals to the scriptures; Have ye not read in the book of Moses? We have some advantage in dealing with those that have read the scriptures, though many that have read them, wrest them, as these Sadducees did, to their own destruction. Now that which he refers them to is, what God says to Moses at the bush, I am the God of Abraham; not only, I was so, but I am so; I am the portion and happiness of Abraham, a God all-sufficient to him. Note, It is absurd to think that God’s relation to Abraham should be continued, and thus solemnly recognised, if Abraham was annihilated, or that the living God should be the portion and happiness of a man that is dead, and must be for ever so; and therefore you must conclude, 1. That Abraham’s soul exists and acts as a state of separation from the body. 2. That therefore, some time or other, the body must rise again; for there is such an innate inclination in a human soul towards its body, as would make a total and everlasting separation inconsistent with the ease and repose, much more with the bliss and joy of those souls that have the Lord for their God. Upon the whole matter, he concludes, Ye therefore do greatly err. Those that deny the resurrection, greatly err, and ought to be told so.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
There come unto him Sadducees ( ). Dramatic present. The Pharisees and Herodians had had their turn after the formal committee of the Sanhedrin had been so completely routed. It was inevitable that they should feel called upon to show their intellectual superiority to these raw Pharisaic and Herodian theologians. See on Mt 22:23-33 for discussion of details. It was a good time to air their disbelief in the resurrection at the expense of the Pharisees and to score against Jesus where the Sanhedrin and then the Pharisees and Herodians had failed so ignominiously.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Who [] . This pronoun marks the Sadducees as a class : of that party characterized by their denial of the resurrection. Asked [] . Stronger. They questioned.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
JESUS ANSWERED THE SADDUCEES, V. 18-27
1) “Then come unto Him the Sadducees,” (kai erchontai Saddoukaioi pros auton) “And (next in order) of tempting Him, come the Sadducees,” of their own volition, following the parade of 1) the priests, 2) the scribes, 3) the elders, 4) the Pharisees, and 5) the Herodians, Mar 11:27; Mar 12:13.
2) “Which say there is no resurrection;” (oitines legousin anastasin me einai) “Who say (hold or affirm) that there is (exists) or is to be (never to be) any resurrection,” Act 23:6; Act 23:8. It was a distinct feature in their teaching.
3) “And they asked Him, saying,” (kai eperoton auton legontes) “And they repeatedly quizzed Him, saying, “as if they were open-minded about the question, though it was a “fixed” part of their religious order, Act 23:8.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES
Mar. 12:19. The statute must be regarded as relative to some exceedingly offensive matrimonial condition which had prevailed, probably polyandry. When such a custom has unhappily got ingrained in the habits of a degraded people, it is not possible to induce them to leap, at a bound, to a lofty pinnacle of marital purity. The ascent must be gradual; the utmost that can be achieved by progressive legislators is to take one step at a time. See Dr. J. Morisons note in loco, from which the above is quoted.
Mar. 12:24. Do ye not therefore err.Is it not on this account that ye wander in a maze, because Instead of accusing them point-blank of error, and so alienating them still farther, our Lord deals with them as if they had come in good faith to have a difficulty solved; and He at once points them to the true source of their pretended perplexityignorance of the Scriptures.
Mar. 12:26. See R.V.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Mar. 12:18-27
(PARALLELS: Mat. 22:23-33; Luk. 20:27-38.)
Christs argument against the Sadducees.The Sadducees were a libertine sect of the Jews who, for the sake of indulging their lusts, and to remove the dread of an after-reckoning, thought proper to reject the belief of a resurrection and a life to come. But yet, to save appearances, and to keep up an outward shew of religion among their countrymen, they professed a great regard to the same common Scriptures as the oracles of God, and sought out colours from those very Scriptures whereby to countenance or seemingly to authorise their wanton and wicked opinions. They came to our Lord, and propounded a captious question to Him, grounded upon Moses law, artfully insinuating as if Moses himself must have been in their sentiments. Our Lord in reply corrected their fond mistake in judging of a life to come by the life that now is, when circumstances would be widely different. In this world, where mankind go off and die daily, there is a necessity of a constant and regular succession to supply the decays of mortality. But in a world to come, where none die any more, the reason then ceases, inasmuch as there will be no occasion for any further supplies. Our Lord, by thus distinguishing upon the case, defeated the objection; but to shew further how ill the Sadducees had contrived in appealing to Moses as a favourer of their sentiments, He reminds them of a famous passage in Moses law which was directly contrary to their principles, being indeed a full and clear proof of a resurrection and future state.
I. What the distinguishing principles of the ancient Sadducees really were.They denied a future state; they did not allow that the soul survived the body. They looked upon the doctrines of a resurrection and future state to be so nearly allied, or so closely connected with each other, that they might reasonably be conceived to stand or fall together. Wherefore they denied both, as on the other hand the Pharisees admitted both. There is one difficulty in St. Lukes account of the Sadducees (Act. 23:8), relating to their denial of the existence of angels. Other accounts of Jewish writers are silent on that head; and it might seem very needless for the Sadducees to clog their cause with it, since it was sufficient for their purpose to reject only the separate subsistence of human souls; and it is odd that they should run so flatly counter to the history of the Old Testament (which is full of what concerns angels) when they had really no great necessity for it, nor temptation to it, so far as appears. But perhaps they thought it the shortest and surest way to reject the whole doctrine of spirits, or at least of created spirits, and so to settle in materialism, after the example of some pagan philosophers; and therefore they at once discarded both angels and separate souls. And as to the Old Testament standing directly against them with respect to angels, there are so many various ways of playing upon words, especially in dead writings, that men resolute to maintain a point (whatever it be) can never be at a loss for evasions. Possibly, however, St. Luke, knowing that the word angel had been used to mean no more than a human soul, might mean only to say that the Sadducees rejected the doctrine of the resurrection and the other doctrine of separate souls, whether called angels, as by some, or spirits only, as by others. This account will appear the better when it is considered that St. Luke says the Pharisees admitted both. Both what? There had been three things mentioned, if angel makes a distinct article. But if angel there means no more than a human soul, then the articles are reduced to two only; and so it was very proper to say both, namely, both the resurrection and the separate state of the soul.
II. Inquire why our Blessed Lord chose to confront the Sadducees with a text out of Moses writings, rather than out of any other part of the Old Testament.Some have given it for a reason of our Lords choice, that Moses books were the only ones which the Sadducees received as Canonical Scripture. But the fact is disputable at least, if not certainly false. Others say that our Lord chose to confute them out of the Book of the Law, as being of prime value and of greatest authority. And that indeed is a consideration not without weight. But I conceive that we have no occasion to look far for reasons, when the text itself, with what goes along with it, sufficiently accounts for the whole thing. The Sadducees had formed their objection upon the books of Moses, claiming Moses as a voucher on their side. In such a case it was extremely proper and pertinent (if it could be done) to confute them from Moses himself. It was vindicating Moses writings at the same time that it was doing justice to an important truth. Our Lord therefore applied Himself entirely to the clearing up Moses sentiments in that article; and He effected it two ways: first, by observing that what the Sadducees had cited from him did not prove what they wished for; and, secondly, by shewing that what he had taught elsewhere fully and clearly disproved it.
III. Consider the force of our Lords argument, which was then so clearly apprehended at first hearing by friends and adversaries, and admired by all.The words which the argument is grounded upon occur in Exo. 3:6 : I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. I am, not, I was. God was then God of those three patriarchs, the latest of whom had been dead above a hundred and seventy years. Still He continued to be their God. What could that mean? Is He a God of lifeless clay, of mouldered carcases, of dust and rottenness? No, sure. Besides, with what propriety of speech could the ashes of the ground be yet called Abraham or Isaac or Jacob? Those names are the names of persons, not of senseless earth; and person always goes where the intelligence goes. Therefore Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were still living and intelligent, somewhere or other, when God declared He was still their Godthat is to say, they were alive as to their better part, their souls. He is not a God of the dead, but of the living; therefore the soul survives the body. Therefore the Sadducees, who denied the separate subsistence of souls or spirits, were confuted at once, and that by a very clear and plain text, produced even from the books of Moses. But it will be asked, How does this prove the resurrection of the body, which was the point in question? I answer that was not the only point, nor the main point, though it follows this other, as I shall shew presently. But even if the argument really reached no further than what I have mentioned, yet it was a very considerable point gained, and the rest was not worth disputing. What they were afraid of was a future account. Now whether men shall give an account in the body or without the body, it would come much to the same; for still there would be an account to be given, and there would remain the like dreadful apprehension of a judgment to come. Here lay the main stress of the dispute; and therefore when our Lord had undeniably proved a future state, He had gone to the very root of the Sadducean principles, and if they once yielded thus far they might readily grant the rest. For if it be considered that death was the punishment of sin, and that every person remaining under that sentence and under the dominion of death still carries about him the badges of the first transgression and the marks of Divine displeasure, it cannot reasonably be supposed that the souls of good men whom God has owned for His shall for ever remain in that inglorious state, but will some time or other be restored to their first honours, or to what they were first ordained to in paradise before sin entered. Wherefore since God is pleased to acknowledge Himself still God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, it is highly reasonable to presume that He will in due time restore them to their original privileges, removing from them the chains of death by reuniting soul and body together in a happy and glorious resurrection. Thus the same thread of argument which our Lord began with, and which directly proves the immortality of the soul, does also in conclusion lead us on by just and clear consequences to the resurrection of the body.Archdeacon Waterland.
OUTLINES AND COMMENTS ON THE VERSES
Mar. 12:24-27. Christs reply to the Sadducees.
1. God is able to preserve old forms of life and to produce new.
2. Marriage, birth, and death belong only to the earthly life.
3. The mission of Moses was confirmed by the testimony of Christ.
4. They who are now dead to men still live with God.J. H. Godwin.
Mar. 12:26. The fulness of Scripture.How much more there is in Scripture than at first sight appears! God spoke to Moses in the burning bush, and called Himself the God of Abraham; and Christ tells us that in this simple announcement was contained the promise that Abraham should rise again from the dead. In truth, if we may say it with reverence, the All-wise, All-knowing God cannot speak without meaning many things at once. He sees the end from the beginning; He understands the numberless connexions and relations of all things, one with another. Every word of His is full of instruction, looking many ways; and though it is not often given to us to know these various senses, and we are not at liberty to attempt lightly to imagine them, yet, as far as they are told us, and as far as we may reasonably infer them, we must thankfully accept them (Psa. 119:96).J. H. Newman, D.D.
Mar. 12:27. The Divine estimate of death.In the Infinite view there is not a cemetery in the universe, not a grave on any globe that gleams in the sky. For there is no cessation or interruption of life caused by that which seems to us death. The body, as He looks upon it, is the spirits garment only; and however we are called to meet deathwhether by slow disease or by water or by fire or by tempest, at the end of years or in youth or in the full powers of manhood, on the sick-bed or the battle-fieldto His vision it is but the stripping off of a robe and the liberation of the clothed essence into higher forms of being.T. Starr King.
Effect on character of belief as to future life.The belief in a fuller life beyond the grave must influence character indefinitely. Even in days before Christianity, among heathens, it did so. Herodotus tells us of a tribe among the Thracians who believed themselves immortal. The men of this tribe, he says, were the bravest and the most honourable. It cannot but make a difference whether our hopes end with the grave or not.W. R. Hutton.
The communion of saints.Long before light and immortality were brought to light by the gospel, the greatest moral philosopher of the ancient world discussed this question of the relation of the dead to the living in memorable words, and he came to the conclusion that to suppose the departed unmindful of the friends who survive them is too heartless a notion to be entertained. Truly and spiritually, in all the essentials of unity, the departed are with us and we with them: we are still members of the same family of God; one and the same roof is still over us; they have but passed into a brighter and better compartment of the same great home and house of Christ; and whatever they are doing, beholding or enjoying, we cannot believe that they cease to think of us or to pray for us; nay, we cannot but suppose that they think of us now with a purer interest and a deeper love than was ever possible here. Few things are more remarkable than the contrast between the faith of the Church and our practice. Many of us are far behind the heathen in fidelity to our dead. We profess to accept the glorious consolation which is ours through the Risen Christ; we profess to believe that they are all living in God, and that we are one with them, that the whole Church this side the veil and beyond it is one and the same household; and yet we sink into chill indifference, we suffer new interests, new excitement, new faces, to usurp their place and to turn into solemn mockery the hopes and regrets we once inscribed upon their grave. I suppose there can be little doubt that the chief cause of that habit of mind which has made the communion of saints so unreal is the modern disuse of prayers for the departed. They are all but banished from our devotions. For thousands of years, let it be remembered, prayers for the dead were a part of the instituted service of Gods people; they were in use among the Israelites hundreds of years before Christ; they were in use in the synagogue and Temple worship in which He was wont to join, and they are used by the Jews to this day. They are to be found in every ancient liturgy of the Christian Church which has come down to us. But, whatever be the decision to which we see our way on this particular point, let us realise the duty and the blessedness of strengthening by all legitimate means our faith in the indestructible bond which 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. Let us be true to their memories: let the thought of what they are and where they are be a continual inspiration; let it lift us above the earthliness and littleness of the present, and shed more and more over mind and heart the solemnising powers of the world to come.Canon Duckworth.
ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 12
Mar. 12:18-27. Universal belief in immortality.Almost every religion which has gathered adherents from among the different tribes of men has not only affirmed the doctrine of a future life, but has inculcated itif not as a basis of morality, as a promise of reward for virtue and right living. In all the leading nations of the earth the doctrine is a tradition handed down from immemorial antiquity, embalmed in sacred books which are regarded as infallible revelations. You will find it in some form as well in the ancient religions as in those of later times. Brahminism teaches it; so does Mohammedanism. It forms part of the Confucian theology, and is one of the chief features of the revelation of Christianity. Amid the apparent Nihilism and Atheism of the teaching of Buddha there are gleams of light on the great problem of an immortal future. The Zendavesta unfolds a state beyond death in which mans destiny is the consequent result of character; and when the Persians decorated the splendid walls of Persepolis, they embodied in sculpture the dominant dogma of their faiththe doctrine of ever-lastingness. In the theology and religious symbolism of ancient Egypt the doctrine of immortality held a most conspicuous place. It was not a dream of the Egyptian priesthood, but a fixed and firm persuasion of the people. And the natives embalmed their dead not merely to preserve them from putrefaction, but as significant of eternal continuance. When we come to Greece and Rome, we find the idea so mixed up with all that is best in the literature of these great nations that we cannot help seeing how largely it affected the faith and hope of the leaders of learning, philosophy, and religion. The best of the Greek poets caught sight in imagination of their favourite heroes transported beyond the waves of deaths dark riverimmortal in a land of life. They sang of the Elysian plains, where the the shadowy images of the deadmoved in a world of shadows, and of the Islands of the Blest where Achilles and Tydides unlaced the helmets from their flowing hair. It has been thought that the organisation of the Greek mysteries was the outcome of the nations best aspirations for immortal life. The conception of an immortal future so possessed the best of Romes philosophers and orators that they declared the troubles of life unworthy to be borne unless man had within himself the assurance of an after-destiny. Cicero represents Cato as thus addressing his young friends Scipio and Llius; No one shall persuade me, Scipio, that your worthy father, or your grandfathers, Paulus and Africanus, or many other excellent men whom I need not name, performed so many actions to be remembered by posterity without being sensible that futurity was their right. And if I may be allowed an old mans privilege to speak for myself, can you imagine that I should have submitted to so much painful toil by night and by day, in the forum, in the Senate, and in the field, had I apprehended that my existence and reputation were to terminate with this life? But I feel myself transported with delight at the thought of again seeing and joining your father, whom on earth I highly respected and dearly loved. Oh! glorious day when I shall be admitted into the assembly of the wise and the good, when amidst the happy throng of the immortals I shall find thee also, my son, my Cato, best, most amiable of men. Senecaone of Romes greatest philosopherswriting to Marcia to console her on the loss of her son, says: The sacred assembly of the Scipios and Catos, who have themselves despised life, and obtained freedom by death, shall welcome the youth to the region of happy souls. Centuries before that Cyrus, addressing his sons, as he lay on the bed of death, had given utterance to the same assurance: Do not imagine, oh, my dear children! that when I leave you I shall cease to exist. For even when I was yet with you my spirit you could not discern; but that it animated this body you were fully assured by the actions I performed. Be assured that it will continue the same, though you see it not. I can never suffer myself to be persuaded that man lives only while he is in the body, and dies when it is dissolved, or that the soul loses all intelligence on being separated from an unintelligent lump of clay; but rather that on being liberated from all mixture with the body, pure and entire, it enters upon its true intellectual existence. In the Phdo Plato describes Socrates as calmly discussing with his friends, in his last moments, the conditions of the immortal state into which he was about to enter. Those, he says, who have passed through life with peculiar sanctity of manners are received on high into a pure region, where they live without their bodies to all eternity, in a series of joys and delights which cannot be described. When some reference was made to the interment that was to follow the fatal draught, he replied: You may bury me if you can catch me. And then, with a smile, and with an intonation of unfathomable tenderness, he added: Do not call this poor body Socrates. When I have drunk the poison I shall leave you, and go to the joys of the blessed. I would not have you sorrow at my hard lot, or say at the interment, Thus we lay out Socrates; or, Thus we follow him to the grave, or bury him. Be of good cheer; say that you are burying my body only.
Mar. 12:27. Heaven the land of the living.A dying lady once said to her brother who was about to take his leave of her without any hope of seeing her again in this world: Brother, I trust we shall meet in the land of the living. We are now in the land of the dying.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
5. THE QUESTION ABOUT THE RESURRECTION 12:18-27
TEXT 12:18-27
And there come unto him Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a mans brother die, and leave a wife behind him, and leave no child, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. There were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed; and the second took her, and died, leaving no seed behind him; and the third likewise: and the seven left no seed, Last of all the woman also died. In the resurrection whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. Jesus said unto them, Is it not for this cause that ye err, that ye know not the scriptures, nor the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as angels in heaven. But as touching the dead, that they are raised; have ye not read in the book of Moses, in the place concerning the Bush, how God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living: ye do greatly err.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS 12:18-27
664.
Why this concerted effort to ensnare our Lord in His speech?
665.
Give three facts about the Sadducees.
666.
Since they did not believe in a resurrection why ask a question involving it?
667.
Was this a real case or only a hypothetical one? What does a discussion of the sex relationship of marriage reveal about the hearts of the men who ask it?
668.
There are two things absolutely essential in escaping religious errorJesus states them in Mar. 12:24what are they?
669.
Why not marry in heaven? Are we to understand we will lose our identity as husband and wife? Discuss.
670.
Are angels distinguishablei.e. are they recognized as separate beings?
671.
Why add the comment on the resurrection?
672.
Show how the reference to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob proves the natural immortality of man. Discuss.
673.
In what did the Sadducees err?
COMMENT
TIME.Tuesday, April 4, A.D. 30, two days after entry into Jerusalem.
PLACE.In the temple, probably in the court of the Gentiles.
PARALLEL ACCOUNTS.Mat. 22:23-33; Luk. 20:27-38.
OUTLINE.1. The Sadducees ask an ignorant question, Mar. 12:18-23. 2. Jesus answers their question and spiritual need, Mar. 12:24-27.
ANALYSIS
I.
THE SADDUCEES ASK AN IGNORANT QUESTION, Mar. 12:18-23.
1.
Asked by those who did not believe in a resurrection.
2.
Their question was based on the law of Moses.
3.
Whose wife will the much married woman be in the resurrection?
II.
JESUS ANSWERS THEIR QUESTION AND THIER SPIRITUAL NEED, Mar. 12:24-27.
1.
You do not know because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God.
2.
There is no marriage relationship in the world to come.
3.
Read again about the burning bushAbraham, Isaac and Jacob are still alive for God said He was their God. There can be and will be a resurrection.
EXPLANATORY NOTES
I.
THE SADDUCEES ASK AN IGNORANT QUESTION.
Mar. 12:18. The Pharisees and Herodians having been silenced, it was the turn of the Sadducees to come forward. Their question is as insincere as the preceding; it was a puzzle upon a doctrine in which they were total unbelievers. It proves, however, that the doctrine of the resurrection was everywhere recognized as a doctrine of Jesus.
Mar. 12:19-23. This is the so-called Levirate marriage (from Latin levir, a brother-in-law). (See Deu. 25:5-10.) This provision corresponded to the universal desire in Israel for the perpetuation of name and family. So strong was the desire that this provision was made for a putative offspring in default of actual. The custom was older than the law, however (Gen. 38:8), and exists in many Eastern nations. But the obscure expression in Deu. 25:5, If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, leaves us uncertain in exactly what circumstances the law was applicable. There is no case recorded in the Old Testament, though there is an illusion to the custom in Rth. 1:11-13. The transaction of Rth. 4:1-8 is of another kind. These questioners stated the law fairly, but their illustration was an extreme one, meant for a reductio ad absurdum. The language of Mar. 12:19 is awkward, but there is no difficulty about the sense.There were seven brethren. In Matthew, There were with us, as if the case were fresh from the life. Mar. 12:22 should be, simply, and the seven left no seed: last of all the woman died also. Childless by all the marriages, the woman was not linked to any one of the husbands more than to the others.In the resurrection, therefore, when they (the woman and the seven brothers) shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? It is assumed that she be someones wife, and how will Jesus judge between the rival claims of the seven?
II.
JESUS ANSWERS THEIR QUESTION AND THIER SPIRITUAL NEED.
Mar. 12:24. There is something wonderful in the gentleness of the answer, considering the insincerity of the question. He quietly assumed that there was an error, and proceeded to account for it; he did not even distinctly assert it. Do ye not therefore (from this cause) erris it not for this cause that ye errbecause ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? Is not ignorance the secret of your error? Ignorance (1) as to the Scriptures, He did not mean, of course, that the resurrection was mentioned in the Old Testament plainly, as it was mentioned by him, He meant that if they had understood the Old Testament rightly, they would have found the resurrection implied in its teaching, or at least would have been prepared to receive the doctrine, Not unfamiliarity with the Scriptures, but ignorance of their true meaning, kept them from believing in the resurrection. Moreover, a true knowledge of the Scriptures would have prevented their ideas from being so grossly carnal. (2) As to the power of God. All their conceptions of a resurrection were of a low and carnal kind that underestimated the power of God as shown therein. They thought only of re-establishment of the present fleshly life. No conception had they of the power of God to make life altogether new in the resurrection-state, but this is what he will do. Now follows the truth on these two points: (1) The Power of God; (2) The Scriptures.
THE POWER OF GOD.Mar. 12:25. He tells them that they have not understood the resurrection: it is something far nobler than they have supposed, and it will work changes such as they never thought of. When they shall rise from the dead, General, and equal to in the resurrection of Matthew.They neither marrycontract marriage as husbandsnor are given in marriage, by the act of their parents, as wives. In the resurrection-state there will be no marriage. The reason, as expressly given in Luke, is that they cannot die any more. Marriage, especially as suggested by the Levirate institution, exists for the sake of offspring. But birth and death are correlatives; they belong in the same world: if one ceases, the other must cease. In that world there is no death; hence no birth, hence no marriage. The power of God will have brought into being that which Paul calls the spiritual body, in which sexual relations will not continue. Notice that this is not a denial of the perpetuity of those mental characteristics which distinguish the sexes in this world. It is not affirmed that they are excluded from the resurrection-state. It is not said that the holy spiritual relations and personal affinities that may have accompanied marriage will not continue, or that husband and wife will be nothing to each other in the future life. The questioners thought of that life as a continuation of this, with its relations unchanged; and he simply told them that marriage, in that world, would be out of place. Upon the relations of soul with soul in that world he did not touch.But are as the angels which are in heaven. Not are angels, but are as angels. The most that we know of angels is drawn from such allusions as this. What is here implied concerning them is that they are immortal, and hence among them the marriage relation does not exist.
Thus far, Jesus expounded the doctrine of the resurrection. The Sadducees rejected it, but they knew it only in a gross form. Very beautiful is his kindness in thus commending a rejected doctrine by presenting it in a nobler form; as much as to say, Would not even you have believed it, if you had known it thus? An example to all preachers and teachers. State your doctrine at its noblest; perhaps those who reject it have never understood it.
THE SCRIPTURES.Mar. 12:26-27. Now he turns to prove the doctrine that he has been expoundingi.e. to find it in the Holy Writings. He quoted from the book of the law (the Pentateuch), because from it the question had been drawn; possibly, also, because the Sadducees prized it above the other Scriptures. The relation of this extract to the doctrine in discussion is somewhat peculiar. The expectation of a life beyond the present was expressed with greater or less clearness here and there in the Old Testament. Many of the writers had shown that they cherished such a hope, though not with clearness of the gospel. But it was not the hope or expectation that Jesus now wished to bring out: it was the fact. Hence an expression of human desire or aspiration would not suit his purpose, even though it were made under the guidance of the Divine Spirit. He must find a direct utterance of God. This passage, therefore, may be expected to be of unusual importance respecting a future life. To this peculiarity of the case well corresponds Lukes word: That the dead are raised, Moses also revealedbrought to lightat the bush.Translate, in Mar. 12:26, have ye not read, in the book of Moses, at the bush, how God spake unto himi.e. in the section or paragraph where the bush is the subject of discourse. (Compare 2Sa. 1:18.)I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. The citation here is from Exo. 3:6, the words of Jehovah to Moses.The words might be found in many other places of Scripture: no language was more characteristic of the old covenant or more familiar to Jewish ears. He took no recondite passage, but one of the great words of the old dispensation.In Mar. 12:27, therefore is to be omitted. The reading is, He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye do greatly err.i.e. ye greatly err in interpreting the text as if he called himself the God of men who do not now exist. If he is any mans God, you may know that that man exists.
How did he draw such an inference? By a fresh and rich principle of interpretation, arguing from the nature of God, and of Gods relations to man. The Sadducees took the passage to mean, I am the God in whom Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob put their trust during their brief existence, which is now forever ended. But Jesus reasoned thus: A God who did for the patriarchs what he did would not speak so of himself, He was gloriously their Godso gloriously that he could not call himself their God in such a sense, if their being had been but transient, If men were destined to become extinct, he could not be so gloriously a God to them. That such a God is or can be their God is proof that they are more than mortal, The argument is that the relations in which God enters, or proposes to enter, with men imply their immortality. The richness of mans relation to God is the fact from which Jesus infers his continued existence. See what a God becomes mans God, and it will be plain that he is no creature of a day. Notice that he does not present this as a fact that lies upon the face of Scripture, so that no one can miss it. The Sadducees missed it, and others may; but Jesus teaches us that they who explore the Scriptures by the light of Gods nature will find it.As if in order to ensure that this should not be taken as an argument for conditional immortalityi.e. immortality for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as chosen onesLuke adds that all live unto himi.e. in such sense that he is God of the living to them, all are alive. A distinct statement of the continued existence of all human beings. The relation to God from which the argument is derived is naturally possible to all, if not actual; and so the conclusion, of immortality, is true of all.Notice that he draws no distinction here between continued existence and resurrection. The assertion of the former he regards as sufficient to establish the latter. If persons continue to exist, it is proper to speak of their resurrection. Compare Joh. 5:29, where resurrection is predicted for the two classes that include all men.
Luke adds that after this answer some of the scribes responded, Rabbi, thou hast well said, being, perhaps, as Farrar says, pleased by the spiritual refutation of a scepticism which their reasonings had been unable to remove.The fresh method that he thus introduced, of interpreting Scripture in the light of the nature of God and of his relations to men, is a method of boundless suggestiveness. This one specimen of exegesis is enough to prove the freshness and originality of the Christian light upon the word of God. (W. N. Clarke)
FACT QUESTIONS 12:18-27
757.
