The question of the Sadducees

[steve]

I have been receiving questions by email from a young Bible teacher in Mexico, about passages he is obliged to teach on in the Gospel of Matthew. Since I am going to the trouble of writing answers to his questions, I thought I'd post them here, in case others have the same questions. It is an economy of effort for me to allow more than one person to read the answers.

I have another question. It is on Matthew 22:23-33. I mostly get what Jesus is doing here but maybe you could help me understand the whole... "God of the Living and not the dead" thing. Also what is that the Sadducees believed about Resurrection? - Jesse

Hi Jesse,

The Sadducees did not believe in either the resurrection or in spirits (soul survival after death). Jesus apparently believed in both. According to Josephus, they also only recognized the Torah (Pentateuch) as authoritative scripture.

The Sadducees' question to Jesus was intended to make the doctrine of the resurrection look stupid. The law of Moses required, in some cases, for a woman to have a series of marriages in her lifetime. This would, seemingly, create a competition for ownership of her, among former husbands, if all were to be resurrected. Hence, the provisions of the law render the doctrine of resurrection absurd and improbable.

Jesus first answers this conundrum by informing them that this kind of issue cannot come up in the resurrection, since marriage will no longer be in human society at that time.

But then he goes on the offensive. He quotes something from the Torah that, seemingly, would imply soul-survival after death (a condition which no Jew would consider permanent, and which would, render probable a later resurrection of the body).

The passage is when God met Moses at the burning bush. God introduced Himself to Moses as "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob"—men who had died long ago. Jesus declares (as if self-evident) that God is not the God of the dead but of the living. By this, Jesus seemed to presuppose that the expression "the God of..." means "the God who is worshipped by and is in relationship with..." This could only include people currently living (somewhere, at least). Only living people can be worshippers, so God's statement to Moses seems to be listing these dead patriarchs as current worshippers of Yahweh. They must still be alive, somewhere, then. This, to Jesus, would establish the reality of soul-survival after death—and. by strong implication, eventual resurrection (it was the Greeks, not the Jews, who believed an eternally disembodied state would be conceivable and desirable).

The Sadducees were astonished by His answer, because they had never thought to make that connections, and could not refute it.

Blessings!

Steve

[Perry]

It is an economy of effort for me to allow more than one person to read the answers.

This is a complete aside, and almost certainly an idea that has been floated before. Have you considered compiling a FAQ (Frequently asked questions) document? I know that on your radio program you have to go ahead and answer that nephilim question every time. And even here on the forum it wouldn't, in my opinion, be desirable to be impersonal (as I've seen on some technical forums) and just constantly refer questioners to a faq. Still, I think such a document would be pretty valuable to many who frequent these forums.

[jeremiah]

hey what's up steve,

how would the patriarchs being alive somewhere prove the resurrection? if soul survival was what jesus implied, the sadducees could have easily turned around and told jesus, "ok we'll give you that one for the sake of argument, but we were trying to show you how the resurrection is false, not whether the dead are out there in some spiritual sense." jesus said " as touching the resurrection of the dead..." or in the mark 12 parallel, " concerning the dead, that they rise..." with this introduction and the context of the inquiry given by matthew in v. 23 then it would seem the natural conclusion is that jesus is correcting their mistake about the resurrection, for he said they did not know the power of God. power to do what, keep them alive in a disembodied state? maybe, but that was not at all what he said. the "soul survival" part seems to veer too far off jesus' stated intentions by arguing from silence.

grace and peace...jeremiah

[steve]

You may be right.

[Paidion]

Yes, "The God of the living" could indicate that He is the God of all who shall be alive after the resurrection. Because of God's intention, the dead are as good as alive now. "Though he were dead, yet shall he live". But if there were no resurrection, then God could not be the God of the living universally,only of those who are presently alive.

If the words "...and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die," were translated correctly, I would tend to think He was talking about continuing existence somewhere after death. But then I would be unable to tie that in with the resurrection, the subject that Christ was addressing. In order to do so, I would have to consider the resurrection to be our spirits or souls going to heaven at death. And that is precisely the position of many in our day.

