Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 22:31
But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
Verse 31. Have ye not read] This quotation is taken from Ex 3:6; Ex 3:16; and as the five books of Moses were the only part of Scripture which the Sadducees acknowledged as Divine, our Lord, by confuting them from those books, proved the second part of his assertion, “Ye are ignorant of those very scriptures which ye profess to hold sacred.”
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Mark hath the same, Mar 12:26,27; so hath Luke, Luk 20:37,38; only Mark and Luke mention the time when God spake these wordsin the bush, that is, when God appeared to Moses in the burning bush, Exo 3:6; and Luke addeth, for all live unto him. Mark also saith, Touching the dead that they rise, have ye not read in the book of Moses? Our Saviour, in the foregoing words, had, by the by, asserted the doctrine of angels; here he asserts both the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and also of the resurrection of the body: and though Cardinal Perron, and Maldonate the Jesuit, boldly assert that the resurrection of the body cannot be proved from hence without taking in the tradition of the church; yet, notwithstanding their confidence, those who have a greater reverence for our Saviours words, think that not only the immortality of the soul, but the resurrection of the body also, is irrefragably proved by this argument of our Saviours; to make out which, these things are to be observed:
1. God doth not say I have been, but I am: he speaketh of the time present, when he spake to Moses, and of the time to come.
2. He doth not say, I am the Lord of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but the God of: now wherever God styles himself the God of any people or person, it always signifieth, God as a Benefactor, and one that doth and will do good to such a people or person. It is a federal expression, as where he saith to Abraham, Gen 17:7, I will be a God to thee and thy seed, that is, of thee and of thy seed.
3. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, doth not signify part of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but their entire persons, which consist of bodies as well as souls.
4. God is not the God of the dead, he doth not show kindness to them if they be dead, and shall rise no more.
5. In this life, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob received no such signal kindness from God, but others might receive as great kindness as any of them did. Hence now our Lord proveth, as the immortality of their souls, so the resurrection also of their bodies, that God might show himself the God of whole Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Gerard saith: The argument of this text is made clear by Heb 11:16, Wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he hath prepared for them a city. This is that which made God to be truly called their God, because he hath prepared for them a city, which city they could never possess without a resurrection. It is yet further added by some, That Gods promise to Abraham of the land of Canaan was in these terms, Gen 13:15, To thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever; not only to thy seed, but to thee: so to Isaac, Gen 26:3; to Jacob, Gen 35:12; Exo 6:4,8; Deu 11:21.
The promises seemed not to be fulfilled in giving their posterity the earthly Canaan, which Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob lived not to enjoy; but to extend to the rest prepared for the people of God, the city mentioned by the apostle, Heb 11:16, which God had prepared for them, to justify himself to be their God. Now this could not be prepared for their souls merely, which were but a part of them, and hardly capable of perfect happiness without a reunion with the body, there being in it such an innate desire. Nor was it reasonable that the bodies of these saints, having been sharers with their souls in their labours, should have no share in their reward from that covenant; therefore of God with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, our Saviour firmly proveth their resurrection. Luke addeth, for all live unto him. Not live unto him only as their end, but in the same sense as Paul saith of Christ, Rom 6:10, in that he liveth, he liveth unto God; that is, with God. So saith Luke, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, though dead at present, live with God; and they, and all the children of Abraham, shall live to God, that is, with God, to all eternity. Matthew addeth,
when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine. Poor people, they had been used to hear discourses from the Pharisees, about the traditions of the elders, rites and ceremonies, washing hands before meat, and the necessity of washing pots and cups; and the Sadducees, declaiming against the doctrines of angels and spirits, and the resurrection; they were astonished to hear one instructing them in things concerning their souls, the resurrection and life eternal, and confuting their great teachers from books of Scripture owned by themselves; for the Sadducees, though they had no great regard to the prophets, yet they owned and paid a great deference to the books of Moses.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