How can we know the question of the Sadducees was as insincere as that of the Pharisees?
758.
To ask the question in the manner they did was to admit the doctrine of Jesuswhat was it?
759.
What was a Levirate marriage? Why was it practiced?
760.
What was wonderful about the manner in which Jesus answered the question?
761.
Did Jesus mean to say that the resurrection was taught in the Old Testament? Explain.
762.
Not unfamiliarity with the Scriptures but something else kept them from believing in the resurrection, what was it?
763.
How was their understanding of the power of God limited?
764.
Why no marriages in the resurrection-state?
765.
Are there to be no sexes in heaven? Discuss.
766.
What beautiful example in teaching is given here for preachers and teachers of today?
767.
Why quote from the Pentateuch?
768.
Jesus wasnt concerned with merely the hope or the expectation of life beyond but with the of it.
769.
Just how did Moses reveal that the dead are raised?
770.
Please explain how Jesus drew the inference He did concerning mans immortality?
771.
Are all men inherently immortal?
772.
Notice that Jesus draws no distinction between continued existence and resurrectionwhat does this prove?
773.
How does Joh. 5:29 relate to this section?
774.
Were some of the questioners helped by His answer?
775.
The method here introduced by Jesus of interpreting scriptures is one of boundless suggestiveness.what is it?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(18-27) Then come unto him the Sadducees.See Notes on Mat. 22:15-22.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
THE SADDUCEES ATTACK JESUS, Mar 12:18-27.
(See notes on Mat 22:23-33.)
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And there come to him Sadducees who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote to us that if a man’s brother die, and leave a wife behind him, and leave no child, that his brother should take his wife and raise up seed to his brother.” ’
This provision of the Law is found in Deu 25:5-10. The purpose of it was to ensure that land remained within a family, and to ensure continuity of the line. Men lived on in their children. Thus it was looked on as a brotherly duty to ensure that a man who died without children had children provided by the seed of his brother being planted in his surviving wife. The child was then looked on as being the child of the dead man and inherited accordingly.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
A Second Direct Attempt to Discredit Jesus (12:18-27).
It was now the turn of the Sadducees to approach Him. They knew that the crowds as a whole believed in the resurrection of the dead, following the teaching of the Pharisees. But the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead (Mar 12:18). Their main emphasis was on the five books of Moses, the first five books of the Bible, and they claimed that there was no mention of the resurrection in them. While they did also almost certainly acknowledge the writings of the prophets to some degree, their ideas were mainly centred on the cult and its importance for prosperity in this world. The Sadducees came mainly from the leading lay members of the aristocracy, and the Chief Priests may well mainly have been Sadducees although we know so little about the sect that we cannot be certain. They tended to be proud, harsh, worldly and wealthy, attitudes which went with their belief. For their view was that they prospered because God was pleased with them, and that others did not because they were unworthy. Most would be involved in ensuring the maintenance of the activities of the sanctuary in one way or another, making them feel very superior.
So they sought to demonstrate in front of the crowds that Jesus taught the resurrection from the dead, but could not evidence it from (Old Testament) Scripture. Thus He should not be listened to.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Sadducees Tempt Jesus with a Question ( Mat 22:23-33 , Luk 20:27-40 ) In Mar 12:18-27 we have the account of Jesus being tempted by the Sadducees with a question on the resurrection.
Mar 12:19 Comments The statute of the Mosaic Law requiring a man to take his brother’s wife is found in Deu 25:5-6, “If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.”
Mar 12:24 Comments “because ye know not the scriptures” – When Jesus told the Sadducees that they did not know the Scriptures, He was not saying that there are biblical Scriptures on marriage in Heaven. He was referring to the passages of Scripture on marriage as God originally intended it on this earth, which He discussed earlier in Mar 10:1-12. When a man and a woman join themselves together in marriage in this life, it becomes a sacred covenant that God will not allow to be broken, even in Heaven. In contrast, Jesus will explain that second marriages are not carried over into Heaven as are the first marriages. This is why Bathsheba is called the wife of Uriah in Mat 1:6. This is also why a brother is required to raise offspring in the name of his brother under the Law, and not in his own name (Deu 25:5-6). For those who remarry in this life, they are like the angels when they rise from the dead in that they are unmarried in Heaven (Mar 12:25).
Mat 1:6, “And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;”
Deu 25:5-6, “If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.”
“neither the power of God” – When Jesus told the Sadducees that they did not know the power of God, He was referring to God’s power to resurrect men from the dead.
Mar 12:25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
Mar 12:25
“they neither marry” – Comments This phrase refers to the seven brothers.
“nor are given in marriage” – Comments This phrase refers to the one wife.
“but are as the angels which are in heaven” – Comments When the seven brothers and one wife rise from the dead, who entered into second marriages, they will be like the angels in the aspect that they will be unmarried in Heaven.
Mar 12:26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
Mar 12:26
Mar 12:27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.
The question of the Sadducees:
v. 18. Then come unto Him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked Him, saying,
v. 19. Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man’s brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
v. 20. Now there were seven brethren; and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed.
v. 21. And the second took her and died, neither left he any seed; and the third likewise.
v. 22. And the seven had her and left no seed. Last of all the woman died also.
v. 23. In the resurrection, therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? For the seven had her to wife.
The Herodians and the Pharisees had been obliged to retreat with little glory. Now come the Sadducees, the deniers of the resurrection of the dead. They hope to have much better success. In fact, their confident manner is tinged with facetiousness, as though they were perpetrating a huge joke upon the Galilean Rabbi. They had no idea that the joke would be turned upon them so quickly and easily. They preface their remarks with the announcement that Moses had given them a certain precept. They were referring to the so-called levirate marriage, “the ancient custom of marriage between a man and the widow of his brother, required by the Mosaic law when there was no male issue. ” Deu 25:5-10. Whether their story was taken from facts or fancy is immaterial. They recite it with much circumstantial detail, to make it all the more ridiculous by the long explanation. Seven brothers, one after another, had this woman for their wife. Surely the situation at the time of resurrection, in case all the seven should claim her for wife, would be disagreeable, to say the least. Arguments of this kind are being used by unbelievers even to the present day; their great wisdom will not permit them to believe in such an unreasonable fact as the resurrection of the dead.
Mar 12:18-27 . [149] See on Mat 22:23-33 , who narrates more briefly and smoothly. Comp. Luk 20:27-40 .
] Imperfect, as at Mar 12:17 .
Mar 12:19 . is recitative, and is the imperative to be explained by the volo that lies at the root of the expression (see on 2Co 8:7 ; Eph 5:33 ). Comp. on before the imperative, Plat. Crit. p. 50 C: (the laws), .
The , which Matthew has here, is a later annexation to the original text of the law. Anger, Diss. II. p. 32, takes another view (in favour of Matthew).
Mar 12:20 . ] emphatically prefixed, and introduced in a vivid way without .
Mar 12:21 . ] and also not he .
.] namely, he took her and died without children; comp. what has gone before.
Mar 12:23 . ] when they shall have risen , not an epexegesis of : but the discourse goes from the general to the particular, so that the seven brothers and the woman is the subject of .
Mar 12:24 . ] does not point back to what has gone before (“ipse sermo vester prodit errorem vestrum,” Bengel), which must have been expressed , but forward to the participle which follows: do ye not err on this account, because ye do not understand? See Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 219; Bornemann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 137 f.; Winer, p. 146 f. [E. T. 201 f.].
Mar 12:25 . ] generally, not as at Mar 12:23 .
] The form (Arist. Pol. vii. 14. 4) is not indeed to be read here (see the critical remarks), but neither is it, with Fritzsche, altogether to be banished out of the N. T. It is beyond doubt genuine in Luk 20:34 f.
Mar 12:26 . ] that they, namely, etc.; this is the conclusion to be proved the doctrinal position denied by the interrogators.
] belongs to what has preceded (in opposition to Beza) as a more precise specification of . M.: at the (well-known) thorn-bush, i.e. there, where it is spoken of, Exo 3:6 . See on quotations of a similar kind, Jablonsky, Bibl. Hebr. praef. 37; Fritzsche, ad Rom 11:2 . Polybius, Theophrastus, and others have as masculine . It usually occurs as feminine (Luk 20:37 ; Deu 33:16 ), but at Exo 3:2-4 , likewise as masculine.
Mar 12:27 . According to the amended text (see the critical remarks): He is not God of dead men, but of living! Much ye err !
[149] Hitzig, Joh. Mark. p. 219 ff., places the Pericope of the adulteress , Joh 7:53 ff., after ver. 17, wherein Holtzmann, p. 92 ff., comparing it with Luk 21:37 f., so far follows him as to assume that it had stood in the primitive-Mark , and had been omitted by all the three Synoptists. Hilgenfeld (in his Zeitschr. 1863, p. 317) continues to attribute it to John. It probably belonged originally to one of the sources of Luke that are unknown to us.
4. The Attack of the Sadducees, and their Overthrow. Mar 12:18-27.
(Parallels: Mat 22:23-33; Luk 20:27-40.)
18Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying, 19Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a mans brother die, and leave his7 wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 20Now there were seven8 brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed. 21And the second took her, and died, neither left he9 any seed: and the third likewise. 22And the seven had her, and left no seed: 10 last of all the wo man died also. 23In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. 24And Jesus answering, said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? 25For when they shall rise11 from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. 26And as touching the dead, that they rise; have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? 27He is not the God of the dead, but the God12 of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
See Matthew, and the parallel in Luke.In this section, Marks individuality appears only in the more pictorial description of the seven successive marriages; in special supplemental strokes; in the more positive tracing of the error of the Sadducees up to a want of knowledge of the Scriptures and to unbelief; and in the final statement, Ye therefore do greatly err. While the immediate effect of Christs word is not presented till the Evangelist comes to relate the next history.
Mar 12:28. When they shall rise.The immediate, special reference is to the seven. Perhaps doubt is also expressed.
Mar 12:26. How in the bush; that is to say, in the appropriate passage, where the thorn-bush is spoken ofwhich ye will find something of a thorn-bush.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. Comp. Matthew, and the conclusion of the Apostles Creed, Resurrection of the body, etc. John 5; 1 Corinthians 15; 2 Corinthians 5; Daniel 12, etc. Comp the doctrine of the Scripture on the Resurrection, as unfolded in the works upon Biblical Theology, and the teaching of the Church as given in works on Dogmatics; the hopes of immortality cherished by the nations, recorded in histories of religion. Comp. the proofs of an immortality. The writings bearing on the topic from Platos Phdo down.
2. Unbelief has always two springs: 1. The want of historic faith (Te know not the Scriptures); 2. the want of personal faith (Ye know not the power of God). 5. Unbelief, which attacks one part of the truth, understands nothing of that part upon which it intends to support itself in attacking. HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Comp. Matthew.The Sadducees constitute the historical counter-picture to the Pharisees.The Sadducees, the deniers of immortality, are immortal.They invented an improbable, indecent tale to deny a most trustworthy and glorious reality.They find in the Bible a thorny bush indeed, but not the burning bush.The sentimental expectations of a bodily sight and possession are not tenable: 1. Too great for the reason; 2. for faith too little; 3. for both preposterous.The external revelation is not in itself weak through too strong faith, but through credulity springing from too little faith, which believes, 1. Many things, but not much; 2. the extraordinary, but not the miraculous; 3. the spectral, but not the spiritual; 4. the earthly in heavenly hue and dress, but not the heavenly as the glorification of the earthly.The Sadducees and their faith: I. How they attack faith (while they propound the most improbable views), either, 1. with an improper explanation of Scripture and of the law, 2. with an improper picture of life, and 3. with an improper view of the world; or, 1. with improper reasoning, 2. with improper wit. 2. How faith replies: with, 1. a deeper exposition of Scripture, 2. higher pictures of life, 3. a holier contemplation of the world in the light of God.They say, our unbelief comes from our knowing: He says, it comes from your not knowing.The belief in the angels makes the belief in the resurrection a necessity.One truth of faith explains and strengthens another.Unbelief in immortality a radical error: 1. A positive confusion; 2. a positive mistake.
Quesnel:The devil gives the Christian no rest. If one temptation does not entangle, another is tried; hence watchfulness is essential.Hedinger:Preformed opinions constitute a hindrance to the truth.Oh that there were none among Christians who doubt the resurrection! If they venture not to acknowledge their doubt, they manifest nevertheless by their deeds that they believe in no other life.The thoughts of carnal men regarding the heavenly life are carnal and disreputable.Canstein:Christians must stir themselves up, in thinking of the eternal life, to separate themselves ever more and more from the lusts of the body and fleshly-mindedness.
Braune:It was the extreme fleshly-minded (the Sadducees) who could not comprehend the reality and truth of the spiritual world.The Gospel of the Risen One has brought forward more clearly for the spirit of man the kingdom of God and the hope of resurrection, of which we have frequent relations in the Acts of the Apostles, where the Sadducees repeatedly appear as foes.The Saviour unites the Scriptures and the power of God. Hence comes Augustines statement, The more we see of the Scripture, the more we die to the world; the more we live to the world, the less we see.Reason digs beside (Scripture), Frivolity stalks by, and Pride flies away over (Zinzendorf). Many of the Rabbis dreamed of marriages according to passages in the prophets, as Isa 65:20; Isa 65:23, where we read of a new heaven and a new earth; and this was not once deemed base by the Pharisees.Of marriage, accordingly, that alone remains which was spiritual, just as sex in regard to physical distinctions is lost, and that alone remains which had spiritually been developed; for the distinction between sexes, consisting in the development of what relates to spirit, and in that which lays hold of the minds most inner nature, continues undoubtedly for ever.Death breaks all bands, but destroys not existence.
Brieger:He who has not in various ways experienced that God is the Living One, cannot from the heart believe in any resurrection. Is God called the God of Abraham? much more must He be called the God of Jesus Christ, Joh 5:29; 1Co 15:19; Rom 14:8.
