Matthew 22:26Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

In this allegory, the wife symbolizes human nature, while the seven brothers represent the divine laws bestowed upon her at different intervals for the cultivation and production of righteousness. Living successively with each of these laws, akin to husbands, she bore no true fruit from any of them. The first law was given to Adam in Eden, the second was granted to him outside of Eden as a consequence, the third was delivered to Noah concerning the ark, the fourth was given to Abraham regarding circumcision, the fifth reiterated to him about the sacrifice of Isaac, the sixth was presented to Moses, and the seventh was shared through the prophets.

Deceivers, intent on undermining the belief in resurrection, subtly pose the question: If there is to be a resurrection of the dead, under which of these seven laws will human nature live? Regardless of the law selected, the implication would be that human existence would revert to being barren and devoid of meaning, trapped by the same trials of old. However, the true and salvific message of godliness silences such claims, affirming that after the resurrection, life will take on a new form. Whether one interprets the present world as seven thousand years or seven epochs during which humanity has existed, the essence remains unchanged. After the resurrection, human nature will not be bound to any of them, as they will all conclude, and she will embrace a new age, the eighth, which will be eternal.

Had they truly understood even the texts they recognized—not only in their literal sense but also in their intended meaning—they would have seen the necessary link between the doctrines contained within these writings and the belief in the everlasting existence of the soul. Moreover, if they had grasped God's omnipotence, they would not envision human existence in the afterlife as merely an extension of current experiences, but would acknowledge that God has the ability to bestow upon human life a transformed and glorified essence. He then revealed that eternal life must align with the existence of higher spiritual beings. In support of His assertion, He referenced the phrases found frequently within the books of Moses that mention God as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. How could God maintain such an intimate relationship with these significant figures and attribute such value and honor to them, being identified as their God, if they were merely ephemeral beings and not destined for eternity?

The Sadducees contended that, according to the law ofLevirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5-6), a woman could have multiple husbands during her lifetime, thereby rendering the resurrection life, as conceived by the Pharisees, difficult to comprehend. Consequently, they felt compelled to either dismiss this law as irrational or to deny the resurrection of the dead altogether; however, since the divinely ordained law cannot be deemed unreasonable, they believed it logically indicated the non-existence of resurrection. Their objection stemmed from a materially focused perception of existence after resurrection. Accordingly, Jesus Christ asserted that the Sadducees, like the Pharisees, ‘do not know the Scriptures.’ He clarified their misunderstanding by declaring that after the resurrection, ‘they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels of God in heaven’ (Matthew 30). Given that the Sadducees' challenge was rooted in the notion that a decomposed human body cannot rise, the Lord pointed out that they were ignorant of “the power of God” and demonstrated through the Scriptures (Exodus 3:6) that life extends beyond death, confirming the promise of resurrection.

They presented an example from rabbinic discourse involving a woman who had been married successively to seven brothers, each of whom died without leaving children, and sought to determine to whom she would belong in the resurrection. While fictitious, this scenario was plausible because the law required that if a husband died without heirs, his brother was to marry the widow to preserve his lineage and continue his name, with the firstborn from this second marriage regarded as the son of the deceased. Holding no belief in the afterlife or resurrection, and assuming that Jesus shared the Pharisees' views on these matters, they relished the thought of ensnaring Him with such perplexing queries, hoping to mock Him and discredit the very doctrine of resurrection. Although some rabbis had a more elevated perspective on the afterlife, the majority clung to rather crude ideas. They envisioned the resurrection as a restoration not only of individuals to their previous physical forms but also to their previous desires and inclinations; the resurrected would partake in eating, drinking, and marrying, and even arise wearing the same garments they had before, with exact likenesses and imperfections, so that they could be recognized as those whom others had known in life. The question posed by the Sadducees had already found expression among the Rabbis, who suggested 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 crude, sensual notions in mind and a general rejection of resurrection (which, they believed, was not supported by the teachings of the Mosaic Pentateuch that they accepted), they approached the Savior with their inquiry.

The Sadducees' choice to state that one woman had seven husbands was an effort to mock the doctrine of resurrection, believing this would leave Jesus without a rebuttal. By invoking the Mosaic law and creating complications in reconciling it with the idea of resurrection, the Sadducees aimed to suggest that resurrection was, in their view, incompatible with the divine law intended to direct faith.

The Pharisees, whose understanding of the afterlife was grounded in a sensual comparison to earthly life, found themselves unable to adequately address this inquiry. At first glance, the reasoning of the Sadducees appeared compelling, yet, as St. John Chrysostom noted, it was based on 'some fable, an incident unprecedented.' By invoking the Mosaic Law regarding levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5-10; Genesis 38:8), they aimed to endow their hypothetical scenario with a facade of credibility, aiming for their conclusion to seem convincingly solid.

Like the Pharisees, they approached the Lord with all outward expressions of respect, saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote unto us, saying, If any brother die, and leave his wife, but leave no children, let his brother marry his wife, and raise up seed to his brother. There were seven brothers; the first married and died childless. The second married her, and he too died without children; likewise the third. All seven had her, and left no children. Last of all, the woman died. Now then, in the resurrection, when they rise again, whose wife will she be? For all seven had her as a wife.” The Pharisees might have argued that the woman would belong to the first husband after the resurrection, yet such a response would not resolve all complexities, leaving the claims of the other rightful husbands unaddressed. The Sadducees likely assumed that the Savior adhered to the Pharisaic belief in immortality, and thus anticipated that their question would place Him in a severe predicament. They believed He faced two options: either accept polygamy, which would contradict the Law of Moses, or deny the resurrection of the dead—convinced of their anticipated victory.