In the resurrection therefore, whose wife of them shall she be? For all the seven had her to wife.
εν τη ουν αναστασει τινος αυτων γινεται γυνη οι γαρ επτα εσχον αυτην γυναικα
9 Church Fathers comment on this verse · 10 commentaries
The Sadducees held a disbelief in the resurrection, rooted in a fragile basis. Their assumption of physical life following resurrection led them to erroneous conclusions. Consequently, they mocked the concept of resurrection, treating it as absurd, and constructed a truly foolish tale to support their views.
They therefore turn to Christ, our collective Redeemer, who embodies both Life and Resurrection, seeking to challenge the reality of the resurrection. With disdain and disbelief, they fabricate a misguided narrative laden with ignorance, attempting to violently erase the hope that sustains humanity. We declare that this hope—resurrection from the dead—is epitomized by Christ, the firstborn and firstfruits of the resurrection. Thus, the wise Paul connects our resurrection with His by stating, ‘If the dead are not raised, neither was Christ raised;’ and further emphasizes, ‘But if Christ was raised from the dead, how can some among you say that there is no resurrection from the dead?’ These claims originated from the Sadducees, whom we now address.
Let us critically examine their absurd fiction. They suggest that seven brothers were married to one woman in accordance with the Mosaic Law, and upon her death without children, question whose wife she would be in the resurrection. This query is absurd and entirely at odds with the inspired Scriptures; our Saviour's response effectively exposes the folly of their argument, prompting us to reject both their narrative and the flawed premise behind it. It is fitting to explicitly denounce their misguided resistance to the inspired texts and to demonstrate their profound misunderstanding of the teachings found within sacred Scripture.
Let us consider what the holy prophets convey regarding this matter, as well as the declarations made by the Lord of hosts through them. Concerning those who have died, He promises: ‘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 context of death's condemnation and its sting is clarified by the blessed Paul, who states, ‘But the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.’ Here, he likens death to a scorpion, where its sting symbolizes sin, which by its poison leads to the death of the soul. The law, he notes, serves as the agency of sin, as he declares elsewhere, ‘I learned sin no other way than through the law; for where there is no law, there is no transgression of the law.’ Consequently, Christ liberated those who believe in Him from the clutches of the condemning law and abolished the sting of death, namely sin; when sin is removed, death, consequently, ceases to exist, as it originated from and is a result 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 align with heavenly decrees, affirming that their messages stem not from personal will but rather from divine inspiration, as the Holy Spirit articulates God's judgment and His sovereign, unchanging purpose.
For this reason, the prophet Isaiah proclaims, ‘Thy dead shall rise, and they that are in the graves shall arise again, and they that dwell in the earth shall rejoice; for the dew from thee shall heal them.’ By 'dew,' I believe he refers to the life-giving essence of the Holy Spirit, which dispels death as a divine and revitalizing force. Blessed David also reflects, ‘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.’ Do you grasp that the active, life-giving grace of the Holy Spirit shall restore the earth's beauty? Here, 'the face of the earth' signifies its splendor, with the beauty of humanity rightfully understood as incorruption. ‘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.’ Once more, the prophet Isaiah reassures us that death, which entered the world due to sin, shall not maintain dominion over those who dwell on the earth forever but is rendered powerless by Christ’s resurrection, who rejuvenates the cosmos and restores it to its initial state—‘For God created all things for incorruption,’ as it is written; for He states, ‘He hath swallowed up death, becoming mighty: and God shall take away again every cry from every face; He shall remove the reproach of the people from all the earth.’ The reproach He refers to is sin, and as it was removed, death was also vanquished alongside it, while corruption faded from the existence of humanity; having brought this to an end, He silences every lament, for from now on, there is no longer any cause for human mourning or complaint.
If a man has a brother who passes away... (Luke 20:28). With this inquiry, the Sadducees, known for their cunning among the Jewish sects, sought to challenge the Lord. Their misconception is directly challenged, and the issue of marital fidelity, which they themselves introduced, is paradoxically turned back upon them. In the scenario they presented, the woman is forced, against her own desires, to marry so that her dead brother may have an heir, as referenced in Deuteronomy 25:5-10. This illustrates that the written law brings death (2 Cor. 3:6) and serves as a purveyor of sin, while only the Spirit can instruct in purity.