Gossner:One sort of evil men after another come to Jesus to trouble Him, to tempt Him, instead of seeking their salvation from Him.
Footnotes:
[7][Mar 12:19.The after is omitted by B., C., L., ., Meyer.]
[8][Mar 12:20.After , Elzevir and Fritzsche have ; it is not found in A., B., C., E., F., L.]
[9][Mar 12:21.Instead of , B., C., L., Tischendorf read .]
[10]Mar 12:22.The reading, , [omitting and the second ,] is strongly supported by B., C., L., ., [Tischendorf]; but the demands of the context go to strengthen the Codd. which give the other reading. That no seed was left by the seven, is in and for itself of no importance; it is merely the occasion of the seven taking the same woman to wife.
[11]Mar 12:23. is omitted by B., C., L., . Lachmann puts it in parenthesis; Cod. A., &c., support it; and the consideration, that its omission is easier to account for than its insertion, is an additional argument in favor of this reading.
[12]Mar 12:27. is wanting with in A., B., C., D., Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tischendorf. [Tischendorf omits , after B., C., L., .]
(18) Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying, (19) Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man’s brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. (26) NOW there were seven brethren and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed. (21) And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise. (22) And the seven had her, and left no seed, last of all the woman died also. (23) In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. (24) And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? (25) For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels which are in heaven. (26) And as touching the dead, that they rise; have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? (27) He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. Ye therefore do greatly err.
I detain the Reader, at the entrance, upon this most beautiful discourse, of the LORD JESUS, to remark to him, how graciously the LORD made every occasion minister to his glory, and his people’s welfare. Here were the captious Sadducees, the free-thinkers of our LORD’s generation, who came to him for no purpose, but to entangle Jesus in his talk. And observe, what a very blessed opportunity the LORD made of it, to speak upon that interesting subject, concerning the resurrection. It becomes a confirmation of that precious scripture; Surely, the wrath of man shall praise thee, the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain. The LORD will use just so much of man’s wrath, as shall minister to the LORD’s purpose, in the promotion of his glory; and all that is over and above, as the violent stream at a mill, shalt be turned into another channel. Psa 76:10 .
The junction of those different sects of men, Sadducees with the Herodians, was simply with a view to gall CHRIST. Everyone will join in the attempt to crush CHRIST; however like Herod and Pontius Pilate, in other matters, they are at enmity between themselves. Luk 23:12 . So was it then, so is it now, and so will it be, during the whole of the present world, it is blessed to know this, and blessed to prove it. The most violent enemies against CHRIST, while the LORD was on earth, were the self-righteous Pharisees; and the greatest opposers to his purest truths now, are the same characters.
The question put by those men, was founded in consummate ignorance; and as our LORD told them, because they knew not the scriptures; that is, they knew nothing of the scripture, but the mere letter; and had never felt the power of GOD in them, by the LORD’s teaching. Seven brethren marrying one and the same woman, or had the case been seventy times seven if possible, it would have been the same thing; for all the connections of nature in this life, are wholly for, the purposes of this life, and are dissolved at death.
Our LORD therefore in declaring the children of the resurrection to be as the angels, gave a full and decisive answer to this, and every, other question of the like nature. But the occasion was too fair to stuffer it to pass unnoticed, as the subject might be made to minister to his people’s comfort; and therefore the LORD JESUS not only proceeded in it, by way of establishing the certainty of the doctrine itself, but of throwing some divine light upon it, which have proved ever since, and ever will, until the whole conic to be realized in glory, of the most blessed, and unspeakable joy to his Church.
The LORD, takes only a single circumstance from the Old Testament scripture, in confirmation of the soul refreshing doctrine, as in itself more than sufficient for this purpose; namely the call of GOD to Moses at the bush. No doubt it was JESUS himself, who in his covenant relation as GOD-Man Mediator, before his more open revelation of himself in that character, which spake to Moses at the bush. So Stephen believed. Act 7:30 . where he calls him an angel (or Messenger) of the LORD. And so in fact the LORD JESUS himself intimated, when in his conference with the Jews, he declared his existence to have been before Abraham, and called himself I AM. Compare Joh 8:58 , with Exo 3:14 . But passing this by, for the present if we consider what the LORD JESUS here saith to the Sadducees, we shalt discover that nothing can be more decisive in confirmation of the resurrection. The LORD quotes the expressions made use of by the LORD to Moses at the bush. I am the GOD of Abraham and the GOD of Isaac and the GOD of Jacob. Now at the time that these blessed truths were delivered, these Patriarchs had been long dead, and their bodies mouldered into dust. And yet, GOD declares him, self as much their GOD as ever. The LORD doth not say I was their GOD, when living in their bodies; but I am so now. A thing in itself impossible, if Abraham, though dead in body, was not then living in spirit. Hence the LORD adds, GOD is not the GOD of the dead, but the GOD of the living: and as Luke hath the words in his Gospel, it is added, for all live unto him. Luk 20:38 . And Paul, under the authority of the HOLY GHOST, was directed to teach the Church that whether believers lived, or died, they were the LORD’s. For (said he) to this end, CHRIST both died, and rose and revived, that he might be LORD both of the dead and living. Rom 14:8-9 . I pray the Reader by the way, to join this blessed passage with the two just before referred to. Joh 8:58 . with Exo 3:14 , in confirmation that it was our LORD CHRIST, who spake to Moses at the bush; and may the LORD give hint a right understanding in all things.
Now then from the whole of this most blessed, and highly interesting passage, I venture to believe the following conclusions are undeniable. First, that the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were in their spirits, living in a state of separate existence from their, bodies, at the time the LORD spake to Moses from the bush, when he called himself their GOD. Secondly, that the LORD in this call to Moses, declaring himself as he did in his covenant relationship to those Patriarchs, most fully and plainly implied his engagements with the whole persons of each, both soul and body; and therefore the LORD could not be supposed to be understood, as solemnly acknowledging this relationship, which was made at a time when both existed together, if one part of the being of those persons was annihilated, never more to exist. Thirdly, the very recognizing this glorious title of the Patriarch’s GOD in covenant, at a time their ashes were in the dust, solemnly confirmed the assurance of their resurrection. And, fourthly, the fulfillment of GOD’s covenant made with those Patriarchs, depended upon the soul and body of each being again united; since not only without it, the covenant promises of GOD could only be with one part of their persons; but also the happiness of each could only be in part, if the body forever remained separate from the soul. Reader! ponder well these things: give thyself wholly to them. In JESUS, behold the resurrection and the life, And oh for grace from GOD the HOLY GHOST, to have part in the first resurrection; on such the second death haft no power! Rev 20:6 ; See Mar 16:9 ; 1Co 15:20 .
18 Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying,
Ver. 18. See Trapp on “ Mat 22:23 “
18 27. ] REPLY TO THE SADDUCEES CONCERNING THE RESURRECTION. Mat 22:23-33 .Luk 20:27-40Luk 20:27-40 . The three reports are very much alike in matter, and now and then coincide almost verbally (Mat 22:27 , Luk 20:32 . Mar 12:23 end, Luk 20:33 ). The chief additions are found in Luk 20:34-36 , where see notes, and on Matt. throughout.
Mar 12:18-27 . The resurrection question (Mat 22:23-33 , Luk 20:27-30 ).
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mar 12:18-27
18Some Sadducees (who say that there is no resurrection) came to Jesus, and began questioning Him, saying, 19″Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves behind a wife and leaves no child, his brother should marry the wife and raise up children to his brother. 20There were seven brothers; and the first took a wife, and died leaving no children. 21The second one married her, and died leaving behind no children; and the third likewise; 22and so all seven left no children. Last of all the woman died also. 23In the resurrection, when they rise again, which one’s wife will she be? For all seven had married her.” 24Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God? 25For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 26But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? 27He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; you are greatly mistaken.”
Mar 12:18 “Sadducees” This was an aristocratic, priestly sect of Judaism that controlled the High Priesthood and the Sanhedrin. They were the wealthy, politically powerful “in” group. They were very conservative and accepted only the writings of Moses (i.e., Genesis through Deuteronomy) as authoritative (i.e., rejected the Oral Tradition).
SPECIAL TOPIC: SADDUCEES
Mar 12:19 “‘Moses wrote for us'” This is referring to Moses’ discussion of Levirate marriage found in Deu 25:5-10.
“‘that if a man’s brother dies'” This Jewish law came to be known by “Levirate marriage.” The term was from Latin for “a husband’s brother.” Inheritance rights were very important in Israel because God had given the Promised Land to the tribes by lot (cf. Joshua 12-19). Therefore, if a man died with no male heir, his brother was expected to marry the widow and father a child by the widow; the child then became the heir of all of the dead brother’s property.
Mar 12:23 Here is the purpose of the question, to ridicule the concept of a bodily resurrection in a physical afterlife.
Mar 12:24 Jesus’ withering question focuses on the Sadducees’ lack of understanding of both the Scriptures and God. Its grammatical form expects a “yes” answer.
Mar 12:25 “‘but are like angels in heaven'” This brief reference has caused much speculation. Angels in the OT are usually masculine (except for Zec 5:9). Does this brief comment of Jesus refer to their sexuality or sexual unions? How does this affect one’s understanding of Gen 6:1-2? Maybe we are trying to infer too much theology from this Sadducean encounter. Heaven is an entirely different relational experience than earth. Exactly how this new interpersonal, eternal, spiritual realm functions is uncertain. The Bible has chosen not to reveal much information about the afterlife. The Sadducees took this lack of information as an excuse to deny the reality of the afterlife. It is better to affirm the reality based on the promises of God and Christ, but be willing to remain uninformed until death. The Bible provides all that believers need to know!
Jesus asserted that there is no sexual aspect (i.e., procreation) to existence in heaven. There are many questions one would like to ask about this, but no further clarification is given in the NT. It may simply refer to the fact that angels are created by God and not by sexual procreation.
Mar 12:25-26 “‘angels. . .But regarding the fact that the dead rise again'” The Sadducees denied both the existence of angels and the resurrection. The Pharisees affirmed both.
Mar 12:26 “‘But regarding the fact that the dead rise again'” There are several texts in the OT that affirm this truth (cf. Job 14:14-15; Job 19:25-27; Psa 23:6; Isa 25:6-9; Isa 26:14-19; Dan 12:2). Yet the afterlife in the OT is a veiled reality. The progressive revelation of the NT clarifies and defines the reality, but still in veiled, metaphorical language. Heaven is a sure promise and truth, but its exact nature is a mystery.
“‘in the book of Moses'” Jesus asserts that Moses is the source of Deuteronomy. This question also expects a “yes” answer.
SPECIAL TOPIC: MOSES’ AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH
“‘I am the God of Abraham'” This reference to Exo 3:2-6 is a play on the tense of the Hebrew verb “to be.” A form of this verb (i.e., causative) becomes the covenant name for the God of Israel, YHWH (cf. Exo 3:14). The title implies that God is the ever-living, only-living One. Because He lives, His people live also (cf. Mar 12:27; Psa 103:15-17; Isa 40:6-8; 1Pe 1:24-25). Notice that Jesus affirms the reality of the afterlife from the writings of Moses, which was the only section of the Hebrew canon that these Sadducees accepted as authoritative for doctrine.
Sadducees. (No Article.) See App-120.
which = they who. Greek. hoitines, marking them as a class characterized by this denial.
no. Greek. me. App-105. As in Mar 12:19; not the same as in verses: Mar 12:20, Mar 12:22, i.e. they denied it subjectively.
asked = questioned.
18-27.] REPLY TO THE SADDUCEES CONCERNING THE RESURRECTION. Mat 22:23-33. Luk 20:27-40. The three reports are very much alike in matter, and now and then coincide almost verbally (Mat 22:27, Luk 20:32. Mar 12:23 end, Luk 20:33). The chief additions are found in Luk 20:34-36, where see notes, and on Matt. throughout.
Mar 12:18-27
8. QUESTION ABOUT THE RESURRECTION
Mar 12:18-27
(Mat 22:23-33; Luk 20:27-40)
18 And there come unto him–Matthew (Mat 22:23) says: “On that day.” That is, the same day that Jesus put to flight the Pharisees and Herodians. They now try another plan by a different party.
Sadducees, who say that there is no resurrection;–The Sadducees were a religious sect which originated about B.C. 260. Some suppose that Zadok was founder of the sect. They were opposed to the Pharisees, and rightly rejected tradition; but denied the resurrection and the existence of angels and spirits. (Act 23:8.) As a sect they disappeared from history after the first century. The Jews were divided into three principal sects, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. Only once previous to this time did the Sadducees engage in active opposition to Jesus. (Mat 16:1.)
and they asked him, saying,–The question follows in next verses.
19 Teacher, Moses wrote unto us, If a man’s brother die, and leave a wife behind him, and leave no child, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.–That is, the children would be recognized in the genealogy of the deceased brother; or to all civil purposes, would be recognized as his. The custom of taking a deceased brother’s wife and raising up children unto his brother was older than the law that gave it divine sanction. It was observed in the family of Jacob long before the giving of the law. (Gen 38:6-11.)
20-23 There were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed; and the second took her, and died, leaving no seed behind him; and the third likewise: and the seven left no seed. Last of all the woman also died. In the resurrection whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife.–Having cited the law, they now state the case and we may suppose as difficult as possible.
24 Jesus said unto them, Is it not for this cause that ye err, that ye know not the scriptures, nor the power of God?–As usual he answers them in a way they were not expecting. He strikes their argument in its weak point–its assumption that marriage would exist after the resurrection.
25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as angels in heaven. –Had they known the scripture doctrine of the resurrection, they would have known that it did not involve the continuance of marriage;and had they known the power of God, they would have known that he could raise the saints without those carnal propensities on which marriage is based.
