comentarios sobre marcos 12.25

8/19/2019 Comentarios Sobre Marcos 12.25

1/51

18. The Sadducees. [ Marriage and the Resurrection, Mark 12:18–27=Matt. 22:23– 33=Luke 20:27–38. Major comment: Matthew.]

23. When they shall rise. Textual evidence is divided (cf. p. 146 !etween retainin" andomittin" these words.

24. Do ye not? The form of the #uestion in $ree% implies that &esus expected an

affirmative answer.26. As touching the dead. That is' as concernin" their resurrection from the dead. In the bush. ee )x. *:+' 6.2 . Do greatly err. This emphatic pronouncement appears in this stron" form onl, in

Mar%.1/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

18 -t is commonl, assumed that the adducees were an aristocratic part, consistin" ofthe hi"h priestl, and other leadin" families of &erusalem. ctuall, #uestions of their ori"inand development as well as their political and theolo"ical orientation are pro!lematic !ecause no certain adducean documents have !een preserved. The sources descri!in" the

adducees are fre#uentl, conflictin" in their reports and anta"onistic in intention. Thetheor, of a fundamental relationship !etween the adducees and the Temple is itself !asedon late source material and conjecture. /f the +0 hi"h priests who held office in the 1 23,ear period !etween erod5s appointment of nanel and the destruction of the Temple'onl, anan !en anan' who held office for three months' is identified as a adducee !,&osephus ( Antiquities 77. ix. 1 . The disputes !etween adducean and 8harisaic scri!esshow a pronounced interest in the Temple !ut do not warrant the assertion that the Templehierarch, was !, conviction adducean or was inclined to follow the traditions of the

adducees. -t is pro!a!le that the adducees !e"an as a political faction which supportedthe le"itimac, of the asmonean throne over the protest of the purists who insisted on aseparation of the priestl, and ro,al prero"atives or who loo%ed for a revival of the 9avidic%in"dom. The, also championed the soverei"n5s authorit, over the judiciar,' in oppositionto the concept of a separation of powers which would assi"n to a self3perpetuatin"esta!lishment of ordained scri!es a!solute authorit, in #uestions of &ewish law. fter thedeath of the last of the asmonean contenders' Mattathias nti"onus --' the adduceestended to assume a merel, ne"ative role' repudiatin" the authorit, of the 8harisaic scri!esand rejectin" their innovations !oth in the definition of the aw and in the details ofhala%hic re"ulation.

firm !elief in the resurrection was an inte"ral element in popular &ewish piet, asexpressed in the second !enediction of the hemoneh ;)sreh ( or in the doxolo", to !e pronounced in a cemeter,' < e will cause,ou to arise. =lessed !e he who %eeps his word and raises the dead?> (Tos. erachoth @--.A . The adducees' who too% their doctrinal stance from the 8entateuch' were notorious fotheir rejection of this !elief as a later innovation' and the provision of M.!anhedrin 7. 1was directed a"ainst them:


2/51

19–23 The use of cripture and an illustrative stor, to pose a challen"e to an acceptedinterpretation is t,pical of scri!al discussion. This su""ests that the dele"ation which posedtheir pro!lem to &esus consisted of adducean scri!es who' li%e their counterpart amon" the8harisees (cf. Ch. +:16 ' were specialists in !i!lical interpretation. The, referred to theMosaic provision for levirate marria"e' freel, citin" 9eut. +A:A f.' and tailored the stor, of

the woman and her seven hus!ands' all of whom died childless' to show that the ordinancehad !een literall, fulfilled. The stor, ma, have !een adapted from a popular version of the !oo% of To!it (for a woman married to seven hus!ands' all of whom died childless' cf.To!it *:0' 1AD 6:1*D 2:11D for levirate marria"e' cf. To!it 4:1+D 6:EF1+D 2:1+ f . Theirintention is to expose a !elief in the resurrection to ridicule with their confident #uestion'


3/51

articles (and possi!l, the firstD so 9 B and that the, were added !, assimilation toMatthewD !ut the matter is of st,listic rather than exe"etical interest.