But as touching the resurrection of the dead,…. In proof of that doctrine, and which will greatly serve to confirm and establish it, and that it may appear that the dead are, or will be raised, and to put it out of all doubt,
have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, as Mark adds, “in the book of Moses”; which was written by him, the book of Ex 3:6 and though the words were spoke to Moses, yet were designed for the use, instruction, and comfort of the Israelites; not only at that time, but in succeeding ages, they being the posterity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; whose God the Lord there declares himself to be. Moreover, whereas these words were spoken by God to Moses, there is some little difficulty occasioned, by Luke’s representing them to be the words of Moses; for he says, “Moses showed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord, the God of Abraham”, c. which may be removed by observing, that the sense is, that when Moses showed to the children of Israel, what he heard and saw at the bush on Mount Sinai, he called the Lord by these names, in which he spoke of himself to him he recited to them what the Lord said to him; and indeed he was bid to say to them these words; See Ex 3:14
saying, as follows,
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(31) That which was spoken unto you by God.In St. Mark and St. Luke we find the addition at the bush, the words probably being a reference to the section of the Law containing Exodus 3, and known by that title. There are, it need scarcely be said, many passages scattered here and there through the Old Testament (such, e.g., as Job. 19:25-26; Psa. 16:10-11; Dan. 12:2) in which the hope of immortality, and even of a resurrection, is expressed with greater clearness; but our Lord meets the Sadducees on their own ground, and quotes from the Law which they recognised as of supreme authority. The principle implied in the reasoning is, that the union of the divine Name with that of a man, as in I am the God of Abraham, involved a relation existing, not in the past only, but when the words were uttered. They meant something more than I am the God whom Abraham worshipped in the past. But if the relation was a permanent one, then it followed that those whose names were thus joined with the name of God were living and not dead.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
“But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying,”
Having demonstrated the weakness of their argument Jesus then turned to what was ‘spoken by God’. Notice His emphasis on the fact that the Scriptures were ‘spoken by God’. Jesus constantly reveals His belief that the Scriptures reveal God’s words and God’s truth. But knowing their penchant for the Law He does not cite Isa 26:19 (or Dan 12:2-3, although they may not have accepted Daniel as Scripture) for He knows that they will interpret such verses differently and will not accept their full force. He goes rather to the Law of Moses, and to a prominent saying regularly cited by all. He cites Exo 3:6.
‘The resurrection of the dead’ is a phrase found only here (but see Rom 1:4 where it is similar but anarthrous). Usually it is the resurrection from (ek) the dead. But John tells us that Jesus did teach the resurrection of all the dead, some to life and some to judgment (Joh 5:28-29).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Proof for the resurrection:
v. 31. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
v. 32. I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
v. 33. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at His doctrine. A bit of Bible explanation, which is as irrefutable as it is surprising. Christ’s manner implies a censure of their reading the books of Moses without understanding: Ye are ignorant of the very books which ye profess to hold sacred, in which the Lord speaks directly to you. It was on Mount Horeb that the Lord said these words to Moses, Exo 3:6-16. If the patriarchs were dead, body and soul, if they were annihilated and no longer in existence, how could God call Himself their God, He, who is the God of the living only? The resurrected dead, according to their souls, live with God in heaven; they are truly alive, and on the last day their souls will be reunited with the body to live in the abode of the angels forever, and in much the same manner. No wonder the people, the many that crowded around the disputing parties, were very much surprised at this bit of clear doctrine. “Behold, who would have thought that in these short, simple, common words so much would be contained, and would yield such a fine, rich sermon, yea, a great and mighty book, which could be derived there from. Which words they had known well, and yet had not believed that in the entire books of Moses a single word concerning the resurrection of the dead was to be found; for which reason they adhered to Moses only, and repudiated the prophets, though these took all their sermons on the chief articles of Christ’s faith from Moses.”