26 But as touching the dead, that they are raised;–Having overthrown the objection of the Sadducees, Jesus now furnishes a proof of the resurrection.
have ye not read in the book of Moses, in the place concerning the Bush, how God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?–The burning bush. (Exo 3:2.) The passage he quotes is Exo 3:6-15. These three had been long dead when Moses wrote this: Abraham 329 years; Isaac 224 years and Jacob 198 years. Yet God was still their God. They must, therefore, be still somewhere living; for God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
27 He is not the God of the dead,–In the sense of extinct, as the Sadducees used the word dead. God is not the God of the non-existent. He can bear no relation to a nonentity.
but of the living:–That is, he does not rule over those who are extinct or annihilated, but he is the God only of those who have an existence. Luke (Luk 20:38) says: “All live unto him.” That is, all the righteous dead; all of whom he can be properly called their God live unto him. This proves that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had an existence then, or that their souls were alive. This the Sadducees denied. (Act 23:8.) And this was the main point in dispute. If this was admitted –if there was a state of rewards and punishments–then it would easily follow that the bodies of the dead would be raised. In the Bible the resurrection has reference to the raising of the dead body. The soul is never referred to as being resurrected.
ye do greatly err.–Matthew (Mat 22:33) says: “They were astonished at his teaching.” Their astonishment arose from two circumstances: first, that Jesus was at all able to answer the boasted objection of the Sadducees; and second that he found the answers in the writings of Moses, where it was supposed then, and has been supposed since, that the doctrine of the future life is not taught. But Jesus says it is, and when he puts his sanction on a thing, it is final with all who have faith in him.
CHAPTER 53
The God of the Living
Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a mans brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed. And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise. And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also. In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.
(Mar 12:18-27)
In this portion of Scripture we have the Sadducees attempt to entrap our Lord Jesus. Earlier in the day the Pharisees and Herodians tried to catch him in his words. Here the Sadducees try to do the same thing.
The Sadducees were the smallest, but by far the most wealthy and influential of the Jewish sects. They were the aristocrats of Judaism, and for the most part controlled the priesthood and the temple. Though that was the case, the Sadducees were not commonly respected by the people. They, supposing themselves to be smarter than God, denied the resurrection. They were the most liberal sect of the Jews. They were religious; but their religion was the religion of infidelity.
It was their infidelity regarding the resurrection of the dead which made the Sadducees and Pharisees bitter enemies, much like the liberals and the conservatives of any religious denomination today.
But when the Lord Jesus came to Jerusalem, exerting his rightful claims and sovereign power as the Son of God, the Messiah, drove the money changers from the temple, and began to disrupt their religious order, demanding that God be worshipped as God in his house, the Pharisees and the Sadducees, along with all the other religious groups, joined forces against him.
How could this happen? you might ask. How could religious people with such strong doctrinal and ceremonial differences at once unite in opposition to the Son of God? The answer is obvious. They really believed the same thing essentially. The Pharisees, the Herodians, the Sadducees, the Essenes, the Zealots, and the Scribes all held to the idolatrous, pagan notion that salvation was in some way dependent upon and determined by mans will, works, and worth. Whereas, the Lord Jesus plainly declared that salvation is the work of Gods free and sovereign grace alone.
Gods church and Gods servants today must not expect things to be any different. Those who despise the gospel of Gods free and sovereign grace in Christ, though they may be bitter enemies, will unite like beloved brethren to oppose the gospel of Christ. We must always expect and be prepared for the assaults and deceitful slanders of infidels, Arminians and workmongers who wear the badge of Christianity. As the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes in this chapter united in their opposition to Christ, the whole religious world unites and speaks as one voice in its opposition to the gospel of Christ today. As we consider the ludicrous question of the Sadducees and the answer our Master gave them, four things stand out as matters of great importance.
Religious Infidelity
First, these Sadducees stand before us as glaring examples of religious infidelity. The vast majority of people in this world who profess the name of Christianity, including the most powerful and most influential religious leaders of it, are real infidels. Their religion is a matter of convenience, not conviction. It is, for the most part, a religion which holds the Word of God, the truth of God, the gospel of God, the will of God and the glory of God in utter contempt, just like these Sadducees.
These Sadducees laughed at the doctrine of the resurrection. They were the freethinkers of their day. They thought themselves too smart, too educated, too enlightened to believe such religious sentiments. The question they posed to the Lord Jesus illustrates their arrogance.
Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a mans brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed. And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise. And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also. In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife(Mar 12:18-23).
The Sadducees pretended to reverence the Lord Jesus, calling him, Master. They pretended to reverence the Word of God, referring to that which Moses wrote. And they pretended to have a genuine concern for the teaching of Holy Scripture, asking the Lord Jesus, if seven brothers were married to the same woman, In the resurrection whose wife shall she be?
They presented their question as though it were a factual thing, as though they were really interested in knowing the answer. Any statistician will tell you that you would have a far greater chance of winning the lottery than of this actually happening. The only thing these men were interested in was raising a question, which they were confident the Master could not answer.
We will be wise to mark the things recorded here and learn from them not to allow modern religious infidels to entrap us. When carping religious infidels want to argue with you, just ignore them. Give them plain statements of Scripture, and leave them alone. If you get into a hissing contest with a snake, you are going to lose. Such people always try to press difficult and abstruse points of doctrine. They always act in dishonesty. And they always deserve contempt.
Yet, it is delightful to see that our blessed Savior causes even the wrath of men to serve his glory and his people (Psa 76:10). With that as his purpose, he graciously seized the opportunity to the comfort of his elect, both by establishing the doctrine of the resurrection and by declaring that in the resurrection all earthly relationships will be dissolved. In the resurrection body, in immortality, we will have no need of those things that are necessary to sustain our mortal bodies on earth, or to gratify the needs of mortality. And there will be nothing to divide the affections of one from another. We shall be perfectly one in Christ (Joh 17:22-23).
Spiritual Ignorance.
Second, our Savior shows us that people may be very religious and very highly educated, as the Sadducees were, and still be completely engulfed in spiritual darkness and ignorance. And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? (Mar 12:24). Those men did not believe in the resurrection of the dead because they did not know the teaching of Holy Scripture and did not know the power of God.
I do not doubt for a moment that they knew the letter of the Scriptures. No doubt, they could quote huge passages of the Bible from memory. I do not doubt that they were very keenly aware of the historic events and chronological order of things recorded in the Scriptures. They knew the history of Israel, and even knew what the prophecies of the Old Testament said. But they had absolutely no knowledge of the meaning and message of Holy Scripture. Their understanding was nothing but the understanding of carnal reason and religious tradition.
Do you understand the message of Scripture? The Book of God is all about Christ. The message of the Bible is the gospel of Christ (Luk 24:27; Luk 24:32; Luk 24:44-45; Joh 5:39; 1Pe 1:23-25). Spiritual knowledge is not merely doctrinal knowledge, creedal knowledge, logical knowledge, and factual knowledge. Spiritual knowledge is the revealed knowledge of a Person, and that Person is the Lord Jesus Christ.
The resurrection is more than a doctrine. It is a person (Joh 11:25). You cannot know the Person without knowing the doctrine; but you certainly may know the doctrine without knowing the Person. Christ is our resurrection and our life. He is our Resurrection and Life representatively in redemption (Eph 2:4-6). He is our Resurrection and our Life experimentally in regeneration (Joh 5:25; Rev 20:6; Col 3:1-3). And the Lord Jesus Christ is our Resurrection and our Life prospectively in the last day (Col 3:4).
The truth of God, the gospel of his grace, is much more than doctrinal, historical facts. Christ himself is the gospel. The gospel is a Person (Joh 14:6). Without question, this Person is revealed and made known to us and in us in the context of revealed, doctrinal truth. But life and salvation comes by knowing God himself in the person of our all glorious Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God (Joh 17:3). Salvation is not merely knowing about Christ. Salvation is knowing Christ as my God, my Surety, my Substitute, my King, my Priest, my Prophet and my Savior!
The Power Of God
Spiritual ignorance, doctrinal error, and heresy of every kind, according to this statement by our Savior, must be traced to ignorance of the power of God. I take that to mean three things. These three things you will find throughout the Scriptures are what is meant by the power of God.
1.Spiritual ignorance arises from and must be traced to an utter ignorance of Gods sovereignty, his absolute authority as God.
2.Spiritual ignorance arises from and must be traced to an utter ignorance of Gods omnipotence, his absolute, almighty ability to do all his pleasure.
3.Spiritual ignorance arises from and must be traced to an utter ignorance of Gods gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation.
The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, because they were totally ignorant of Gods sovereignty, his omnipotence and his gospel. All heresy, all spiritual ignorance must be attributed to these things.
All false religion, all free will, works religion denies the sovereignty of Gods will and purpose in election and predestination, the omnipotence of his power and grace in redemption, regeneration and effectual calling, and the gospels good news of redemption accomplished by the blood of his dear Son. Those who have never felt the power of God in the experience of grace cannot know the power of God, and are therefore utterly ignorant of all the works of God.
The Resurrection Life.
For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels, which are in heaven (Mar 12:25). There will be a resurrection of the dead. When our Lord Jesus comes again, there will be a resurrection of the just and of the unjust. The Scriptures universally declare it (Exo 3:6; Job 19:25-26; Psa 16:9-10; Psa 49:15; Psa 73:24; Hos 6:1-2; Dan 12:2; Joh 5:29; 1Co 15:35-58; 1Th 4:13-18). And the fact of the resurrection is inscribed upon every mans heart and conscience by the finger of God in creation. Anyone who denies the resurrection is a liar. He lies against his own conscience.
In the resurrection Gods saints shall be as the angels of God. The Lord Jesus declares, For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels, which are in heaven. In the resurrection we will be completely free of all carnal distinctions, weaknesses, cares, needs, and passions. There will be no need for marriage and procreation, because there will be no more sickness, sorrow, bereavement or death! And there will be no imperfection of love and unity among Gods saints.
We will, like the angels of God, possess the constant, full knowledge and assurance of Gods approval. We will enjoy uninterrupted assurance of complete security with Christ. We will have perfect, uninterrupted communion with our Redeemer. Like the heavenly angels, we will always be engaged in the suitable, gratifying service of our great God Worshipping him! Singing his praise! Celebrating his wondrous works! Doing his will! We will have unbroken, everlasting rest! Like those celestial spirits above, we will gaze upon our God and Savior. As they do always behold the face of God, we shall see his face!
Then our Savior tells us the meaning of his words to Moses in Exodus 3, when he spoke to Moses out of the burning bush.
And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err (Mar 12:26-27).
It was Christ himself who appeared to Moses in the bush (Act 7:30), declaring himself to be the eternal, self-existent I AM (Exo 3:14; Joh 8:58). When he said to Moses, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, he was saying, I am the God of the living. He who is our God is the God of the living. Remember, it was Christ our Mediator who spoke those words to Moses. Our Savior is telling us here that he is himself the God of the living (Rom 14:9).
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represent all Gods elect. They were chosen of God. They were heirs of a covenant God made on their behalf. They believed God. They lived in communion with God. They did not fully enjoy the fulfillment of Gods promises until they left this vale of tears; but their bodies are in the grave; they live still, possessing that which the Lord God promised to give them (Heb 11:13-16). So it is with all Gods saints who have left this world. They are not dead, but living.
That which the Lord said to Moses in the bush, he here tells us had reference to the resurrection. His covenant promises and engagements for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and for all his elect, involve the complete recovery of his people, body and soul, from the ruins of the fall of our father Adam. The ultimate fulfillment of Gods covenant promises depends upon the resurrection of our bodies, and, therefore, assures us of it. All who were redeemed by his blood were raised from the dead with Christ representatively, and are made partakers of the first resurrection in the new birth (Rev 20:6); and they shall be made partakers of the resurrection of life, when the Lord Jesus Christ comes again to be glorified in his saints (Rom 8:21-23; 1Co 15:51-58; 1Th 4:13-18), because he is the God of the living!
Sadducees
(See Scofield “Mat 3:7”). Also, Mr12: 22,23
come: Mat 22:23-33, Luk 20:27-40
say: Act 4:1, Act 4:2, Act 23:6-9, 1Co 15:13-18, 2Ti 2:18
Reciprocal: Pro 24:26 – shall Mat 3:7 – the Pharisees Mat 16:1 – Sadducees Act 23:8 – General
Chapter 13.
The Life of the World to Come
“Then come unto Him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked Him, saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man’s brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed. And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise. And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also. In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.”-Mar 12:18-27.
More Questions.
Whenever I read this paragraph I am left wondering at the audacity and conceit of the Sadducees. I should have thought that the way in which Jesus answered first of all the priests and the elders, and then the Pharisees and Herodians, and not only answered them, but covered them with confusion, would have warned off every other plotting questioner. I should have thought that the way, the effortless way, in which Jesus escaped the snares priests and elders and Pharisees and Herodians so cunningly laid for Him, would have been sufficient to teach anyone the lesson that it was a poor and hopeless business to catch Jesus in His words. But apparently it took two more questions and two more answers from the lips of Christ to persuade these people that the man was not born who could entrap Him in His speech.
The Sadducees and their Problem.
There were people who thought that where priests and elders, Pharisees and Herodians have failed, they might succeed. Possibly the failure of the Pharisees spurred them on to make their attempt. They may have relished the discomfiture of the Pharisees; they may have chuckled over the way in which Jesus made them and their question both ridiculous. At any rate, they thought they saw an opportunity of catching Christ, and scoring off their rivals at the same time. They came with an air of insolent confidence. Christ’s triumph over His other questioners had not even taught them humility. They pay Him no compliment. There is no deference in their attitude, such as the Pharisees and Herodians had shown. They come in the manner of “superior persons.” They submit their precious problem, which was meant to demonstrate the absurdity of the resurrection-belief to Jesus, and the tone they adopt is as if they would say, “There! Answer that, if you can.”
The Sadducees and their Tenets.
