And the next took her to wife: and he also died childless.
και ελαβεν ο δευτερος την γυναικα και ουτος απεθανεν ατεκνος
9 Church Fathers comment on this verse · 10 commentaries
The Sadducees held a weak understanding regarding the belief in resurrection. Their assumption of a physical existence after resurrection led them to errors in judgment. Consequently, they dismissed the concept of resurrection as absurd and invented a nonsensical narrative to support their views.
Thus, they come to Christ, our shared Redeemer, who embodies Life and Resurrection, attempting to refute the resurrection. Being filled with disdain and disbelief, they concoct a narrative steeped in ignorance and, through a series of cold presumptions, try impiously to obliterate the hope of humanity. We assert that the resurrection from the dead is the hope of all, with Christ as the firstborn and the firstfruits. This is why the wise Paul connects our resurrection to His, stating, ‘If the dead are not raised, neither was Christ raised;’ he further emphasizes this by questioning, ‘But if Christ was raised from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection from the dead?’ The individuals who asserted this were the Sadducees we now reference.
Let us examine their absurd fiction. They claim that there were seven brothers who consecutively married one woman according to Moses' law, and she passed away without bearing children: to whom will she belong in the resurrection? However, this query is nonsensical and entirely inconsistent with the teachings of the Holy Scriptures. Our Lord’s response effectively reveals the folly in their story, prompting us to dismiss both their fiction and its foundation. I believe it is necessary to directly challenge them regarding their foolish stance against the inspired Scriptures, highlighting their complete misunderstanding of what the sacred texts convey. Let us observe what the company of holy prophets communicates on this matter and the declarations made by the Lord of hosts through them. Regarding those who rest, He proclaimed: ‘I will deliver them from the hand of the grave; I will redeem them from death: Where is thy judgement, O death? O grave, where is thy sting?’ The nature of death's condemnation and its sting was revealed by blessed Paul when he stated: ‘But the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.’ He likens death to a scorpion, whose sting is sin, as it brings about the destruction of the soul. He describes the law as the source of sin's power, asserting ‘I learnt sin no other way than through the law. For where there is no law, there is no transgression of the law.’ This is why Christ liberated those who believe in Him from the reign of the condemning law, abolishing the sting of death, which is sin; when sin was removed, death inevitably followed, for death entered the world through him and because of him. Thus, as God promises, ‘I will deliver them from the hand of the grave, and from death I will redeem them,’ the blessed prophets affirm the heavenly decrees, speaking ‘not according to their own heart, nor according to the will of man, but from the mouth of God,’ as it is written. The Holy Spirit, speaking through them, reveals what constitutes God’s judgement and His eternal and unwavering will. Consequently, the prophet Isaiah declares, ‘Thy dead shall rise, and they that are in the graves shall rise again, and they that dwell in the earth shall rejoice; for the dew from thee shall heal them.’ The dew, I believe, signifies the life-giving essence of the Holy Spirit, which destroys death with divine vitality. Blessed David also notes in the Psalms concerning all who inhabit the earth, ‘Thou takest away their spirit, and they die, and return to their dust: thou sendest forth thy Spirit, and they are built up, and thou renewest the face of the earth.’ Are you aware that the working and life-giving grace of the Holy Spirit will revitalize the earth? By ‘the face of the earth,’ we refer to its splendor, understood as the incorruptibility of human nature. ‘For what is sown in corruption shall rise in incorruption; what is sown in weakness shall rise in strength; what is sown in dishonour shall rise in glory.’ The prophet Isaiah again assures us that death, which entered through sin, does not retain its hold over the earth's inhabitants eternally, but it is nullified by the resurrection of Christ, who renews creation, restoring it to its original state—‘For God created all things for incorruption,’ as it is written. He further states, ‘He hath swallowed up death, becoming mighty: and God shall take away every cry from every face; He shall remove the reproach of the people from all the earth.’ Here, ‘sin’ is designated as the reproach of the people; once it was eradicated, death was likewise vanquished, and corruption was expelled from among humanity. Having concluded this, He alleviates the sorrow of all, silencing every lamentation, as there shall no longer be cause for mourning or grief among people.
If a person has a brother who passes away... (Luke 20:28). In posing this question, the Sadducees, the most shrewd faction among the Jews, sought to challenge the Lord. Their misconception is clearly countered, and the topic of marital fidelity, which they initiated, is intriguingly turned back upon them. In the scenario they presented, the woman is forced to marry against her will so that her brother may ensure the continuation of his deceased sibling's lineage, as stated in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. This exemplifies that the letter brings death (2 Cor. 3:6), embodying a promoter of vices, while it is only the Spirit that imparts true understanding of chastity.
