You can watch this post on You Tube if you prefer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=timwaLYdrhc
Luke 20:27-40 Don’t miss this passage! You can read it here if you don’t have a Bible nearby:https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2020%3A27-40&version=NLT
Anyways, that last question backfired so bad that some of them took a break from attacking Jesus and tried to use him to settle some infighting. I guess, why not, right? Jesus defeated them each time they tried to trip him up. They couldn’t win an argument against him, so maybe they’d try getting him on their side.
For background, remember how we said the Jewish leaders were able to exercise some authority over their region as long as they didn’t get out of line with Rome? Their jurisdiction was primarily over religious affairs. This religious sub-government was called the Sanhedrin. All the way back then there were different political parties who bickered just as much as they do now. The Sadducees and Pharisees were two different religious/political parties both of whom held seats on the Sanhedrin. The Pharisees tended to more strictly adhere to the scriptures while the Sadducees were more interested in going along to get along with the neighbouring people groups and their Roman rulers. For whatever reason, this seemed like a good time to pick an internal fight.
The Sadducees concoct this absurd thought experiment that is meant to create a problem for those who believe in a resurrection from the dead. It seems the conclusion they hoped Jesus would affirm was that, since a woman presumably couldn’t simultaneously be married to seven men in the afterlife, there must be no afterlife.
Now, As a woman with a meagre bachelor’s degree in philosophy, I have heard some weak arguments in my day and this has got to be in the top ten. To be fair, there was a religious law as it is described here. It seems to have served two purposes. One, in a culture where one’s heritage was intrinsic to identity and where a person’s family name included property and reputation, it ensured that no Israelite’s family name would die with him. My modern western sensibilities don’t immediately resonate with the thought that this would be tragic. But then I wonder if maybe it means more to me than I think it does. For instance, my only brother has Downs Syndrome and, as such, is unlikely to have kids. So we gave our eldest son my dad’s last name. It just felt important to keep it in the family. The law also served to protect widows in that culture. As a woman, if your husband died and you had no son, you were often forgotten by society. It was extremely unusual for a woman to be able to have property of her own. Widows, especially those without a son to represent them publicly, often suffered on the fringes of the community. This law provided a way both to ensure that the deceased man continued to have a name among his people, and to protect his widow. So maybe this is not quite as “icky” as we might immediately assume, but this bizarre little scenario does take things to the next level. Seven brothers in a row all die after marrying the same woman? I feel like there is a common denominator here. Just sayin’.
Be that as it may, Jesus first responds to their (stupid) question and then goes on to destroy the belief their question was aimed at proving. He knows it’s a ludicrous question, but still, it’s an opportunity to explain more truth so he takes it. The marriage relationship is something God gave us here on earth. It’s just not a thing in heaven. Marriage was a gift God gave the first man, Adam, because he looked at him and saw it wasn’t good for him to be alone. In heaven there won’t be a need for that type of relationship. What will there be? I don’t know. There’s this great verse – 1 Corinthians 2:9 that claims that no one has seen, heard or even imagined the things God has planned for those who love him. Now that probably isn’t only referring to heaven, but it certainly includes it. Prophetic descriptions of heaven picture a harmonious interrelation of all living creatures. Whatever it was that God saw Adam was missing, no one will be missing in heaven.
So Jesus gives an intelligent answer to a foolish question, but he doesn’t stop there.
Jesus isn’t remotely ok with someone doubting that there is a resurrection. Recall, we are at the start of the week in which he will be killed. His whole mission on earth would have been an embarrassing waste of time if there were no resurrection. The Sadducees, leaders of the people Jesus loved and chose to live among, were teaching that death wins. There is nothing after. This life is all there is. To this Jesus responds, “You could not be more wrong.” Then he proves it using a well known historical account from their scriptures. Moses would have lived about 400 years after Jacob (whose father was Isaac, whose father was Abraham) died. Jesus points out that when God speaks to Moses to call him to rescue his people living in slavery in Egypt, he calls himself the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Jesus explains that was a present tense statement. “I am their God, right now.” By inference, God said Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were alive more than 400 years after they died. There is a resurrection of the dead. As philosophical arguments go, this is a good one. It’s a sound deductive argument, to be precise, which means that if the premises are true, the conclusion has to be, and these premises are true. So enough with the poorly constructed thought experiments.
I love the last verse where it says, some of the teachers of the law said, “Well done!” I’ll tell you right now who those ‘some teachers’ were. They were the Pharisees who just watched the Sadducees get wrecked.