Let us look at the questioners, and then at their question. These men were Sadducees. They belonged to the party who were the Rationalists of their day. Numerically they were not a large party; they were, indeed, a small minority of the nation. But they were the aristocratic party and the official party, and these things of course gave them influence and importance. In matters of faith they had, if I may so put it, a different Bible from the Pharisees. The Pharisees laid great store by the “traditions of the elders”; the Sadducees repudiated them. It is said that they rejected the Prophets and the Psalms, and accepted only the Books of Moses. At any rate, if they did not wholly reject them, they gave them an entirely inferior and subordinate place. The Pentateuch-the Books of the Law-was their rule of faith and practice, and to all intents and purposes constituted their Bible. Now the hope of immortality does not shine very brightly in the Books they received. What glimmerings we get of this great truth are found mostly in the prophets and the Psalms. In the Books of the Law, immortality and the resurrection are scarcely referred to. And, taking the Book of the Law as their Bible, the Sadducees denied the resurrection, personal immortality, and retribution in a future life. Wealthy and comfortable themselves, they felt no need, as one writer puts it, for a future life to compensate for the inequalities of the present.
Their Problem.
The problem which they submitted to Jesus was meant to show the absurdity of a belief in a resurrection. It was based on a familiar feature in Jewish life. To be childless was almost the greatest calamity a Jew could conceive of. So long as a Jew had descendants, some sort of immortality seemed to be his. To meet this craving for the perpetuation of the name, Moses had laid down the law that in the case of brothers living together, in case the elder should marry, and die without children, instead of allowing a “stranger” to marry the widow, and so letting the elder brother’s name perish, the second brother should marry the widow, and any issue of this second marriage should be considered in law to be the son of the dead brother, and should perpetuate his name. This custom is known as the Levirate Law. Starting from this law, the Sadducees state a case which they thought reduced the doctrine of a resurrection to an absurdity. There were seven brothers, they said. The first married, and died childless. The second took the widow to wife, and likewise died childless. She passed in succession to all seven, and all seven died childless. Then the woman died last of all. Now, they ask triumphantly, in the resurrection life, of which you speak, whose wife shall she be?
A Possible. Answer.
Now Jesus might fairly have declined to answer this question. It was asked in levity, and He might have answered it with scorn. This was an imaginary case the Sadducees had submitted to Him. The contingency they pictured could hardly have taken place. Moreover, according to the very Law they quote, the woman was not “married” to the second brother. To quote the exact words of the old ordinance, he would “perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her” (Deu 25:5). That would probably have been the answer a Pharisee would have given. But Jesus does not repay levity with scorn; He does not brush aside the whole miserable question with contempt. For the sake, not simply of His questioners, but of them that stood by, His own disciples perhaps, who had often been puzzled and perplexed by difficulties like these, He gave it an answer which made faith in the resurrection and the life beyond easier for all who heard it.
The Lord’s Reply.
Let us turn to the answer of Christ. Remember the question in dispute is not the marriage law, but the resurrection life. “Ye do err,” He said to His questioners, “not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God” (Mat 22:29). The Sadducees had come up to Jesus quite confident that they were going to expose both Jesus and the Pharisees, as being grotesquely and absurdly mistaken in their belief about a resurrection. Jesus fastens the charge of error upon them. Their whole difficulty about the resurrection arose from mistaken views of what the resurrection meant. Their objection proceeded on the assumption that the resurrection life was simply a continuation of life down here. They took it for granted that all the relationships of earth would be resumed in heaven. They thought of the life beyond in terms of life in the flesh. As Dr Chadwick puts it, “They had no conception that the body can be raised otherwise than as it perished; and consequently they imagined all sorts of unhappy complications as likely to follow such a resurrection.”
The Sadducees’ Error based on Ignorance.
-Ignorance of the Power of God.
It was from this initial blunder that all their difficulties arose. Clever men though they thought themselves to be, they were wrong in the very premises from which they started, and their mistake, Jesus goes on to say, was due to two reasons: (1) They were ignorant of the Scriptures, (2) they made no allowance for the power of God. It is with the second mistake that our Lord deals first. The difficulties of the Sadducees about the resurrection life were due to this first of all-that they made no allowance for the power of God. They assumed that the new life was simply a reproduction of the life here. They assumed that the body that is is the body that shall be. They made absolutely no allowance for any exercise of the power of God. Clever people though they were, they were the kind of person Paul addresses when he says, “Thou foolish one,… that which thou sowest, thou sowest not the body that shall be, but a bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other kind; but God giveth it a body even as it pleased Him” (1Co 15:30, 1Co 15:37). It was God the Sadducees had left out of their calculation in all their thoughts about a future life. Had they known the power of God, they would have known that what is is no measure of what may be. And that is our answer still to all difficulties about the future life. We remember the great power of God. There are difficulties, and we all feel them. There are many questions we cannot answer. But we may rest oar hearts in the remembrance of the “power of God.” With God all things are possible.
-In Relation to the Resurrection Life.
-And to Marriage.
And then our Lord proceeds to hint to these Sadducees one of those mighty changes which shall be brought about in the resurrection life by the power of God. The entire conditions of life shall be altered. “For when they shall rise from the dead,” He said, “they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as angels in heaven” (Mar 12:25). These words of our Lord have struck a chill into loving and united hearts before to-day. But really there is no threat of the dissolution of any affectionate and enriching relationship, when we rightly understand them. Let us try to see exactly what they mean. We are apt to forget that human life as it is, is not human life as God meant it to be. Death is in the world. Now marriage is the counterpoise of death. Marriage is God’s ordinance for the replenishing of the life of this world, which otherwise would be destroyed by the ravages of death. But in the world to come death is swallowed up of life. One feature of the New Jerusalem which John delights to dwell upon is this-“there shall be no more death”; and because there is no more death, there is no more need of marriage. Marriage becomes an anachronism. So far as marriage has a physical basis-and it is on the physical basis of marriage the question of the Sadducees proceeded-it is an earthly thing. It has no place in the heavenly kingdom. But love is not dependent on marriage. And the love is the all-important and essential thing. Husband and wife shall be as dear to one another in the world to come as they are down here. Only the relationship between them shall be sublimed of every suggestion of the earthly; it shall not be “marriage” any more, it shall be something more glorious and beautiful than marriage. It will be love, without a touch of earth about it-love, holy, sacred, perfect. “They shall not marry,” no, but we shall know each other and love each other, and contribute to each other’s gladness there as here.
The Life of the World to Come.
The life beyond has a natural fascination for us. So many of our friends are already in it; we ourselves are hastening towards it. So we are eager to know what it is like. We try to peer through the veil that hides it from us. But it is only “broken glimpses” of the life beyond that the Bible gives us. The Koran gives the Mahommedan a detailed and sensuous account of the joys of his Paradise; the Bible contents itself with hints and suggestions and gleams of the glory. It does not draw back the veil. “Eye saw not, and ear heard not…. Whatsoever things God hath prepared for them that love Him” (1Co 1:9). About heaven, we have to walk by faith, not by sight. But even the scattered hints and suggestions we get in the Bible are sufficient to fill us with joy unspeakable and full of glory. The life of heaven is not loss, but immeasurable gain.
-Its Fulness.
I am not going to attempt to describe for you a life which the Bible has purposely left obscure and veiled. I content myself with simply saying this, we shall miss nothing in heaven that is really worth having. Heaven will rob us of no real joy, of no genuine delight, of no enriching love. Heaven means joy at its full: happiness in its perfection. Now the holy gift of love is the very gladness of our life. The love of wife for husband, and of husband for wife; the love of parent for child, and child for parent-it is love that makes life sunny for us; it is love that constitutes its joy. Without love, life itself would be of nothing worth. And heaven is not going to rob us of such love. “Love is of God,” says John, “and everyone that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God” (1Jn 4:7). Love is a bit of heaven on earth; it is a bit of the eternal in time. “Love is of God,” and therefore love is eternal. For can anything that is “of God” die? That love is the symbol of eternity is not beautiful poetry merely; it is good theology as well. And so this love of ours will abide, only cleansed and purified and glorified. It does not end at the grave. It is not buried in the coffin. You remember the inscription on the gravestone that marks the place where Charles Kingsley and his wife both lie buried: Amavimus, Amamus, Amabimus, “We have loved, we love, we shall love.” We shall continue to love, all through the age of eternity. And so I say to any who have loved ones within the veil, Sursum Corda! Lift up your hearts! Love shall abide, only it shall lose its dross.
“As Angels.”
“They neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven.” “As angels.” We shall not become angels. The difference between angels and men will still subsist. They are unfallen beings; we are sinners redeemed. But in the new life we shall be as angels, in the sense that we shall be spiritual, not fleshly beings. That word in itself was sufficient to demolish the Sadducean difficulty. They were arguing as if up yonder, just as down here, we should still be fleshly and perishing beings. No, says Jesus; up yonder we shall be “as angels,” spiritual and immortal. “As angels,” what a prospect! For the angel is a pure and holy being, of a whiteness as unsullied as that of a dove’s wing. And you and I shall, in the life of the world to come, be “as angels.” And the angel is for ever engaged in the holy service of God. And you and I, whose service is now so broken and fitful, shall then be constant and devoted, for we shall be “as angels.” The angels gaze ever upon the glory of God. And you and I, who here catch only fleeting glimpses, and see through a glass darkly, shall then be “as angels.” So let us be of good cheer. We do not know everything about the world to come. But we know this: we lose nothing that is worth keeping. Life will be enriched, deepened, glorified for us. We shall be “as angels.” Let us leave it there. Let us remember the “great power of God.” Let us content ourselves with this, “In Thy presence is fulness of joy; in Thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore” (Psa 16:11).
3
To save space let the reader see comments on Mat 22:23-28.
THESE verses relate a conversation between our Lord Jesus Christ and the Sadducees. The religion of these men, we know, was little better than infidelity. They said there was “no resurrection.” They too, like the Pharisees, thought to entangle and perplex our Lord with hard questions. The Church of Christ must not expect to fare better than its Master. Formalism on one side and infidelity on another, are two enemies for whose attacks we must always be prepared.
We learn from this passage, how much unfairness may often be detected in the arguments of infidels.
The question propounded by the Sadducees is a striking illustration of this. They tell him of a woman who married seven brothers in succession, had no children, and outlived her seven husbands. They ask, “whose wife” of all the seven the woman would be “in the resurrection?” It may well be surmised that the case was a supposed and not a real one. On the face of it there is the strongest appearance of improbability. The chances against such a case occurring in reality, any actuary would tell us, are almost infinite. But that was nothing to the Sadducees. All they cared for was to raise a difficulty, and if possible to put our Lord to silence. The doctrine of the resurrection they had not the face manfully to deny. The possible consequences of the doctrine were the ground which they chose to take up.
There are three things which we shall do well to remember, if unhappily we have at any time to argue with infidels. For one thing, let us remember that an infidel will always try to press us with the difficulties and abstruse things of religion, and especially with those which are connected with the world to come. We must avoid this mode of argument as far as possible. It is leaving the open field to fight in a jungle. We must endeavor, as far as we can, to make our discussion turn on the great plain facts and evidences of Christianity. For another thing, let us remember, we must be on our guard against unfairness and dishonesty in argument. It may seem hard and uncharitable to say this. But experience proves that it is needful. Thousands of professed infidels have confessed in their latter days that they had never studied the Bible which they pretended to deny, and though well read in the works of unbelievers and skeptics, had never calmly examined the foundations of Christianity. Above all, let us remember that every infidel has a conscience. To this we may always appeal confidently. The very men who talk most loudly and disdainfully against religion, are often feeling conscious, even while they talk, that they are wrong. The very arguments which they have sneered at and ridiculed, will often prove at last not to have been thrown away.
We learn, in the second place, from this passage, how much of religious error may be traced to ignorance of the Bible. Our Lord’s first words in reply to the Sadducees declare this plainly. He says, “Do ye not err, because ye know not the Scriptures?”
The truth of the principle here laid down, is proved by facts in almost every age of church history. The reformation in Josiah’s day was closely connected with the discovery of the book of the law. The false doctrines of the Jews in our Lord’s time were the result of neglecting the Scriptures. The dark ages of Christendom were times when the Bible was kept back from the people. The Protestant Reformation was mainly effected by translating and circulating the Bible. The churches which are most flourishing at this day, are churches which honor the Bible. The nations which enjoy most moral light, are nations in which the Bible is most known. The parishes in our land where there is most true religion, are those in which the Bible is most studied. The godliest families are Bible-reading families. The holiest men and women are Bible-reading people. These are simple facts which cannot be denied.
Let these things sink deeply into our hearts, and bear fruit in our lives. Let us not be ignorant of the Bible, lest we fall into some deadly error. Let us rather read it diligently, and make it our rule of faith and practice. Let us labor to spread the Bible over the world. The more the book is known, the better the world will be. Not least, let us teach our children to value the Bible. The very best portion we can give them, is a knowledge of the Scriptures.
We learn, in the last place, from this passage, how different will be the state of things after the resurrection, from the state in which we live now. Our Lord tells us, that “when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.”
It would be foolish to deny that there are many difficulties connected with the doctrine of the life to come. It must needs be so. The world beyond the grave is a world unseen by mortal eye, and therefore unknown. The conditions of existence there, are necessarily hidden from us, and if more were told, we should probably not understand it. Let it suffice us to know that the bodies of the saints shall be raised, and, though glorified, shall be like their bodies on earth-so like, that those who knew them once shall know them again. But though raised with a real body, the risen saint will be completely freed from every thing which is now an evidence of weakness and infirmity. There shall be nothing like Mahomet’s gross and sensual Paradise in the Christian’s future existence. Hunger and thirst being no more-there shall be no need of food. Weariness and fatigue being no more-there shall be no need of sleep. Death being no more-there shall be no need of births to supply the place of those who are removed. Enjoying the full presence of God and His Christ-men and women shall no more need the marriage union, in order to help one another. Able to serve God without weariness, and attend on Him without distraction-doing His will perfectly, and seeing His face continually-clothed in a glorious body-they shall be “as the angels which are in heaven.”