Let us consider whether the woman who had seven husbands might not represent the synagogue. The Samaritan woman was told, “You have had five husbands” (John 4:18), as Samaritans adhered to the five books of Moses. The term synagogue - Seven relates to this, as Samaritans acknowledged only the Pentateuch, while the Jews included the Book of Joshua and the Book of Judges in their canon. She will be unable to reunite with any of her husbands after the resurrection because she has distorted the spiritual commandment through a carnal mindset. The Old Testament instruction does not refer to a physical brother who restores the lineage of a deceased sibling, but rather signifies that Brother who would take the wisdom true to God from the dead Israelite nation as His Bride and regenerate the lineage through the apostles. They remained in the synagogue as if they were unborn children of the deceased Jews, but by divine grace, they were blessed with a new lineage.
The synagogue frequently appears adorned in splendid attire, representing marriage, for it symbolizes the mother of believers. Yet, she is often forsaken (cf. Is. 50:1; Jer. 3:1) as she is also the mother of the unfaithful. To her, the law according to the flesh has perished, allowing the spiritual law to be resurrected. If God’s holy people cherish the seven books of the law with a devotion akin to that of a spouse and follow them as they would the commands of a beloved, they will attain fellowship with the Bridegroom in the Resurrection, enriched by the gifts of divine grace and free from the confusion of physical unions.
In the fifty-third chapter of Matthew, one should seek to grasp its complete meaning.
Once the Pharisees were rendered speechless by His response, the Sadducees, also part of the same Sanhedrin, delighted in their embarrassment and swiftly posed a question regarding their denial of the resurrection of the dead, citing the absurd implications they believed arose from this doctrine. The Lord responded as He had when denouncing the Pharisees, targeting the very foundation of the erroneous belief they had put forth. They referred to the scenario of a woman who, according to human law, had married seven brothers. The Lord clarified for the Sadducees that their misunderstanding stemmed from (1) a lack of comprehension of the Scriptures, and (2) an ignorance of God’s unlimited power.
Had they comprehended at least the texts they acknowledged—not just their literal meaning but also their deeper significance—they would have recognized the essential link between the religious truths stated therein and the belief in humanity's everlasting personal existence. With an understanding of God’s omnipotence, they would not assume that future existence mirrors the current one in every aspect, but rather would accept that God can bestow upon human existence a transformed and glorified state. He then disclosed that the life to come must align with that of the exalted beings. To reinforce this idea, He referenced the frequent mentions in the books of Moses of God as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. How could God maintain such an intimate connection with these notable figures, bestowing upon them such significance and honor, if they were merely temporary entities and not destined for eternity?
The indicators of the arrival of various ages are evident in the occurrences themselves. Just as one can discern the proximity of summer by observing the tenderness of a fig tree's branches and the emergence of its leaves, we can assess the proximity of different ages through these observable signs. Concerning Jerusalem, the Lord has expressly stated that this generation will not pass away until everything spoken about Jerusalem comes to fruition. My words are more steadfast than the heavens and the earth. However, it is not possible to ascertain the specific day or hour of this event.
The Gospel narratives do not clearly demonstrate that the Sadducees collaborated with the Pharisees in this instance. It is plausible that the Sadducees, witnessing the embarrassment J. Christ brought upon the Pharisees and finding joy in it, sought to join Him in mocking the Pharisees' conviction regarding the resurrection of the dead. This belief held that upon the arrival of the Messiah, all Israelites would rise again to live in the promised land. At the very least, J. Christ's response satisfied the scribes, as indicated in Luke 39, while the Sadducees' setback motivated the Pharisees, as noted in Matthew 34.
The Sadducees argued that, under the law of levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5-6), a woman could have multiple husbands during her lifetime, making the Pharisaical notion of resurrection life difficult to comprehend. They concluded that this law must either be deemed illogical or that the resurrection is unfeasible. Since the law originates from God, they could not label it unreasonable; thus, they asserted that the law itself indicates there is no resurrection. Their objection stemmed from a crude and overly physical interpretation of life after resurrection. Consequently, Jesus Christ remarked that the Sadducees, like the Pharisees, “do not know the Scriptures,” clarifying that after the resurrection, “they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels of God in heaven” (Matthew 30). As their argument rested on the belief that a decayed human body cannot rise again, the Lord emphasized their ignorance of “the power of God,” illustrating through the Scriptures (Exodus 3:6) that there is existence beyond death and thus, a resurrection of the dead is assured.
