Mark 12:19Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Had they properly interpreted even the texts they accepted—not just in their literal sense but in their deeper meaning—they would have recognized the essential link between the faith they professed and the belief in the everlasting existence of the soul. Furthermore, if they understood God’s omnipotence, they would not assume that life after death mirrors life in the present but would acknowledge that God can grant existence a transformed and glorified state. He then revealed that the afterlife must align with the existence of celestial beings. To support His assertion, He referred to the familiar phrases in the writings of Moses, specifically the designation of God as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. How could God forge such a profound connection with these individuals, granting them such honor and dignity that He is referred to as their God, if they were merely temporary beings rather than destined for eternity?

The Sadducees argued that, based on the law allowing a woman to have multiple husbands during her lifetime (Deuteronomy 25:5-6), the concept of resurrection life, as envisioned by the Pharisees, seemed implausible. They contended that one had to either dismiss this law as illogical or deny the possibility of the resurrection, asserting that God's law could not be deemed unreasonable; hence, they believed it implied there would be no resurrection of the dead. Their objections stemmed from the Pharisees' overly physical interpretation of life after resurrection. In response, Jesus declared that both the Sadducees and 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). Since the Sadducees based their challenge on the notion that a decayed human body could not be revived, the Lord pointed out their ignorance of "the power of God," demonstrating through Scripture (Exodus 3:6) that life exists beyond death and asserting the reality of the resurrection.

The third did likewise, and so forth, with all seven brothers marrying her and dying without leaving descendants. Finally, the woman herself passed away. If there is indeed a resurrection of the dead, whose wife will she be in that life? After all, she had seven husbands! It cannot be that she would be the wife of all or of none—that would be nonsensical. Surely, such a great and divinely inspired lawgiver as Moses would not permit such absurdity in his statutes. Therefore, based on Moses' teachings, the conclusion is that there is no resurrection.”

They referenced a hypothetical scenario from rabbinic discourse involving a woman who had married seven brothers in succession, each of whom died without leaving any offspring. They sought to understand to whom she would be united after the resurrection. This hypothetical was plausible within the legal framework, as the Law required that if a husband passed away childless, his brother was to marry the widow to preserve his lineage and carry on his name. The firstborn from this second marriage would be recognized as the deceased man's son. Since they did not believe in the resurrection and assumed that Jesus, who they believed shared their adversaries' views on this matter, would be befuddled by their question, they anticipated deriving amusement from His response and, by extension, discrediting both Him and the belief in resurrection. Although some rabbis held more profound convictions about life after death, many adhered to a more simplistic understanding. They believed the resurrection would involve the restoration of individuals to their previous forms and appetites; the resurrected would partake in eating, drinking, and marrying, retaining the same attire and even physical imperfections, allowing others to recognize them as those they had known in life. In fact, the question raised by the Sadducees already had its answer among the rabbis, who proposed that a woman married to two husbands in this life would be reunited with the first in the life to come. Armed with these crude assumptions and outright denial of resurrection, as they believed it was unsupported by the Mosaic teachings they accepted, they approached the Savior with their inquiry.