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mat 22:31-32. But, as touching, &c. Our Lord, having demonstrated that the Sadducees were ignorant of the power of God, proceeded to shew that they were ignorant of theScriptures likewise; and particularly of the writings of Moses, whence they had drawn their objection: for out of the law itself he demonstrated the certainty of a resurrection, at least of just men, and thereby quite overturned the opinion of the Sadducees, who, believing the materiality of the soul, affirmed that men were annihilated at death, and that the writings of Moses supported their opinion. His argument was this: “As a man cannot properly be a father without children, or a king without subjects, so God cannot properly be called in this sense God or Lord, unless he has his people, and be Lord of the living. Since, therefore, in the law he calls himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, long after these patriarchs were dead, the relation denoted by the word God still subsisted between them; for which reason theywere not annihilated, as the Sadducees pretended, when they affirmed that they were dead, but were still in being, God’s subjects and glorified saints.” Others choose to explain the argument thus: to be the God of any person is to be his exceeding great reward. See Gen 15:1. Wherefore, as the patriarchs died without having obtained the promises, Heb 11:39 they must exist in another state to enjoy them, that the veracity of God may remain sure. Besides, the Apostle tells us, that God is not ashamed to be called their God, because he has prepared for them a city: Heb 11:16 which implies, that he would have reckoned it infinitely beneath him, to own his relation as God to any one to whom he had not offered a state of permanent happiness. The argument taken either way is conclusive; for which cause we may suppose, that both the senses were intended, to render it full of demonstration: accordingly, the people were most agreeably surprized, when they heard such a clear and solid confutation of the sect which they abominated, and that too in an argument where they had always thought themselves impregnable. See the next verse, Macknight, and Doddridge. Bishop Sherlock observes, that it appears from hence that our Saviour thought the law of Moses afforded good proof of a future state; which is inconsistent with the supposition that there was no evidence for life and immortality till the publication of the Gospel. See his Discourses, vol. 1: serm. 6. Beausobre and Lenfant observe very well upon this subject, that, “as the calamities and misfortunes which Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob underwent in this life could not well be reconciled with the extraordinary favours that are included in the expression,
I will be thy God: it thence follows, that, when God declared himself to be their God, he consequently bound himself to reward and make them happy after this life, if faithful to his grace.” See Heb 11:16. This argument was then already very conclusive against the Sadducees, who denied the immortality of the soul, and the resurrection of the body: but it proves at the same time the resurrection, because the souls of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not being Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, themselves, it thence follows, that God could not properly be stiled their God, unless they were to rise again from the dead. There are in the Jewish writings some arguments, much like this, used to prove the resurrection. See also Grotius, and Archbishop Tillotson.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 22:31 f. But with reference to the resurrection , set over against the foregoing .; the sequence of the address is indicated by the prepositions. . should be taken along with .
] imparts the vivacity of individuality to the words of Jesus. The quotation is from Exo 3:6 . His opponents had cited a passage from the law; with a passage from the law Jesus confutes them, and thus combats them with their own weapons. It is wrong to refer to this in support of the view that the Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch as authoritative scripture (Tertullian, Origen, Jerome, Luther, Paulus, Olshausen, Sskind in the Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 665). Yet these aristocrats regarded the law, and the mere letter of the law too, as possessing supreme authority.
, . . .] This is the major proposition of a syllogism, in terms of which we are warranted in recognising in the passage here quoted a scriptural testimony in favour of the resurrection. The Sadducees had failed to draw the inference thus shown to be deducible from the words; hence Mat 22:29 : , a fact which Jesus has now confirmed by the illustration before us. The point of the argument does not turn upon the present (Chrysostom, and those who follow him), but is to this effect: seeing that God calls Himself the God of the patriarchs, and as He cannot sustain such a relation toward the dead, i.e. those who are absolutely dead, who have ceased to exist ( , Chrysostom), but only toward the living, it follows that the deceased patriarchs must be living, living, that is, in Sheol, and living as (Euthymius Zigabenus). Comp. Heb 11:16 . The similar inference in Menasse f. Isr. de Resurr. i. 10. 6, appears to have been deduced from the passage before us. Comp. Schoettgen, p. 180.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
Ver. 31. Have ye not read ] In Moses, whose writings only they received, rejecting the rest. And the superstitious Jews at this day are said in their liturgy to read two lessons, one out of the law, which is read by some chief person, another out of the prophets, which is read by some boy or mean companion. For savouring somewhat of these old Sadducces, they will in no sort do honour, neither attribute they that authority to any part of the Bible that they do to their law, which they do usually carry about their synagogue at the end of the service in procession, with many ornaments of crowns and sceptres; the children kissing it as it passeth by them.