The Sadducees engaged in ongoing debates with the Pharisees concerning the resurrection of the soul, striving to demonstrate that the writings of Moses offered no evidence for the immortality of the soul. They argued that certain statutes binding upon the Jewish people directly contradicted the belief in the resurrection of the dead. One such statute required that when a man passed away without children, his brother must marry the widow to ensure the deceased man's lineage continued. Citing this provision from the Law of Moses, they posed the scenario: “There were seven brothers; the first married and died without having children. The second took her as his wife, but he too died childless.
The third brother married her, followed by the fourth, and so on, until all seven had married her, yet none had left descendants. Eventually, the woman also died. In the resurrection, whose wife will she be, since all seven were her husbands?” They reasoned that it would be nonsensical for her to be the spouse of all or none, as such a conclusion would defy logic. A significant and divinely inspired lawgiver like Moses would not permit such contradictions in his statutes. Therefore, they concluded that, based on Mosaic teaching, there is no resurrection of the dead.
To illustrate their point, they referenced a scenario from rabbinic discussions involving a woman who had married seven brothers, each dying without children. They questioned to whom she would belong in the resurrection. Although hypothetical, this situation was plausible according to Jewish law, which dictated that if a man passed away childless, his brother must marry the widow to preserve his lineage and carry on his name. Therefore, the first-born son from this second marriage would be recognized as the deceased brother's child.
The Sadducees, who did not believe in an afterlife or resurrection, assumed that Jesus, whom they believed shared similar views as their Pharisee rivals, would be stricken by their perplexing inquiries, thereby allowing them to mock Him and the very concept of resurrection. While some rabbis entertained more elevated concepts of life after death, most adhered to simpler, more materialistic interpretations. They believed resurrection would return people not only to their previous bodies but also to their former desires and inclinations; those resurrected would eat, drink, and marry again, retaining the clothes they had worn in life and their unique physical traits, so that others could recognize them as the same individuals they had known. A common belief among the Rabbis was that a woman who had two husbands in this life would be reunited with her first husband in the world to come. With these crude and earthly notions in mind and dismissing the idea of resurrection— which they contended was not supported in the Mosaic Law that they accepted— the Sadducees approached the Savior with their question.
The narrative provided by Luke regarding the inquiry from the Sadducees and the Lord's response closely mirrors those found in the accounts by the first two Evangelists. However, certain phrases have been substituted with equivalent expressions: refer to Matthew 22:23-33 and Mark 12. The account of Luke aligns closely with those of Matthew and Mark; only some expressions in the response are altered with similar terms. For instance, when discussing Moses, it is indicated that he showed or proclaimed (ερμη'νευσε) the messages from Jehovah, inscribing the divine words revealed to him at the Tabernacle (as seen in Mark), where God identifies Himself as the God of Israel’s patriarchs.
Moses, the mediator of the laws you adhere to, referred to the Almighty as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Moreover, when mentioning "some of the scribes," it is likely they were not from the Sadducee sect, which would have found it difficult to acknowledge the Lord’s wisdom publicly. These individuals were probably Pharisees who, despite having conspired against the Lord alongside the Sadducees, found satisfaction in witnessing their rivals brought low (see Matthew 22:34 ff.). Mark highlights that one scribe, after hearing the Lord’s effective rebuttal to the Sadducees, noted that the Lord’s response was sound (Mark 12:23) and subsequently voiced his approval (Mark 12:32). This scribe, along with others who shared his viewpoint, reportedly stated to the Lord, "Master, you have spoken well" after His engagement with the Sadducees. The Lord skillfully demonstrated the truth of the resurrection of the dead through Scripture, so much so that even His adversaries honored Him at that moment (Luke 20:40-44).
Regarding the Lord's query about the Messiah—specifically, whose Son He is—the account in Luke is consistent with Matthew and Mark (see Matthew 22:41-46, Mark 12:35-37). It is noted that, as Matthew and Mark illustrate, following the Sadducees’ embarrassment, a scribe posed a question about the foremost commandment in the Law (Matthew 22:35-40, Mark 12:28-34). Both Gospel accounts indicate that thereafter, no one dared to question Him further, a sentiment echoed after the Lord’s discussion concerning His sonship. Since the Gospel of Luke does not include the exchange with the scribe about the greatest commandment, the Lord's inquiry regarding Christ originated from Him, as opposed to being prompted by others. Luke observes that they refrained from questioning the Lord after His enlightening reply to the Sadducees concerning resurrection. Finally, when the Lord poses the question—"How then is He His Son?"—Luke does not elaborate on the impact of this question on His audience; however, Matthew and Mark supplement this by noting that no one could respond to Him, and the multitude was captivated by His teaching.
Greek text, 3 words with lemma, transliteration and Strong’s number. Tap to expand.
THEOSIS