The #uestion from the 8harisees and erodians was political' with a theolo"ical nuance.The adducees now pose a purel, theolo"ical #uestion' earthed in a specific test case.&esus5 response to this #uestion will !e a matter of complete indifference to the ^oman"overnment' !ut !ecause it focuses on an area of current controvers, on which thedominant ;parties5 in &erusalem were sharpl, divided' it carries the potential for alienatin"one or other faction amon" the listeners. -n addition' since the #uestioners seem to assumethat &esus supports the ;8harisaic5 notion of an afterlife' it offers the opportunit, to discredithim as a wise teacher !, presentin" him with a reductio ad a!surdum of that position whichan, 8harisaic teacher mi"ht !e expected to find e#uall, em!arrassin"' and so ma%in" himloo% ridiculous !efore the crowd.

; adducee5' a name used onl, here in Mar%' seems from &osephus and ra!!inic sourcesto denote a theolo"ical and le"al viewpoint' associated with the more ;aristocratic5 elementsin &ewish societ,' rather than a ti"htl, or"anised ;part,5. adducean views were espoused !, most of the prominent priestl, families' so that this viewpoint held a dominant positionin the anhedrin (the polarisation of views within the anhedrin' illustrated in cts +*:6F0'is stron"l, emphasised !, &osephus . This dele"ation therefore pro!a!l, represents theV_OQVQ Sἀ ῖ to whom Mar% fre#uentl, refers from 11:10 onwards' and who were at the heart

of the coalition a"ainst &esus (0:*1D 1 :**' etc. ' the specific name ` J X JS ῖ !ein" usedhere !ecause the point at issue was one distinctive of that theolo"ical position. t the heartof their distinctive views was a conservative view of reli"ious authorit, which rejectedmore recent oral tradition and "ave primac, to the written scriptures' with the five !oo%s ofthe Torah as the supreme canonical authorit,. The, therefore rejected the relativel, recentl,developed !elief in an afterlife.

8ro!a!l, onl, two passa"es in the /T clearl, express a !elief in resurrection and lifeafter death (-s. +6:1ED 9n. 1+:+ ' thou"h several poetic texts (nota!l, 8ss. 16:EF11D 4E:1A2*:+*F+6D &o! 1E:+AF+6 ma, !e seen with hindsi"ht to !e pointin" in that direction. bromthe second centur,=.C. onwards such a !elief !ecomes increasin"l, fre#uent and explicitespeciall, in apocal,ptic wor%s and in the traditions concernin" the mart,rs of theMacca!ean period. bor the 8harisees' with their openness to new developments in reli"iousthou"ht' it was therefore an attractive idea' and one which' accordin" to &osephus' the,enthusiasticall, adopted. =ut the adducees could find no !asis for such a !elief in the8entateuch' and the minimal pointers towards an afterlife in the rest of the /T were notsufficient for them to em!race the idea. bor them' as for most of the /T writers' heol wasa final restin" place' and an, continuit, was to !e understood in terms of reputation and posterit,' not in terms of personal survival.

The #uestion assumes that &esus shares the 8harisaic !elief. -n the rest of the s,noptictraditions there is not ver, much to support this assumption' !ut on a few occasions a lifeafter death is presupposed ( %. 14:14D 16:1EF*1D +*:4* D &esus5 predictions of his owresurrection (0:*1D E:E' *1D 1 :*4 are of course a special case. -t is onl, in this pericope'however' that &esus directl, deals with the issue' and here his support for the ;8harisaic5view is une#uivocal. e repudiates in stron" terms the adducean presuppositions of his#uestioners as erroneous (\ K JW O' vv. +4' +2 ' and as !ased on i"norance !oth of theimplications of the scriptures the, claimed as their authorit, and of the character of the $odto whom the, testif, (v. +4 . @erse +A then offers a description of the after3life' and vv. +6F


