And the second took her and died: and neither did he leave any issue. And the third in like manner.
και ο δευτερος ελαβεν αυτην και απεθανεν και ουδε αυτος αφηκεν σπερμα και ο τριτος ωσαυτως
6 Church Fathers comment on this verse
In their deception, they concoct a story aimed at undermining the truth of the Resurrection. They present a scenario that never occurred, nor could it ever occur. Their fabrication of seven husbands who sequentially claimed the same wife serves only to mock the reality of the Resurrection further.
After the Pharisees were rendered speechless by His response, the Sadducees, part of the same Sanhedrin and reveling in their embarrassment, promptly posed a question to Him regarding the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, a concept they had dismissed due to the absurd outcomes they believed it entailed. Just as the Lord had done in His accusations against the Pharisees, He confronted the foundational error of the Sadducees' argument. They cited a case of a woman who, according to human law, had become the wife of seven brothers. The Lord demonstrated that their misunderstanding arose from two key issues: they did not grasp the Scriptures, nor did they recognize the infinite power of God.
Had they comprehended the texts they accepted—not merely their literal meaning but their deeper significance—they would have perceived the essential link between the faith conveyed in those Scriptures and the belief in the eternal reality of human existence. If they understood God's omnipotence, they would not assume that human life after death is merely a continuation of present existence but would acknowledge that God is capable of transforming it into a glorified, exalted state. He then indicated that the afterlife must align with the nature of higher spiritual beings. To support His assertion, He referenced the frequent mention of God as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the writings of Moses. How could the Lord establish such an intimate relationship with these patriarchs, granting them immense significance and calling Himself their God, if they were merely fleeting moments rather than beings destined for eternity?
It is not clear from the Gospel narratives whether the Sadducees collaborated with the Pharisees in this instance. They might have been pleased to witness how Jesus had exposed the Pharisees' shortcomings and, finding joy in this, sought to have Him also mock the Pharisees' beliefs about the resurrection of the dead. This belief held that all Israelites would be resurrected and would dwell once more in the holy land upon the coming of the Messiah. At the very least, Jesus' response delighted the scribes, as noted in Luke 39, and the Sadducees' defeat by that same response emboldened the Pharisees, as shown in Matthew 34.
The Sadducees contended that the law concerning levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5-6), which allows a woman to have multiple husbands in her lifetime, makes the notion of resurrection difficult to comprehend in the Pharisees' context; thus, they felt it necessary to either deem this law illogical or to deny the possibility of the resurrection entirely. Since the divine law cannot be deemed unreasonable, they concluded that it indicates there is no resurrection of the dead. Their objection stemmed from a misunderstanding of the Pharisees’ overly carnal perspective on life after resurrection. Therefore, Jesus asserts that the Sadducees, like the Pharisees, ‘do not know the Scriptures’ and clarifies this misconception by stating 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 objection was predicated on the belief that a decayed body cannot rise, the Lord countered by stating that the Sadducees are ignorant of “the power of God” and demonstrated through Scripture (Exodus 3:6) that life exists beyond the grave, affirming that a resurrection of the dead is indeed a reality.
The Sadducees engaged in continual debate with the Pharisees concerning the resurrection of the soul, seeking to demonstrate that the writings of Moses offered no evidence of the soul's immortality. They argued that certain commandments imposed upon the Jewish people directly contradicted the belief in the resurrection of the dead. For instance, there was a commandment which required a childless widow to marry her deceased husband’s brother to ensure the continuation of the deceased's lineage. Citing this Mosaic law, they posed a scenario: 'There were seven brothers; the first married a woman and died without leaving children.
The second took her as a wife, but he too died without offspring; the third brother married her, followed by the fourth, and so forth, until all seven had taken her, each dying childless. Eventually, the woman herself passed away. In the event of a resurrection, to whom would she belong as a wife? After all, she had seven husbands! It cannot be that she would be reunited with them all, nor would it make sense for her to be without a husband; such a notion would be absurd. A great and divinely inspired lawgiver like Moses would not permit absurdity in his statutes. Therefore, from the perspective of Moses's teachings, there would be no resurrection of the dead.'
The primary adherents of Christ had been the Pharisees up until now. Meanwhile, the Sadducees, a group made up of the affluent and religious leaders, had largely remained disengaged from the events surrounding Christ, treating Him with the disdain they typically afforded the unlearned Galileans. However, as the teachings of the Galilean Master began to spread throughout Jerusalem, and in light of the remarkable responses He had given that impressed the Pharisees, the Sadducees resolved to engage with Him directly and challenge His understanding of the law and Jewish doctrine. To this end, they crafted a highly intricate question concerning a topic in which they displayed clear skepticism—the resurrection and the afterlife.
They presented a hypothetical scenario involving a woman who had been married sequentially to seven brothers, all of whom died without leaving children, and inquired about whom she would be associated with in the resurrection. This hypothetical was grounded in the law, which stated that if a husband died childless, his brother was obligated to marry his widow to perpetuate his legacy and carry on his name, with the firstborn child designated as the son of the deceased. The Sadducees, who did not believe in life after death and resurrection, presumed that Jesus, who they had heard aligned with the resurrection views of their Pharisaic rivals, would find their puzzling question perplexing and would be embarrassed, thus ridiculing Him along with the very concept of resurrection. Although some rabbis entertained more elevated views about the afterlife, the majority adhered to more corporeal and simplistic beliefs. They believed the resurrection would entail a return to both previous bodies and desires; the resurrected would engage in eating, drinking, and marrying, and would rise in the same attire worn during their earthly lives, even retaining any physical traits and disabilities, allowing others to recognize them as the same individuals they had known. Even the inquiry posed by the Sadducees had already found its answer among the rabbis, who asserted that “a woman who has been married to two husbands in this world will be given to the first in the world to come.” With these rather crude notions of resurrection and the outright denial of its possibility—based on their belief that the concept was absent from the Torah—they approached the Savior with their question.
The narrative in Mark regarding how the Lord confronted the Sadducees about the resurrection closely mirrors Matthew's portrayal (see Matt. 23:23-32). Mark's rendering aligns similarly with that of Matthew (refer to Matt. 23:23-32). The phrase "By these things ye are led astray" conveys a more forceful critique compared to the wording in Matthew's Gospel; this highlights the superficiality and ignorance of the Sadducees' grasp of profound, divinely inspired truths. Are you really misled by your own trivial and foolish reasoning, which you mistakenly consider to be deep understanding?
Greek text, 14 words with lemma, transliteration and Strong’s number. Tap to expand.
THEOSIS