Let us consider whether the woman with seven husbands represents the synagogue. The Samaritan woman was told, “You have had five husbands” (John 4:18), as Samaritans adhere solely to the five books of Moses. The term "synagogue" can connote seven, as while Samaritans accept only the Pentateuch, the Jews also recognize the Book of Joshua and the Book of Judges. After the resurrection, she cannot be united with any of her husbands, as she has distorted the divine commandments with her earthly desires. The Old Testament directive does not pertain to a physical brother restoring the lineage of a deceased brother, but rather to the Brother who was to reclaim the wisdom of the true God from the dead nation of Israel, taking it to Himself as His bride and thereby regenerating the seed through the apostles. They were like unborn children within the synagogue, descendants of the deceased Jewish people, yet through grace, they were blessed with a new lineage.
The synagogue often appears adorned in festive attire, representing marriage, as the mother of believers. However, there are times when this mother is cast aside (cf. Is. 50:1; Jer. 3:1) because she also bore the unfaithful. To her, the law of the flesh has perished, allowing the spiritual law to prevail. If the holy people of God embrace the seven books of the law with a love akin to that of a spouse and adhere to them as if they were the commands of a beloved, they shall gain fellowship with the Bridegroom in the Resurrection, enriched with the gifts of divine grace and unencumbered by physical unions.
In this passage from Matthew, which is the fifty-third chapter, one should seek a comprehensive understanding.
*Matthew 22:23-28*
When the Pharisees were left without a response to this inquiry, the Sadducees, who were also part of the Sanhedrin, celebrated their embarrassment and swiftly posed a question to Him regarding the belief in the resurrection of the dead, a doctrine they had dismissed due to the absurd conclusions they believed it entailed. Just as the Lord had confronted the Pharisees, He similarly addressed the Sadducees by challenging the very foundation of their position. They referred to the case of a woman who, according to the law of marriage, had been joined in matrimony to seven brothers. The Lord clarified that their misunderstanding arose from two main issues: first, their lack of comprehension of the Scriptures, and second, their failure to grasp the omnipotence of God.
Had they truly understood, at least the texts they accepted—not only in their literal meaning but also in their spiritual significance—they would have recognized the vital link between the religious teachings they contained and the belief in the everlasting personal existence of humanity. If they acknowledged the power of God, they would realize that human existence in the future is not merely a replication of our current state but can be transformed and glorified by God's hand. He then revealed that the life to come must align with that of the higher celestial beings. To support this notion, He cited the familiar phrase found in the writings of Moses— the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. How could God choose to enter into such a profound relationship with these patriarchs, bestowing upon them such significance and honor that He is referred to as their God, if they were merely ephemeral beings rather than individuals destined for eternity?
The indicators of the arrival of various times can be observed in the very events themselves. Just as one can discern the approach of summer by examining the tender branches and fresh leaves of a fig tree, we can likewise recognize the impending changes in these occurrences. Concerning Jerusalem, the Lord has made it abundantly clear that this generation will not pass away until all that has been proclaimed about Jerusalem comes to fruition. His declarations are more enduring than heaven and earth. However, the specific day or hour of these events remains impossible to ascertain.
The collaboration between the Sadducees and the Pharisees in this instance is not clearly depicted in the Gospel narratives. It is possible that, upon witnessing how Jesus had embarrassed the Pharisees, the Sadducees took delight in this and sought to join Him in mocking the Pharisees’ belief in the resurrection of the dead. According to the Pharisees' view, the expectation was that, with the arrival of the Messiah, all Israelites would be resurrected to inhabit the promised land. At least the response of Jesus brought satisfaction to the scribes, while the Sadducees' defeat by this remark bolstered the Pharisees' stance.
The Sadducees argue that under the law concerning levirate marriage, which permits a woman to have multiple husbands during her lifetime, the Pharisaic notion of resurrection life is hardly tenable; thus, one must either deem this law nonsensical or dismiss the resurrection itself. Since the law given by God cannot be considered irrational, they conclude that it indicates the absence of resurrection. The Sadducees object due to the Pharisees' materially focused concept of life after resurrection, prompting Jesus to assert that both the Sadducees and Pharisees “do not know the Scriptures,” and He corrects their misunderstanding by stating that after resurrection, “they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” The Sadducees, anchored in the belief that a decomposed human form cannot rise, are met with the Lord’s assertion that they lack understanding of “the power of God.” He affirms to them, through Scripture, that there is existence beyond death, and hence, a resurrection of the dead is assured.