4/51

+2 provide a scriptural ar"ument to support !elief in the resurrection of the people of $od.This scriptural ar"ument is drawn' si"nificantl,' not from a later poetic passa"e of the /T' !ut from the account of Moses5 meetin" with $od in )x. *' a passa"e whose authorit, the

adducees could not dispute.The su!tlet, of the ar"ument is such that it is hard to !lame the adducees for not

havin" drawn this inference from the Moses stor,. -t has sometimes !een understood as asimplistic ar"ument from the tense of the ver! ;- am5 in )x. *:6' !ut there is no ver! eitherin the e!rew text or in Mar%5s #uotation (contrast Matthew' who follows the 77 ' andan ar"ument !ased on the tense of anune"#ressed ver! would !e not su!tle !ut simpl,invalid. The ar"ument is !etter understood as a reflection on the character of the covenant$od whom Moses encountered' a $od who throu"h his new name ;- M5 is revealed as thelivin" $od' the ever3present helper and deliverer of his people. -f such a $od chooses to !eidentified !, the names of his lon"3dead servants !raham' -saac' and &aco!' with whomhis covenant was made' and whom he committed himself to protect' the, cannot !e simpl,dead and for"otten: J Xὐ NLOKἔ PQJ RS KQXV Kῶ Rἀ KLZK. -t is a cr,ptic' allusive ar"umentworth, of a ra!!inic teacher' !ut its !asis' far from !ein" merel, the tense of a ver!' is inthe fundamental theolo"ical understandin" of gahweh' the livin" $od' and of theimplications of his esta!lishin" an ;everlastin" covenant5 with his mortal worshippers.

ll that' however' was the second sta"e of the ar"ument' where &esus ta%es the initiativeand challen"es the theolo"ical assumption underl,in" the #uestion. s far as the #uestionitself is concerned' L KJS L Kὐ ῶ NL Oἔ K D' while for the adducees it was apparentl, nomore than a de!atin" plo,' !ased on a totall, impro!a!le scenario of multiple remarria"eunder the levirate law' it must !e reco"nised that' "iven a !elief in an afterlife' it is in fact aver, real #uestion of considera!le pastoral si"nificance. )ven without a levirate law' peopledo remarr,' whether as a result of death or divorce' and the prospect of encounterin" morethan one former spouse in the afterlife is a real one. Bhat then !ecomes of themono"amous marria"e !ond' when it must !e shared in eternit, with more than one partnerG Bhile this is a more pressin" #uestion in our societ, with its culture of ;serial pol,"am,5 with or without formal divorce and remarria"e' alread, in &esus5 time' and even"iven his strict ethic of the indissolu!ilit, of marria"e' the issue was raised !, remarria"eafter !ereavement.

-n response to this concern &esus offers in v. +A a view of eternal life in which marria"eis apparentl, irrelevant. bor those for whom marria"e is the !asis of the deepest jo, andlove on earth' this is a hard sa,in". -t ma, !e miti"ated !, the fact that what &esus excludesfrom the afterlife is the #rocess of ;marr,in" and !ein" "iven in marria"e5 rather than theresultant state of !ein" marriedD !ut if that state is carried over into the next life' the pro!lem of ;competin"5 relationships remains. -nstead &esus su""ests that the earthl, perspective' within which the exclusiveness of the marria"e !ond has a central place' isinappropriate to a new #ualit, of life which is not li%e that of human !ein"s on earth !ut of;an"els in heaven5. )arthl, life is temporar,' and therefore re#uires the procreation offurther life' in the context of marria"e' for its continuance' !ut heavenl, life is eternal' andthere is no place in it for procreation. Marria"e and reproduction !elon" onl, to the earthl,sphere (note that it is marria"e' not love' which &esus declares to !e inappropriate inheaven . n"els' as eternal !ein"s' have no need to reproduce. nd in such a context theexclusiveness and jealous, which !elon" to marria"e are no lon"er appropriate. omethin"li%e that seems to !e the lo"ic of &esus5 ver, compressed ar"ument. -t is !ased on atheolo", of an"els and of heaven which is for us a matter of faith rather than experience'


5/51

and as such ma, leave man, readers less than satisfied. =ut its purpose is to challen"e theassumption of the adducees that an afterlife' if it exists' must !e just li%e this one' and cantherefore !e evaluated in terms of life on earth (cf. 1 Cor. 1A:A . That is to fail toappreciate Lk R K K WOK LJῦ PQJῦ.

s in previous dialo"ues' therefore' Mar% presents &esus as respondin" to a tric%

#uestion not onl, with a clever answer !ut also with one which offers positive theolo"ical(and in this case pastoral content which is appropriate not onl, to the immediate situationof the controvers, in the temple !ut also to the on"oin" life of the church. =rief andfrustratin"l, cr,ptic as it is' it provides a !asis for theolo"ical teachin".

18–19 The present tense of the clause J LOKQSἵ J NOK K NL NOKἀ Wk R Q K O ἶ indicatesthat it is not a specific description of this particular "roup !ut characterises the adducean position in "eneral. =, sin"lin" out this aspect of adducean !elief Mar% !oth sets thetheolo"ical context for the dialo"ue and su""ests the c,nical nature of a #uestion !ased on a !elief which the, themselves do not hold. The address O NX Q (cf. v. 14 is particularappropriate for what purports to !e a serious theolo"ical #uestion such as a ra!!i mi"ht !eexpected to pronounce on. nd li%e man, a ra!!inic #uestion' it starts from the common"round of a le"al text in the 8entateuch. bor specific attri!ution of a pentateuchal re"ulationto Z N Sῆ cf. 1:44D 2:1 D 1 :*F4. Bhat follows is a paraphrase of the !asic levirate law in9t. +A:AF6' which incorporates also an echo of the clause K NLkNJKἀ N\ VW Lῷ Qἀ ῷ NJ in 77 $n. *0:0' a famous example of that law in practice. The levirate law is !ased inthe assumption that a man5s ;survival5 is throu"h the continuation of the famil, line' and for those who could see no other form of ;resurrection5 this remained an important issue. Theuse of the ver! q K NL Nἐ ῃ in the echo of $n. *0:0 ( 77 K NLkNJKἀ ' followin" so soonafter the reminder that the adducees do not !elieve in K NL NOSἀ ' neatl, emphasises thatthis is the onl, sort of ;resurrection5 the, can envisa"e. Bhile there is little evidence of theo!servance of this law in the /T (and in the two instances recorded there is resistance onthe part of the survivor: $n. *0:EF1 D ^u. 4:6F0 ' the existence of a lar"e !od, of ra!!iniclaw on the su!ject (Mishnah' tractate$e%a&ot indicates that it was still in force in the timeof &esus.

20–23 The test case is pro!a!l, to !e re"arded as fictitious (thou"h Matthew5s additionof \ V̓ W Kἡ ῖ ' echoed in some Bestern M of Mar%' su""ests that in his view the,intended it to !e ta%en as factual ' desi"ned to discredit a doctrine of resurrection whichcould lead to such an em!arrassin" outcome. The stor, of arah' the survivor of sevenunconsummated marria"es (To!. *:0 ' ma, have su""ested the scenario to them' thou"hthere is no levirate principle involved in that stor,' merel, repeated widowhood andremarria"e' with a happ, endin". The clause L Kὅ K NL NOKἀ ῶ in v. +* (see Textual Iote 'while it ma, seem redundant after Kἐ Lῇ K NL NQOἀ ' perhaps serves to draw out the point ofthe stor,: ;whena'' eight o( the& rise5.

24 s with the poll tax' &esus5 response is not a simple answer to the #uestion' !ut arepudiation of the assumptions on which it was !ased. =ut this time he does not simpl, setaside their ;error5 (\ K JW OD cf. also v. +2 ' !ut anal,ses it. O R LJ LJῦ normall,' as inMar%5s other two uses of the phrase (6:14D 11:+4 ' refers !ac% to the immediatel, precediwords as the reason' !ut here there are no precedin" words of &esus' and it is more naturall,understood (as in the phrases O R LJ LJῦ LOὅ and O R LJ LJῦ Kἵ as introducin" a reasonwhich is then spelled out in the participial clause Wk R Q LQSἰ . The !asis of their error istwofold. birst of all' the, do not %now L RS V SD for the plural cf. 14:4E. bor the

adducees' who saw their position as !ased on cripture and not on later ideas' that was a


6/51

particularl, woundin" accusation' and one which &esus will need to justif, in vv. +6F+2.Bhether the, would accept that his interpretation of cripture there was le"itimate ma,well !e dou!ted. =ut more fundamentall, the, have also missed Lk R K K WOK LJῦ PQJῦ.^esurrection is not a matter of human potential !ut of divine powerD their rejection of it isthe product of a secular perspective. -t is this char"e which is developed in v. +A.