Spoken unto you by God ] It is God that speak. eth in the holy Scriptures; it is the express mind of God that is there set forth unto us. See my True Treasure, p. 10, &c.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
31 33. ] Our Lord does not cite the strong testimonies of the Prophets, as Isa 26:19 ; Eze 37:1-14 ; Dan 12:2 , but says, as in Luke ( Luk 20:37 ), ‘ even Moses has shewn,’ &c., leaving those other witnesses to be supplied. The books of Moses were the great and ultimate appeal for all doctrine: and thus the assertion of the Resurrection comes from the very source whence their difficulty had been constructed. On the passage itself, and our Lord’s interpretation of it, much has been written. Certain it is that our Lord brings out in this answer a depth of meaning in the words, which without it we could not discover. Meyer, in reply to Strauss and Hase, finely says, “Our Lord here testifies of the conscious intent of God in speaking the words. God uttered them, He tells us, to Moses, in the consciousness of the still enduring existence of his peculiar relation to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”
The groundwork of His argument seems to me to be this: the words ‘I am thy God’ imply a covenant ; there is another side to them: “Thou art Mine” follows upon “I am thine.” When God therefore declares that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, He declares their continuance , as the other parties in this covenant. It is an assertion which could not be made of an annihilated being of the past . And notice also (with Bengel), that Abraham’s (&c.) body , having had upon it the seal of the covenant , is included in this. Stier (after Lavater) remarks that this is a weighty testimony against the so-called ‘sleep of the soul’ in the intermediate state. Compare Luk 20:38 , and 4Ma 7:19 ; [Mat 16:25 ,] spoken of the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Thus the burden of the Law, ‘I AM THE LORD THY GOD,’ contains in it the seed of immortality and the hope of the resurrection.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 22:31 . hus far of the mode, now of the fact of resurrection. , have ye not read? Many times, but not with Christ’s eyes. We find what we bring. , that said to you ; to Moses first, but a word in season for the Sadducaic state of mind.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
touching = concerning. Greek. peri.
of the dead = of dead bodies, with Art. See App-139.
have ye not read . . . = Did ye never read . . . See App-143.
by. Greek. hupo.
saying. See App-107.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
31-33.] Our Lord does not cite the strong testimonies of the Prophets, as Isa 26:19; Eze 37:1-14; Dan 12:2, but says, as in Luke (Luk 20:37), even Moses has shewn, &c., leaving those other witnesses to be supplied. The books of Moses were the great and ultimate appeal for all doctrine: and thus the assertion of the Resurrection comes from the very source whence their difficulty had been constructed. On the passage itself, and our Lords interpretation of it, much has been written. Certain it is that our Lord brings out in this answer a depth of meaning in the words, which without it we could not discover. Meyer, in reply to Strauss and Hase, finely says, Our Lord here testifies of the conscious intent of God in speaking the words. God uttered them, He tells us, to Moses, in the consciousness of the still enduring existence of his peculiar relation to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
The groundwork of His argument seems to me to be this:-the words I am thy God imply a covenant; there is another side to them: Thou art Mine follows upon I am thine. When God therefore declares that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, He declares their continuance, as the other parties in this covenant. It is an assertion which could not be made of an annihilated being of the past. And notice also (with Bengel), that Abrahams (&c.) body, having had upon it the seal of the covenant, is included in this. Stier (after Lavater) remarks that this is a weighty testimony against the so-called sleep of the soul in the intermediate state. Compare Luk 20:38, and 4Ma 7:19; [Mat 16:25,] spoken of the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Thus the burden of the Law, I AM THE LORD THY GOD, contains in it the seed of immortality and the hope of the resurrection.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 22:31.[965] , unto you) To you He says, not to us. They were not written for Christ.[966] To you the descendants of Abraham.
[965] ) Jesus not merely refuted the objection of those in error, but also demonstrates the truth to them.-V. g.
[966] Nor were they written even for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who had lived before that the Vision was vouchsafed to Moses, which was subsequently committed to writing.-V. g.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
have: Mat 9:13, Mat 12:3, Mat 12:7, Mat 21:16, Mat 21:42
Reciprocal: Mat 4:7 – It Mat 19:4 – Have Mar 2:25 – Have Mar 12:10 – have Mar 12:26 – have Luk 6:3 – Have Act 24:15 – that 2Co 9:1 – touching 2Ti 3:16 – All Heb 11:16 – to be
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2:31. Jesus was going to make a reference to the Scriptures (which he said they did not know) to prove that another life is taught in them. The Sadducees professed to believe that writing, so they should be impressed with what will be shown to them.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 22:31. But touching the resurrection of the dead. Proof that the doctrine was implied in the writings of Moses. Luk 20:37 is against the view that our Lord only makes an authoritative statement without really basing His proof on the passage quoted.