There is comfort in all this for the true Christian. In the body that he now has he often “groans, being burdened,” from a daily sense of weakness and imperfection. (2Co 5:4.) He is now tried by many cares about this world-what to eat, and what to drink, and what to put on-how to manage his affairs, where to live, and what company to choose. In the world to come, all shall be changed. Nothing shall be lacking to make his happiness complete.
One thing only we must carefully bear in mind. Let us take heed that we rise again in “the resurrection of life,” and not in “the resurrection of condemnation.” (Joh 5:29.) To the believer in the Lord Jesus, the resurrection will be the greatest of blessings. To the worldly, the godless, and the profane, the resurrection will be a misery and a curse. Let us never rest till we are one with Christ and Christ in us, and then we may look forward with joy to a life to come. [Footnote: The text by which our Lord silenced the Sadducees, and proved the resurrection to be a scriptural doctrine-has been a cause of surprise to many Bible readers. Some have wondered that our Lord should have chosen this text, when others far more plain might have been adduced. Some have been unable to see the force and cogency of the text as any proof at all of the resurrection of the body.
As to the particular fitness of the text, as a proof, compared to others we are perhaps very poor judges. It may well be suspected that there is a fulness of meaning in some texts of Scripture, which in our hasty and superficial reading we have not yet fathomed. At any rate it is clear that to a Jewish hearer of the Lord the argument was so forcible as to be unanswerable. This quotation and the famous one in Joh 10:34, go far to show that the Jewish mind saw a depth of meaning in scriptural expressions which many of us in modern times have not at all seen yet. It is a matter in which we have much to learn.
As to the text, “I am the God of Abraham, &c.,” being a convincing proof of the resurrection of the body, there is a passage in Bishop Pearson, which is worth reading. He says of this text as quoted by our Lord, “With the force of this argument the multitude was astonished, and the Sadducees silenced. For under the name of God was understood a great benefactor, a God of promise, and to be ‘their God’ was to bless them and reward them; as in them to be ‘his servants,’ and ‘his people’ was to believe in him and obey him. Now Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had not received the promise which they expected, and therefore God after their death desiring still to be called ‘their God,’ he thereby acknowledgeth that he had a blessing and a reward for them still, and consequently that he will raise them to another life, in which they may receive it. So that the argument of our Saviour is the same which the Jews have drawn from another place of Moses. (Exo 6:3-4.) ‘I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not made known to them. Nevertheless I have established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan.’ It is not said ‘to give their sons,’ but ‘to give them the land,’ and therefore because while they lived here they enjoyed it not, they must rise again that they may receive the promise.’]
Mar 12:18-27. SECOND ASSAULT. The question concerning the resurrection. See on Mat 22:23-33; comp. Luk 20:27-40. The latter Evangelist is fuller, especially in Mar 12:34-36. The description of the successive marriages is graphic, though not more so than Lukes. The most prominent peculiarity is the question: Do ye not err for this cause, etc., (Mar 12:24), which is answered by the positive statement: ye greatly err (Mar 12:27). The effect of our Lords words, which is added at this point by Matthew and Luke, is narrated by Mark in Mar 12:34.
In the book of Moses, at the Bush, i.e., in the chapter or passage where the well-known bush is spoken of. It can scarcely mean, when Moses was at the bush, or when God spake at the bush. The article before God is omitted in the Greek, except in the phrase: the God of Abraham. The argument derived from this designation of God in favor of the immortality of the soul, against the Sadducees who denied it, reveals the marvelous insight of our Lord into the deepest meaning of the Scriptures. The personal everliving God calls Himself the Godnot of the dead which would be dishonoringbut of those who live in perpetual communion with Him, to whom He has communicated His own immortality.
Our blessed Saviour having put the Pharisees and Herodians to silence in the former verses, here he encounters the Sadducees. This sect derived its name from one Sadock, who denied the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, and angels, and spirits. Here they propound a case to our Saviour, of a woman who had seven brethren successively to her husbands: they demand whose wife of the seven this woman should be at the resurrection? As if they had said, “If there be a resurrection of bodies, surely there will be of relations too; and the other world, if there be such a place, will be like this, in which men will marry as they do here; and if so, whose wife of the seven shall this woman be, they all having an equal claim to her?”
Now our Saviour, for resolving of this question, first shews the different state of men in this and in the other world. The children of this world, says our Savioiur, marry and are given in marriage, but in the resurrection they do neither. As if Christ had said, “After men have lived a while in this world, they die, and therefore marriage is necessary to maintain a succession of mankind; but in the other world, man shall become immortal, and live forever, and then the reason of marriage will wholly cease; for when men can die no more, there will be no need of any new supplies of mankind.”
Observe, secondly, That our Saviour having got clear of the Sadducees objection, by taking away the foundation and ground work of it, he produceth an argument for the proof of the soul’s immortality and the body’s resurrection. Those, to whom Almighty God pronounces himself a God, are certainly alive; but God pronounced himself a God to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, many hundred years after their bodies were dead, therefore their souls are yet alive; for otherwise God could not be their God; because he is not God of the dead, but of the living.
From the whole, note, 1. That there is no opinion so monstrous and absurd, that having had a mother, will die for lack of a nurse. The beastly opinion of the mortality of the soul and the annihilation of the body, find Sadducees to profess and propagate it.
Note, 2. The certainty of another life after this, in which men shall be eternally happy, or intolerably miserable, accordingly as they behave themselves here. Though some men live like beast, yet they shall not die like them, nor shall their last end be like theirs.
Note, 3. That glorified saints in the morning of the resurrection, shall be like the glorious angels; not like them in essence and nature, but like them in their properties and qualities, in holiness and purity, in immortality and incorruptibility; as also in their manner of living, they shall stand in no more need of meat and drink than the angels do, but shall live the same heavenly, immortal, and incorruptible life that the angels live.
Note, 4. That all those who are in covenant with God, whose God the Lord is, their souls do immediately pass into glory, and their bodies at the resurrection shall be sharers in the same happiness with their souls; if God be just, their souls must live, and their bodies must rise; for good men must be rewarded, and wicked men punished somewhere; either in this life or in another. God will most certainly, at one time or other, plentifully reward the righteous, and punish the wicked doers. But, this being not always done in this life, the justice of God requires that it must be done in the next.
Mar 12:18-20. These verses are explained in the notes on Mat 22:23-33. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living That is, (if the argument be proposed at length,) since the character of his being the God of any persons, plainly intimates a relation to them, not as dead, but as living; and since he cannot be said to be at present their God at all, if they are utterly dead; nor to be the God of human persons, such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, consisting of souls and bodies, if their bodies were to abide in everlasting death; there must needs be a future state of blessedness, and a resurrection of the body, to share with the soul in it.
CIX.
JEWISH RULERS SEEK TO ENSNARE JESUS.
(Court of the Temple. Tuesday, April 4, A. D. 30.)
Subdivision B.
SADDUCEES ASK ABOUT THE RESURRECTION.
aMATT. XXII. 23-33; bMARK XII. 18-27; cLUKE XX. 27-39.
a23 On that day there came {bcome} unto him ccertain of the the Sadducees, they that {bwho} say there is no resurrection [As to the Sadducees, see Deu 25:5, Deu 25:6. The object of this law was to preserve families. But the custom was older than the law– Gen 38:6-11], cthat bIf a man’s brother die, chaving a wife, and he be childless, {band leave a wife behind him, and leave no child,} that his brother should take his {cthe} wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. aMoses 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 ctherefore awith us seven brethren: and the first ctook a wife, amarried and deceased, band dying left no seed; {cand died childless;} aand, having no seed left his wife unto his brother: b21 And a26 In like manner the second also, btook her, and died, leaving no seed behind him; and the third likewise: ctook her; aunto the seventh. cand likewise the seven also left no children, {bleft no seed.} cand died. 32 Afterward [600] bLast of all a27 And after them all, bthe woman also died. a28 In the resurrection therefore whose wife shall she be of the seven? {bof them?} for the seven aall had her. bto wife. [This was evidently a favorite Sadducean argument against the resurrection. On the assumption that the marital state is continued after the resurrection, it makes the doctrine of a resurrection appear ridiculous, because, seemingly, it involves difficulties which even brothers could hardly settle amicably, and which even God would have in a sense to settle arbitrarily.] c34 And {a29 But} Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do not err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. bIs it not for this cause that ye err, that ye know not the scriptures, nor the power of God? [The relevancy of these statements will be discussed in the treatment of Act 23:8), but the basal principle of their infidelity was the denial of spirits. It was, as it were, the tree trunk from which their other errors sprang as branches. If there were such things as spirits, it was not worth while to deny that there was an order of them known as angels. If man had a spirit which could survive his body, it was reasonable to believe that God, having so fashioned him that a body is essential to his activity and happiness, would in some manner restore a body to him. Jesus therefore does not pursue the argument until he has proved a resurrection; but rests when he has proved that man has a spirit. Jesus proves that man has a spirit by a reference from the Pentateuch, that part of Scripture which the Sadducees accepted as derived from God through Moses. The reference shows that God was spoken of and spoke of himself as the God of those who were, humanly speaking, long since dead. But the Sadducees held that a dead man had ceased to exist, that he had vanished to nothingness. According to their view, therefore, God had styled himself the God of nothing, which is absurd. The Sadducees could not thus have erred had they known or understood the significance of this Scripture, and they could not have doubted the resurrection had they known the absolute power with which God deals with material such as that of which the body is formed. See verses 24 and 39 supra.] a33 And when the multitude heard it, they were astonished at his teaching. c39 And certain of the scribes answering said, Teacher, thou hast well said. [Some of the scribes of less bitter spirit could not refrain from expressing their admiration at the ease with which Jesus answered an argument which their own wisdom could not refute.] [602]
[FFG 600-602]
THE RESURRECTION
Mat 22:23-33; Mar 12:18-27; Luk 20:27-40. And certain ones of the Sadducees coming to Him, who deny that there is a resurrection, interrogated Him, saying, Teacher, Moses wrote to us [Deu 25:5], If the brother of any one may die, having a wife, and he may die childless, that his brother must take his wife, and raise up seed to his brother. Then there were seven brothers; the first taking a wife, died childless. And the second. took the wife, and he died childless. And the third received her; and likewise also the seven; and they left no children, and died. And last of all the woman also died. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife is she? for the seven had her a wife. And Jesus, responding, said to them, The children of this age marry and are given in marriage; but those considered worthy to reach that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are they given in marriage; for they are not able to die any more: for they are equal to the angels, and they are the sons of God, being the sons of the resurrection. And that the dead rise, Moses mentioned at the bush, as he says the Lord is the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; for all live unto Him. And certain ones of the scribes, responding, said, Teacher, you spoke well. And no one any more dared to ask Him anything. While the Sadducees were the richest denomination of the Jewish Church, they leaned much to materialism, being heterodoxal on the resurrection, as well as the great spiritual truths of the Bible generally. The Pharisees, boasting of their orthodoxy, were rivals and antagonists of the Sadducees, as well as the Herodians. While these three parties were all antagonistical, either to other, it is remarkable how they united and cooperated in their constant and uncompromising opposition to Jesus. They felt that in the case of the woman surviving the seventh husband, they certainly. would get Him into a puzzle. But while in this they were signally mistaken, the multitude are astounded over the deep truths brought out in His answers to their questions.
a. He here corroborates the Scripture with reference to another age following this, as He says, The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage; but those being found worthy to attain unto that age, indeed the resurrection which is from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; showing up the/act that the present probation and the resurrection state constitute two distinct ages, yet contrastive either with other, the resurrection age beginning at the second coming of Christ, when He will raise the saints, who shall reign with Him during the millennium. (Revelation 21.)
b. We see from these utterances of our Lord that matrimony is peculiar only to these material bodies in this probationary age, there being no such thing as sexual distinction in the kingdom of grace and glory. In Him there is neither male nor female. (Gal 3:26.) Consequently the matrimonial state does not survive the present probationary, age.
c. Our Lord also says that in the resurrection state, we are isaggeloi, from isos, equal, and aggelos, an angel. Therefore you see that the glorious resurrection confers on us angelic perfection. Angels have often been seen upon the earth. Hence they must have some kind of a body or form. While in the resurrection we will receive these identical bodies in which we now live, yet they will be perfectly free from matter or anything like physical organism. They will be pure spiritual entities, yet identical with themselves in the present life, but having all ponderable matter eliminated away. Hence you see that in the resurrection age we will be like the angels, and immortal forever.
d. How beautiful, and yet how conclusive, His argument deduced from the burning bush, proving the resurrection in a way never thought of by mortal man, I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob! Now, as He says, He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. God does not do a fragmentary work, but solid and complete. Hence these patriarchs, as well as all the rest of us, must have bodies in order to completion in the highest sense. In the Divine estimation, the future is all present and under His eye. Hence He looks upon Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the resurrection state. It is equally true that He thus contemplates all. Here, again, we see His critics so dumfounded that they interrogate Him no more.
Mar 12:18-27. The Question of the Resurrection-Life.The Pharisees having withdrawn in confusion, the Sadducees (mentioned here only in Mk., cf. pp. 619f., 624, 637) bring forward a scholastic problem designed to show that the strict carrying out of the Levirate law (p. 109, Deu 25:5-10*, Rth 1:11-13*) would produce an absurd situation in a future life, and therefore the Law does not contemplate a resurrection. Jesus answers that they have not understood the Scriptures, nor the power of God which raises men to a life of a different order from the present. The resurrection-life of the just needs not to be continued by marriage. They are like the angelsa comparison which trenches on another Sadducean denial; for the Sadducees did not believe in angels (Act 2:38). The argument from Exo 3:6 embodies a somewhat Rabbinic interpretation of the passage, but it rests on the feeling which does not allow the faithful to admit that a good God ceases, through the death of those who have served and loved Him, to be their God, or that He abandons them to nothingness. Those who have lived for God can never be dead for Him (Loisy). It used to be supposed that Jesus argues here from a passage in the Pentateuch in order to impress the Sadducees, but the idea of the Fathers, that the Sadducees recognised the Pentateuch only as Scripture, is now abandoned (HNT).
