Some Sadducees came up. This is the Jewish party that denies any possibility of resurrection. They asked, “Teacher, Moses wrote us that if a man dies and leaves a wife but no child, his brother is obligated to take the widow to wife and get her with child. Well, there once were seven brothers. The first took a wife. He died childless. The second married her and died, then the third, and eventually all seven had their turn, but no child. After all that, the wife died. That wife, now–in the resurrection whose wife is she? All seven married her.” Jesus said, “Marriage is a major preoccupation here, but not there. Those who are included in the resurrection of the dead will no longer be concerned with marriage nor, of course, with death. They will have better things to think about, if you can believe it. All ecstasies and intimacies then will be with God. Even Moses exclaimed about resurrection at the burning bush, saying, ‘God: God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob!’ God isn’t the God of dead men, but of the living. To him all are alive.” Some of the religion scholars said, “Teacher, that’s a great answer!”
Luke 20:27-39
Luke’s editorial note sums it up for us. These are the leaders (or the Jewish party) that deny any possibility of resurrection. Doesn’t it seem strange that such leaders should be asking a question related to the resurrection from the dead, if they don’t believe in it? Hence, my classing this question as not “curly” but “surly”. I am clearly playing on the sound of the words in my attempt to be poetic, but also focusing on the meanings of surly, which include “rude”, “unfriendly”, “hostile” and “arrogant”. These leaders are not asking a question seeking clarification or information. Luke has given us the clue in his editor’s note. “They say there is no resurrection from the dead.” Just like the Pharisees and Chief Priests, in the previous segment, their question has hidden intent. Allow me to select for you some elements from what I clipped from E-Sword’s ISBE yesterday.
- They were a political party, of priestly and aristocratic tendency, as against the more religious Pharisees.
- Implied connection with the verb “to be righteous.”
- Our Lord’s claim to be the Messiah prompted their intervention.
- Sensitive to anything that threatens [their] stability — only the death of Jesus would satisfy them.
- Denied the immortality of the soul and of the resurrection of the body.
- They believed in neither “angel or spirit”.
- They believed the soul dies with the body.
- Their theology might be called “religion within the limits of mere sensation.”
- The Sadducean high priests . . . had booths in the courts of the temple for the sale of sacrificial requisites.
- They were frankly irreligious. While officials of religion, they were devoid of its spirit.
Such people have no right to be asking such a question or using such an example, but in the same way the earlier question came as a trap, to make their point and seek to arrest Jesus, this question too comes with a hidden agenda. They don’t believe there is any resurrection. Their example is perfect (they thought) for demonstrating that the belief in the resurrection of the body is futile. Here was a good way to prove it.
They took the law about Levirate marriage from the Torah and used that as the basis of their argument. Well, suppose . . . takes us back to the Prodigal Son story doesn’t it? This is entirely hypothetical. They imagine they have an iron-clad example to prove their point. “This so called Messiah is talking nonsense.” Explain this one to us. How can this work in the life-after-death? It is impossible, so therefore, proof that there is no resurrection.
The text is somewhat pedantic in the process of putting forth their case. The seven brothers are fictitious but the story is told as though this actually happened. It is told with a structure which emphasizes the farcical nature of what supposedly happens. The first brother takes a wife and dies without children. Because that is the case, according to Levirate law the next brother in line MUST take the dead brother’s wife as his own and look after her, and more importantly, father children with her so the family name is preserved. But after the second brother marries her, he also dies [childless is the inference]. So the third takes her as his wife . . . With the second and third brothers, the element “died childless is not added in most manuscripts”. Some Bibles add the detail for you and some leave the detail out.
There are versions which read: And the second (AMP) (ASV) (BBE) (ESV) (ISV) (NASB) (RV)
There are versions which read: And the second (or third) took her as his wife.(GNB) (GW) (ITB)
There are versions which read: And the second took her as his wife and he also died. (MSG) (NLT)
And there are versions which read: And the second took her as his wife and he also died without having children.(CEV) (EMTV) (IBIS) (KJV) (LITV) (MKJV) (Murdock) (Webster) (YLT)
This story is deliberately repetitive to emphasize the point of how silly this is. Two brothers would have been enough to make their point but the story is told in a such a way that we gather this is going to go all the way through to the last brother. It is predictive by nature to emphasize the point. It is also a feature of Jewish story telling (and other cultures too) that to truncate the stem and leave out a lot of the following details, doesn’t mean the listener is supposed to think the following elements didn’t occur. You, as the hearer are supposed to fill in the blanks and assume that all suffer the same fate. Right up to brother number 7. Remember too, that seven symbolizes completeness. The story is complete now. We are spared the account retold for brothers four to seven. It could have been that each one of the brothers was locked into the repetitive mode, to add the sense of this inexorably, moving toward completion. In exactly the same way, all seven bothers had the woman as a wife. The story could just as easily been told in a way to take us through every single brother, right up to the seventh. There is continuity and sameness here that is being emphasized. All have the same experience with the woman and thus the same length of time married, it seems, by inference.
Then the woman dies too. Last of all, at the end of all the brothers, the woman dies. She dies last so she has the experience of marrying all seven brothers. If she died before some of the brothers, then the story loses its completeness. The woman’s death is placed at the end of the line of brothers to increase the absurdity, both of the scenario and of the notion of the resurrection — from the point of view of the Sadducees.
It is almost like the story could end with, “There. Got you now Jesus, pseudo-Messiah.” Remember again, all the forces arrayed against Him. I am sure the Pharisees and High Priest and experts in the Law are still present. The strength of the opposition is growing. How would you answer that one if you were Jesus?
We will look at His answer tomorrow, just as we did with the question of giving Caesar what’s his and God what’s God’s.
Marriage jokes — one for each brother:
‘Aren’t you wearing your wedding ring on the wrong finger?’ ‘Yes, I am, I married the wrong man.’
Anon
After a quarrel, a wife said to her husband, ‘You know, I was a fool when I married you.’ The husband replied, ‘Yes, dear, but I was in love and didn’t notice.’
Anon
When a man steals your wife, there is no better revenge than to let him keep her.
Anon
Marriage is the triumph of imagination over intelligence. Second marriage is the triumph of hope over experience.
Anon
A man will pay $2 for a $1 item he needs; a woman will pay $1 for a $2 item that she doesn’t need.
Anon
A woman worries about the future until she gets a husband; aman never worries about the future until he gets a wife.
Anon
In the first year of marriage, the man speaks and the woman listens; In the second year, the woman speaks and the man listens. In the third year, they both speak and the neighbours listen.
Anon
Marriage advice — one for each brother:
A successful man is one who makes more money than his wife can spend. A successful woman is one who can find such a man.
Anon
To be happy with a man, you must understand him a lot and love him a little. To be happy with a woman, you must love her a lot & not try to understand her at all.
Anon
Any married man should forget his mistakes, there’s no use in two people remembering the same thing.
Anon
A woman marries a man expecting he will change, but he doesn’t. A man marries a woman expecting that she won’t change, and she does.
Anon
A woman has the last word in any argument. Anything a man says after that is the beginning of a new argument.
Anon
There are two times when a man doesn’t understand a woman — before marriage and after marriage. My opinions are my wife’s, and she says I’m lucky to have them.
Anon