The Sadducees engaged in continuous debate with the Pharisees concerning the resurrection of souls, attempting to show that the writings of Moses offered no evidence of the soul’s immortality. They argued that there were specific laws applicable to the Jewish people that directly contradicted the belief in the resurrection of the dead. One such law, often referred to as the law of levirate marriage, mandated that a brother marry his deceased sibling's childless widow to ensure the deceased's lineage continued. Citing this law, they posed a scenario: there were seven brothers, the oldest married but died without children.
The wife was then taken by the second brother, who also died childless, and this continued with the third, fourth, and ultimately the seventh brother, each perishing without leaving heirs. After all of them had died, the widow eventually passed away as well. If a resurrection of the dead were to occur, they questioned, to whom would she be united as wife, since she had seven husbands? It could not be that she would be the wife of all or of none, as that would be nonsensical. Such a prominent and divinely inspired lawgiver as Moses could not possibly endorse such absurdity in his statutes. Therefore, they concluded that the teachings of Moses imply there is no resurrection.
To illustrate their inquiry, they presented the scenario of a woman who had married seven brothers in succession, each passing away without children, seeking to determine which brother she would belong to in eternity. Although this situation was hypothetical, it was rooted in legal tradition since the law required that a brother marry his deceased sibling's widow to preserve his lineage and continue his name; thus, the first-born son of this second union would be regarded as the offspring of the dead brother.
Doubting the existence of life after death and the resurrection, and believing that Jesus, as they had heard, shared the same views on resurrection as their Pharisaical adversaries, they relished the opportunity to confound Him with their perplexing query, hoping to mock both Him and the concept of resurrection itself. It is true that some rabbis entertained loftier beliefs about the afterlife, but the prevailing opinion was rather crude. They theorized that resurrection would involve the restoration of individuals not only to their previous bodies but also to their prior desires and inclinations; the resurrected would not only partake in eating, drinking, and marrying but would also rise in the same garments they wore in life, retaining their physical characteristics and flaws so that others might recognize them. The very inquiry posed by the Sadducees had already found its answer among the Rabbis, suggesting that a woman married to two husbands in this world would be returned to her first husband in the world to come. Holding these rather sensual views and fundamentally rejecting the notion of resurrection—believing it was absent from the Mosaic law they accepted—they approached the Saviour with their question.
Luke's narration of the inquiry posed by the Sadducees and the Lord's response parallels that of the first two Evangelists, albeit with some interchangeable phrases. In referencing the query and the response, see Matthew 22:23-33 and Mark 12:18-27. Notably, when it is stated, “Moses showed when he called,” it suggests that Moses indeed proclaimed, inscribing in his text the words of the Lord uttered to him at the Tabernacle, where God identifies Himself as the deity of the patriarchs of Israel. Moses, who received the commandments through divine revelation, recognized God as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
As for the “Some of the scribes,” these individuals were likely not from the Sadducees, who would not readily offer praise for the Lord's sagacious reply. Instead, it is probable that they belonged to the Pharisees, who, despite previously challenging the Lord alongside the Sadducees, may have taken delight in witnessing their adversaries humiliated (cf. Matthew 22:34 ff.). The Evangelist Mark notes that after the Lord's sound refutation of the Sadducees, one scribe acknowledged the Lord’s wisdom, expressing his approval audibly (Mk. 12:23, 12:32). It is suggested that this scribe, along with like-minded individuals, approached the Lord following His response to the Sadducees, stating, “Master, thou hast said well.” The Lord’s adept use of Scripture to affirm the truth of the resurrection was so compelling that even those opposed to Him could not help but honor Him on this occasion (Lk. 20:40-44).
Regarding the Lord's inquiry about the Messiah and His lineage, Luke presents this question similarly to the accounts in Matthew and Mark. For details, see Matthew 22:41-46 and Mark 12:35-37. The phrase “They dared not ask Him” indicates that following the embarrassment of the Sadducees, a scribe inquired about the preeminent commandment of the law (Matthew 22:35-40 and Mark 12:28-34). Subsequently, both Matthew and Mark remark that after this interaction, no one felt emboldened to question the Lord further. Although Luke does not include the discussion about the greatest commandment, he highlights that the question concerning Christ was initiated by the Lord Himself. He emphasizes that they hesitated to inquire further after the Lord’s answer regarding resurrection.
Inquiring, “How then is He the Son unto him?” Luke does not comment on the reaction of His audience to the Lord's question, but this aspect is captured in the accounts of Matthew and Mark. Matthew conveys that no one could respond to the Lord, while Mark states that the crowd was captivated by His words.
Passages read together with this verse.
Greek text, 16 words with lemma, transliteration and Strong’s number. Tap to expand.
THEOSIS