Spoken unto you by God. Christ assumes the truth of the book of Exodus. The Sadducees are said to have doubted the authority of the prophetical books. The proof is drawn from the Pentateuch, which they acknowledged.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Mat 22:31-32. But as touching the resurrection of the dead Or the future state, (see on Mat 22:23,) have ye not read that which was spoken by God Namely, in the books of Moses, for which the Sadducees had a peculiar value; but which Christ here shows they did not understand; but were as ignorant of them as they were of the power of God. They had drawn their objection to a future state from the writings of Moses; and from those writings Christ demonstrates the certainty of a future state! I am the God of Abraham, &c. The argument runs thus: God is not the God of the dead, but of the living: (for that expression, Thy God, implies both benefit from God to man: and duty from man to God:) but he is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: therefore Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are not dead, but living. Therefore the soul does not die with the body. So indeed the Sadducees supposed, and it was on this ground that they denied the resurrection and a future state. It cannot be objected to this interpretation, that it lays too much stress on the words, I am, which are not in the Hebrew. For our Lords application of the citation in the present tense, ( , God is not the God of the dead,) plainly implies that no other tense of the verb can be supplied. Accordingly the words are so rendered by the LXX., , , &c., I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, &c.; Exo 3:6. In a similar way Dr. Campbell states the argument: When God appeared to Moses in the bush, (which was long after the death of the patriarchs,) he said unto him, I am the God of Abraham, &c.; now God is not the God of the dead, of those who, being destitute of life, and consequently of sensibility, can neither know nor honour him: he is the God of those only who love and adore him, and are by consequence alive. These patriarchs, therefore, though dead in respect to us, who enjoy their presence here no longer, are alive in respect of God, whom they still serve and worship. Others, however, choose to explain the argument thus: To be the God of any person is to be his exceeding great reward, Gen 15:1. Wherefore, as the patriarchs died without having obtained the promises, Heb 11:39, they must exist in another state to enjoy them, that the veracity of God may remain sure. Besides, the apostle tells us that God is not ashamed to be called their God, because he has prepared for them a city, Heb 11:16, which implies, that he would have reckoned it infinitely beneath him to own his relation, as God, to any one for whom he had not provided a state of permanent happiness. The argument, taken either way, is conclusive; for which cause we may suppose that both the senses of it were intended, to render it full of demonstration.
With what satisfaction should we read this vindication of so important an article of our faith and hope! How easily did our Lord unravel and expose the boasted argument of the Sadducees, and cover with just confusion all the pride of those bold wits, who valued themselves so much on that imaginary penetration, which laid men almost on a level with brutes. Indeed, objections against the resurrection and a future state, much more plausible than this of theirs, may be answered in that one saying of our Lords: Ye know not the Scriptures nor the power of God. Were the Scripture doctrine on this subject considered on the one hand, and the omnipotence of the Creator on the other, it could not seem incredible to any that God should preserve the soul in immortality, or raise the dead. Act 26:8.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Jesus returned to what Scripture teaches (Mat 22:29). He introduced His clarification with a customary rebuke, "Have you not read?" (cf. Mat 21:42; et al.). The passage He cited, Exo 3:6, came from the Pentateuch, a part of the Hebrew Bible that the Sadducees treated with great respect.
God described Himself to Moses as then being the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He was still their God even though they had died hundreds of years earlier. This statement implied the continuing bodily existence of the patriarchs. The logical conclusion is that if God will fulfill His promise to continue to be the God of the patriarchs He must raise them from the dead. Thus Jesus showed that the Pentateuch, the abbreviated canon of the Sadducees, clearly implied the reality of a future resurrection.
"The argument is not linguistic: ’I am the God of Abraham’ would be a perfectly intelligible way for God to identify himself as the God whom Abraham worshiped long ago. The argument is based rather on the nature of God’s relationship with his human followers: the covenant by which he binds himself to them is too strong to be terminated by their death." [Note: France, The Gospel . . ., p. 840.]