12:18 Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying, 19 Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man’s brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 20 Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed. 21 And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise. 22 And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also. 23 In the resurrection therefore when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. 24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures neither the power of God? 25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. 26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.
Imagine the Lord containing His laughter. People who do not believe in a resurrection come asking him questions about the resurrection based on Old Testament teaching and they are wondering about the implications of the two teachings. How comical, how sad, how ridiculous!
Then the Lord blasts them with their own belief about the resurrection or the lack thereof and tells them that since they are quoting Moses do they not know that the same writings teach the resurrection.
We can gain a small glimpse into the heaven that we will one day enjoy. No matter the joy of marriage in this life, there is no marriage in the next. We will be totally as individuals with our Lord. We have no real idea of how the relationships will work, but it would seem that the strong bonds of family here will not be as important there, or if they will even exist.
We see also the idea that God is not the God of the dead but of the living. We the believers are living both now and then. We will not be dead one day though we will pass through death. We will be as we are now – living – though in a much better state then than now.
This is a main passage when giving study to Gen 6:1-22 and the Sons of God and daughters of men subject. If angels, fallen or not, do not marry in heaven are we to assume if they come to earth they will? Or are we to assume non-marrying beings are also sexual beings? Would Godhave such a disparity of standard between heaven and earth (sexual activity okay in the non-married in heaven while only married beings are sexual on earth)? Are the angels even sexual in nature. Just a few of the questions that will come to mind as you relate the two passages in your study.
The key to this section is that the Jewish leaders were throwing all ethics, belief and logic to the wind so that they could get rid of the Lord before He did any more damage to the people. You should give it to them they were trying to protect their students – or were they? It might well be that they felt their positions, honor and livelihood shaking under them and they were trying to stabilize their own realm, rather than it being anything to do with concern for their people.
Pastor — uhhhhhhh be very aware of the need for you to analyze your own motivations when teaching your people, when confronting others, and when you would seek to correct the incorrect. Be very sure that you are not doing these things to protect your financial status, or your honor and prestige in the community. You are charged with teaching and guiding – assure that these are your motivations and not some sense of personal protectionism.
Just a side note, when the Lord called the Jews attention to Moses “have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.” We have an explicit application of the Old Testament in Christ’s time. If you want to understand New Testament quotes of the Old you should study each of them and see how the quotes were used. You then have a better understanding of how to teach the Old Testament in our church age.
Many draw long and intricately upon the Old Testament texts when they ought to look at how the New Testament writers used the Old Testament and draw principles from them rather than setting their own principles of Old Testament interpretation. There is much for us to learn there but there are promises a bunch in the Old Testament that do not relate to us in this time.
And when you think of the Lord’s text you must admit this was one royal slap in the face to people who did not believe in the resurrection – Christ calls their attention to the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses and tells them that those great men of their faith knew that God was a living God. The clear and easy implication is that they should have understood that resurrection was a reality.
Heb 11:18-19 a mentions in relation to Abraham offering his son “Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19 Accounting that God [was] able to raise [him] up….” Now if the writer of Hebrews knew this it might just be that it was part of Jewish learning, thus the Sadducees would have been ignoring their own people’s teaching even further.
Now, if we are honest as believers do we always treat God as a living God, a God that wants to interact with us daily, like a God that guides and directs our lives, and a God that has a plan for our lives? Who is it that makes decisions in your life? Who is it that directs your life? Who do you interact with in your life? All too often it is not God, but ourselves and our wants, desiresand goals.
The Sadducees were substituting their own doctrine for that of the Lord and the Bible. It is imperative that we compare our belief system with that of the Lord and be sure we are on the same page rather than in opposition to the clear teaching of the Word.
12:18 {3} Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying,
(3) The resurrection of the body is confirmed, opposed to the foolish ignorance and malice of the Sadducees.
Jesus’ teaching about the resurrection 12:18-27 (cf. Matthew 22:23-33; Luke 20:27-40)
The Sadducees were mainly urban, wealthy, and educated Jews. Their numbers were comparatively few, but they occupied important positions including many in the priesthood. Their influence was greater than their size as a party within Judaism. This is the only place Mark mentioned them. They claimed to believe only what the Old Testament taught, and they did not follow the traditions of the elders that the Pharisees observed. They did not believe in the resurrection because they said they could find no clear revelation about it in the Old Testament.
"It is probable that the Sadducees began as a political faction which supported the legitimacy of the Hasmonean throne over the protest of the purists who insisted on a separation of the priestly and royal prerogatives or who looked for a revival of the Davidic kingdom." [Note: Lane, p. 426.]
The Hasmonean throne refers to rule by the Herods.
CHAPTER 12:18-27 (Mar 12:18-27)
CHRIST AND THE SADDUCCEES
“And there come unto Him Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection: and they asked Him, saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man’s brother die, and leave a wife behind him, and leave no child, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. There were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed; and the second took her, and died, leaving no seed behind him; and the third likewise: and the seven left no seed. Last of all the woman also died. In the resurrection whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. Jesus said unto them, Is it not for this cause that ye err, that ye know not the Scriptures, nor the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as angels in heaven. But as touching the dead, that they are raised; have ye not read in the book of Moses, in the place concerning the Bush, how God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living: ye do greatly err.” Mar 12:18-27 (R.V.)
CHRIST came that the thoughts of many hearts might be revealed. And so it was, that when He had silenced the examination of the hierarchy, and baffled their craft, the Sadducees were tempted to assail Him. Like the rationalists of every age, they stood coldly aloof from popular movements, and we seldom find them interfering with Christ or His followers, until their energies were roused by the preaching of His Resurrection, so directly opposed to their fundamental doctrines.
Their appearance now is extremely natural. The repulse of every other party left them the only champions of orthodoxy against the new movement, with everything to win by success, and little to lose by failure. There is a tone of quiet and confident irony in their interrogation, well befitting an upper-class group, a secluded party of refined critics, rather than practical teachers with a mission to their fellow-men. They break utterly new ground by raising an abstract and subtle question, a purely intellectual problem, but one which reduced the doctrine of a resurrection to an absurdity, if only their premises can be made good. And this peculiarity is often overlooked in criticism upon our Lord’s answer. Its intellectual subtlety was only the adoption by Christ of the weapons of His adversaries. But at the same time, He lays great and special stress upon the authority of Scripture, in this encounter with the party which least acknowledged it.
Their objection, stated in its simplest form, is the complication which would result if the successive ties for which death makes room must all revive together when death is abolished. If a woman has married a second time, whose wife shall she be? But their statement of the case is ingenious, but only because they push the difficulty to an absurd and ludicrous extent, but much more so because they base it upon a Divine ordinance. If there be a Resurrection, Moses must answer for all the confusion that will ensue, for Moses gave the commandment, by virtue of which a woman married seven times. No offspring of any union gave it a special claim upon her future life. “In the Resurrection, whose wife shall she be of them?” they ask, conceding with a quiet sarcasm that this absurd event must needs occur.
For these controversialists the question was solely of the physical tie, which had made of twain one flesh. They had no conception that the body can be raised otherwise than as it perished, and they rightly enough felt certain that on such a resurrection woeful complications must ensue.
Now Jesus does not rebuke their question with such stern words as He had just employed to others, “Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?” They were doubtless sincere in their conviction, and at least they had not come in the disguise of perplexed inquirers and almost disciples. He blames them, but more gently: “Is it not for this cause that ye err, because ye know not the Scriptures, nor the power of God?” They could not know one and not the other, but the boastful wisdom of this world, so ready to point a jibe by quoting Moses, had never truly grasped the meaning of the writer it appealed to.
Jesus, it is plain, does not quote Scripture only as having authority with His opponents: He accepts it heartily: He declares that human error is due to ignorance of its depth and range of teaching; and He recognizes the full roll of the sacred books “the Scriptures.”
It has rightly been said, that none of the explicit statements, commonly relied upon, do more to vindicate for Holy Writ the authority of our Lord, than this simple incidental question.
Jesus proceeded to restate the doctrine of the Resurrection and then to prove it; and the more His brief words are pondered, the more they will expand and deepen.
St. Paul has taught us that the dead in Christ shall rise first (1Th 4:16). Of such attainment it is written, Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first Resurrection (Rev 20:6).
Now since among the lost there could be no question of family ties, and consequent embarrassments, Jesus confines His statement to these happy ones, of whom the Sadducee could think no better than that their new life should be a reproduction of their existence here,–a theory which they did wisely in rejecting. He uses the very language taken up afterwards by His apostle, and says, “When they shall rise from the dead.” And He asserts that marriage is at an end, and they are as the angels in heaven. Here is no question of the duration of pure and tender human affection, nor do these words compromise in any degree the hopes of faithful hearts, which cling to one another. Surely we may believe that in a life which is the outcome and resultant of this life, as truly as the grain is of the seed, in a life also where nothing shall be forgotten, but on the contrary we shall know what we know not now, there, tracing back the flood of their immortal energies to obscure fountains upon earth, and seeing all that each has owed half unconsciously to the fidelity and wisdom of the other, the true partners and genuine helpmeets of this world shall forever drink some peculiar gladness, each from the other’s joy. There is no reason why the close of formal unions which include the highest and most perfect friendships, should forbid such friendships to survive and flourish in the more kindly atmosphere of heaven.
What Christ asserts is simply the dissolution of the tie, as an inevitable consequence of such a change in the very nature of the blessed ones as makes the tie incongruous and impossible. In point of fact, marriage as the Sadducee thought of it, is but the counterpoise of death, renewing the race which otherwise would disappear, and when death is swallowed up, it vanishes as an anachronism. In heaven “they are as the angels,” the body itself being made “a spiritual body,” set free from the appetites of the flesh, and in harmony with the glowing aspirations of the spirit, which now it weighs upon and retards. If any would object that to be as the angels is to be without a body, rather than to possess a spiritual body, it is answer enough that the context implies the existence of a body, since no person ever spoke of a resurrection of the soul. Moreover it is an utterly unwarrantable assumption that angels are wholly without substance. Many verses appear to imply the opposite, and the cubits of measurement of the New Jerusalem were “according to the measure of a man, that is of an angel” (Rev 21:17), which seems to assert a very curious similarity indeed.
The objection of the Sadducees was entirely obviated, therefore, by the broader, bolder, and more spiritual view of a resurrection which Jesus taught. And by far the greater part of the cavils against this same doctrine which delight the infidel lecturer and popular essayist of today would also die a natural death, if the free and spiritual teaching of Jesus, and its expansion by St. Paul, were understood. But we breathe a wholly different air when we read the speculations even of so great a thinker as St. Augustine, who supposed that we should rise with bodies somewhat greater than our present ones, because all the hair and nails we ever trimmed away must be diffused throughout the mass, lest they should produce deformity by their excessive proportions (De Civitate Dei, 22:19). To all such speculation, he who said, To every seed his own body, says, Thou fool, thou sowest not that body that shall be. But though Jesus had met these questions, it did not follow that His doctrine was true, merely because a certain difficulty did not apply. And, therefore, He proceeded to prove it by the same Moses to whom they had appealed, and whom Jesus distinctly asserts to be the author of the book of Exodus. God said, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living: ye do greatly err.”
The argument is not based upon the present tense of the verb to be in this assertion, for in the Greek the verb is not expressed. In fact the argument is not a verbal one at all; or else it would be satisfied by the doctrine of the immortality of the spirit, and would not establish any resurrection of the body. It is based upon the immutability of God, and, therefore, the imperishability of all that ever entered into vital and real relationship with Him. To cancel such a relationship would introduce a change into the Eternal. And Moses, to whom they appealed, had heard God expressly proclaim Himself the God of those who had long since passed out of time. It was, therefore, clear that His relationship with them lived on, and this guaranteed that no portion, even the humblest, of their true personality should perish. Now the body is as real a part of humanity, as the soul and spirit are, although a much lowlier part. And, therefore, it must not really die.
It is solemn to observe how Jesus, in this second part of His argument, passes from the consideration of the future of the blessed to that of all mankind; “as touching the dead that they are raised.” With others than the blessed, therefore, God has a real though a dread relationship. And it will prove hard to reconcile this argument of Christ with the existence of any time when any soul shall be extinguished.
“The body is for the Lord,” said St. Paul. arguing against the vices of the flesh, “and the Lord for the body.” From these words of Christ he may well have learned that profound and far-reaching doctrine, which will never have done its work in the Church and in the world, until whatever defiles, degrades, or weakens that which the Lord has consecrated is felt to blaspheme by implication the God of our manhood, unto Whom all our life ought to be lived; until men are no longer dwarfed in mines, nor poisoned in foul air, nor massacred in battle, men whose intimate relationship with God the Eternal is of such a kind as to guarantee the resurrection of the poor frames which we destroy.
How much more does this great proclamation frown upon the sins by which men dishonor their own flesh. “Know ye not,” asked the apostle, carrying the same doctrine to its utmost limit, “that your bodies are the temples of the Holy Ghost?” So truly is God our God.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
3. Belief in immortality and belief in angels, or a world of spirits, are most intimately united: so also the respectively opposed elements of unbelief.
4. Unbelief is, on the one hand, united with rude sensuality (marrying in that world too); and, on the other, with a wild phantasy (indulging in phantasies upon the future state), and a carnal view of the uniformity obtaining throughout Gods universe (tout comme chez nous).
6. They tempted the Lord to the abandonment of the doctrine of the resurrection, or to the retaining of it, coupled with polygamy in the future as its consequence. They supposed, He must either state an absurdity, or be struck dumb by their supposed deductio ad absurdum. But they had political designs in addition. Comp. Matthew. They intended that, by a denial of the resurrection, He should deny His work, or should present Himself as an enthusiast, and yield up to the profane world the secret of His hope. Christ sent the especially wise home as the especially foolish.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: The Gospel According to St. Mark: A Devotional Commentary
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary