| Home | Our Hope | |
| Bible Study |
|
March 28, 2010 |
| Sadducees | ||
In the Gospels we mostly hear about the Pharisees but we sometimes hear about another group called the Sadducees.
27Some of the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus with a question.1
"The Sadducees […] were a group of Jews opposed to the Pharisees (today's Rabbinical Jews), founded in the second century BC. They ceased to exist sometime after the destruction of the second Temple in Jerusalem […] in 70AD."2
Josephus, writing from the 1st century about their beliefs says "The Sadducees are those that […] take away fate entirely, and suppose that God is not concerned in our doing or not doing what is evil; and they say, that to act what is good, or what is evil, is at men's own choice, and that the one or the other belongs so to everyone, that they may act as they please. They also take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in Hades."3
28"Teacher," they said, "Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his brother. 29Now there were seven brothers. The first one married a woman and died childless. 30The second 31and then the third married her, and in the same way the seven died, leaving no children. 32Finally, the woman died too. 33Now then, at the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?"
Their question refers to the "law of levirate marriage [which was] designed to perpetuate the line of descent for a man who had died childless (Deut 25:5; Ruth 4:1-12). If a man died without progeny, his brother would take his widow as his own wife and raise their children in the name of the deceased brother. Preserving the line of descent also kept land in the family, so numerous social consequences resulted from the practice."4
Their question involves what they believe to be a paradox or conflict within the scripture that proves their belief that there is no resurrection. The idea behind the question is that resurrection results in an unlawful situation, a woman with many husbands, and therefore resurrection is impossible.
This situation is very similar to the reasoning we saw in a previous lesson on Atheism. Atheists believe that omniscience results in an impossible situation and therefore omniscience is impossible.
34Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection.
Jesus does not answer the question directly because no direct answer is possible to the question "whose wife will she be". Instead Jesus points out the flaw in their reasoning that leads to the flawed question. The question presupposes that "relationships in the afterlife will be like those in this life."5, which Jesus points out is wrong. There will be no wives or husbands.
In saying that there is no marriage among the resurrected, Jesus is implying there is no more need for families because there is no more need to create and raise children, "nor is there any need to worry about continuing one's family line. This makes the afterlife a new paradigm of existence to which the problem the Sadducees have posed is irrelevant."[6]
Jesus' answer also shows that we also will not be children of parents as we now are. But we will be born again from the resurrection, as children of God.
In Matthew's account of this exchange with the Sadducees in Matt. 22:29 Jesus' reply is more direct. He says, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God." This would have been an insult to the Sadducees who thought themselves very knowledgeable in the scriptures.
While Jesus' answer puts an end to their question, it does not address the underlying false beliefs of the Sadducees. Jesus proceeds to correct these.
37But in the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord 'the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' 38He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive."
The reference here is to Exodus 3:6, which says "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." Therefore, Jesus' proof that the Sadducees are wrong rests on a verb tense, on "am" rather than "was". When we speak of the dead we might say, "He was a good friend of mine". Not so with God, the dead, as we think of them, are not dead to God.
By using a verb tense as the basis for his proof, the implication here is that the Old Testament had been so accurately copied through more than 1000 years that it was possible to use a distinction in verb tense as proof.
39Some of the teachers of the law responded, "Well said, teacher!" 40And no one dared to ask him any more questions.
Jesus' answer is so thorough and so founded in the scriptures that no debate is possible. In fact, the teachers of the law probably realize that further questions are only likely to display to the people how little the teachers know of the scriptures.
The Sadducees, as an organization, continued on somehow for another 40 years, despite having their core beliefs torn to shreds. They must have found some way to ignore or paper over what Jesus had said.
Having answered all the questions they would ask of him, Jesus asks them a question.
41Then Jesus said to them, "How is it that they say the Christ is the Son of David? 42David himself declares in the Book of Psalms:
'The Lord said to my Lord:
Sit at my right hand
43until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet."' 44David calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?"
Masoretic tampering with the scriptures coupled with English capitalization rules have made Jesus' question difficult for us to follow. Where it says "The Lord", the reference is to YHWH pronounced Yahweh or Jehovah. So Jesus' question comes in three parts, with the first two laying down the background.
Unlike the question asked of Jesus, this question is intended to teach those who are willing to learn. It appears the teachers of the law are stumped because we do not see an answer from them. Or perhaps they are afraid that any answer they give would only be shown as an indication of their lack of understanding.
"[H]e asked what thoughts they had of the promised Messiah? How he could be the Son of David and yet his Lord? He quotes Ps 110:1. If the Christ was to be a mere man, who would not exist till many ages after David's death, how could his forefather call him Lord? The Pharisees could not answer it. Nor can any[one] solve the difficulty except he allows the Messiah to be the Son of God, and David's Lord equally with the Father. He took upon him human nature, and so became God manifested in the flesh; in this sense he is the Son of man and the Son of David."7
As we've discussed previously, the Jews of that time and even of this time do not accept that the Messiah will be God, man-God, or anything but man. So Jesus' question continues to call out across time for the answer he still has not received from his people.
Jesus continues on to explain why the teachers of the law cannot answer his question.
45While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, 46"Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. 47They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely."
Jesus is saying that the teachers of the law have become focused on worldly matters and lost sight of the heavenly matters. Thus they have closed their eyes and do not understand what they are supposed to teach. So Jesus warns the people, as he does in other places, not to follow their pattern.
There are a variety of messages for us in this passage. First, we need to be careful about filling in Biblical gaps with human understanding. Until after Jesus' time there was not a lot written in the scriptures about the resurrection or what life would be like after that. We still don't have a clear picture. It's natural for us, as it was for the Sadducees, to try to understand God's kingdom and the heavenly realms according to earthly understanding. Trying to fill that gap with human understanding led to what appeared to be an internal conflict in the scripture.
In our time also there are people who use their human understanding to fill in the areas the Bible has not made clear and this results in apparent conflicts. It is always best to assume there are no internal conflicts in the Bible and that it must be our human understanding that is wrong. Even so, sometimes we just have to accept that we do not have the knowledge to resolve these apparent conflicts.
We also see in this passage that the scriptures are trustworthy to the finest detail. Even more, there is understanding to be found in the finest details. This passage contains two cases of apparent conflicts, Jesus resolves the first by supplying new information but he leaves the second unresolved as a teaching tool. God has assured us that the word he has given us is true and without fault or conflict.
We also see a question that provides us with Biblical support that the Messiah, Jesus, was God. Most Christians would respond … Duh! to that statement, but there are groups that call themselves Christians who do not believe it.
1. What do you think the Sadducees were trying to accomplish by asking Jesus this question?
2. What does Jesus mean when he says of the teachers of the law, "They devour widows' houses"?
3. What does it tell us that the Sadducees were able to continue on after Jesus destroyed their fundamental beliefs?
4. Can you name any conflicts that people have found within the Bible?
1 The Bible, NIV (this verse and all others)
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadducees
3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadducees (quoting Josephus)
4 http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/Luke/Controversy-Jerusalem
5 http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/Luke/Controversy-Jerusalem
6 http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/Luke/Controversy-Jerusalem
7 http://mhc.biblecommenter.com/matthew/22.htm (Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Bible)