The literal words are, " "...and everyone who lives and believes in me shall not die into the age." This possibly means one of the following:

1. ... shall not remain dead right into the next age, the age beginning with Christ's return.
2. ... shall not remain dead forever, but will be brought back to life.

I am inclined toward #1.

However, if the meaning is reflected in the way it is usually translated ("shall never die"), it seems to contradict Jesus' previous sentence, "Whoever believes in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live." For obviously many who believe in Him, have died, as Jesus said, but they will live again.

[verbatim]

Paidon wrote:

If the words "...and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die," were translated correctly, I would tend to think He was talking about continuing existence somewhere after death. But then I would be unable to tie that in with the resurrection, the subject that Christ was addressing. In order to do so, I would have to consider the resurrection to be our spirits or souls gov.ing to heaven at death. And that is precisely the position of many in our day.

The literal words are, " "...and everyone who lives and believes in me shall not die into the age." This possibly means one of the following:

1. ... shall not remain dead right into the next age, the age beginning with Christ's return.
2. ... shall not remain dead forever, but will be brought back to life.

I am inclined toward #1.

If the following verses shall be translated correctly we could then proved that God is the God of the living and not of the dead.

John 11:25-26, 43-44 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
v.26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
v.43 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.
v.44 And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.

After Lazarus was resurrected we had no more detail how he lives and when he died and the last time he was mentioned is in Luke 11:23 in the bosom of Abraham so, we can presumed that the resurrection of Lazarus is spiritual rather than physical.

Jesus also teaches that if we eat the hidden manna his bread or “Word” that come down from heaven shall liveth forever.

John 6:50-51, 57-58 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
v.51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
v.57 As the living Father hath sent , and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
v.58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

I’m inclined toward # 2 . ... shall not remain dead forever, but will be brought back to life,resurrected with spiritual or heavenly body.

[jeremiah]

After Lazarus was resurrected we had no more detail how he lives and when he died and the last time he was mentioned is in Luke 11:23 in the bosom of Abraham so, we can presumed that the resurrection of Lazarus is spiritual rather than physical.

hey verbatim, could you explain what you mean a little more? John 12 does indeed go on to give us more detail of his life after Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. The Lazarus in Luke 16 and the one in John 11,12 are not the same men, why would you think they were?
grace and peace...

[steve]

Lazarus was not an uncommon name. It is the Hebrew Eleazar.

There are no points of similarity between the Lazarus in Luke 16 and the one in John 11.

In Luke 16, Lazarus is a bagger with none to care for his needs, spending days at the gate of a rich man, and eating table scraps;
In John 11, Lazarus is the brother of Mary and Martha, in whose house he resides (or at least joins in meals).

The death of Jesus' friend Lazarus occurred sometime within the last four months (possibly weeks) before the crucifixion. The timing of the story told in Luke 16 is impossible to ascertain, but by my best attempts at harmonizing the Gospel accounts, it seems to have been told earlier than this.

Most obviously, Jesus' friend is raised from the dead (his body, still bound in grave clothes). Though the suggestion of sending the other Lazarus back from the dead was raised, in Luke 16, the decision seems to have been against it, and he was not raised.

The only thing these two men had in common was their given name. On such a basis of identy, Simon Peter could easily be confused with Simon Magus.

[verbatim]

jeremiah wrote:

hey verbatim, could you explain what you mean a little more? John 12 does indeed go on to give us more detail of his life after Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. The Lazarus in Luke 16 and the one in John 11,12 are not the same men, why would you think they were?
grace and peace...

hey jeremiah, we are not quite sure if there were two Lazarus except for there description one is beggar and the other brother of Mary and Martha, Scriptures bear no record how long the resurrected Lazarus has live and died. In my opinion because Scripture is silent about his life after he was resurrected he did not live long and ascended to Abraham’s bosom. If the beggar without story about of his faith to Jesus has been able to ascended to Abraham’s bosom carried by angels, how much more the Lazarus who was a friend of Jesus (Luke 16:22).Compare to Jesus stay here for 40 days Acts 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

[jeremiah]

oh ok, i understand you now. thanks
grace and peace...