25 W Z normall, denotes the !ride"room5s action' ;ta%e a wife5' W Z the father;"ive in marria"e5' and the ver!s are similarl, com!ined in Mt. +4:*0D %. 12:+2' thou"hthe uses of !oth ma, !e flexi!le' and there is disa"reement over which sense is intended inthe other IT use of W Z in 1 Cor. 2:*0. The two ver!s to"ether spea% of marria"e as asocial institution' appropriate to earthl, life !ut not to the life to come. The ar"ument doesnot re#uire that an"els !e sexless !ein"s' !ut merel, that the, have no need to reproduceand therefore to marr,.A1 The ar"ument from the nature of an"els would carr, little wei"htwith the adducees if' as u%e asserts' the, did not !elieve in them ( cts +*:0F1 ' !ut

u%e5s assertion (which is not echoed in &osephus5s accounts of the adducees issurprisin" in that there is no shorta"e of an"els in the 8entateuch on which adducean !eliefs were supposedl, !ased.*/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

12:18–27 * The Question of Resurrection

18/ And Sadduccees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, andthey asked him, sayin , 1!/ "Teacher, #oses wrote for us, $%f a man&s'rother dies and (ea)es 'ehind a wife, and does not (ea)e a chi(d, (et his'rother take the wife and raise u* chi(dren for his 'rother+& 2 / There werese)en 'rothers- and the first took a wife, died, and (eft no offs*rin +21/ And the second took her and died without (ea)in 'ehind anyoffs*rin + And the third (ikewise+ 22/ And none of the se)en (eft offs*rin +.ast of a((, the woman a(so died+ 2 / %n the resurrection, when they rise, towhich of them wi(( she 'e wife0 or the se)en had her as wife+ 23/ 4esussaid to them, "%s it not for this reason that you are mistaken, that youknow neither the scri*tures nor the *ower of 5od0 26/ or when they risefrom the dead, they neither marry nor are i)en in marria e, 'ut they are(ike an e(s in the hea)ens+ 2 / ow concernin the dead, that they areraised, ha)e you not read in the 'ook of #oses in the *assa e a'out thethorn'ush how 5od said to him, $% am the 5od of A'raham and the 5od of %saac and the 5od of 4aco'&0 27/ 95od is not a 5od of the dead, 'ut ofthe (i)in + ;ou are )ery much mistaken+

5enre of 12:18–27 *

7 R. -. France, The Gospel of Mark : a commentary on the Greek text ( randRa2ids, 3ich.# arlisle4 *. . 6erd+ans# Paternoster Press, $%%$&, ' ) ! .


7/51


8/51

elsewhere in Mar% (Mar% 1:44D 2:1 D 1 :* . Hnli%e the interlocutors of 1 :4' who citeMoses5 teachin" in response to a #uestion from &esus' the adducees here ta%e the initiativ !, referrin" to what Moses wrote. The, do not cite scripture exactl, !ut offer a conflated paraphrase of 9eut +A:AF6 and $en *0:0.1 A The topic that the, raise with this dou!leallusion is levirate marria"e.

The )n"lish expression

=oth the 77 and the ra!!is stipulated that levirate marria"e was necessar, onl, if thedeceased !rother had no offsprin" whatsoever' unli%e the MT' which refers to (|}(9eut +A:A MT . The 77 refers to (N\ VW .

2 –22 * fter alludin" to the law of 9eut +A:AF1' the adducees construct ah,pothetical case. There were seven !rothers.11 The first married and died without leavin" has several effects in the context. bor onethin"' it ma%es fun of the !elief in resurrection. bor another' it attempts to reduce the lo"icof !elief in resurrection to an a!surdit, (reductio ad a%surdu& . binall,' it ma, impl, thatMoses did not teach resurrection' since he did not foresee such a pro!lem. There is perhaps

an analo", in a #uestion put !, to ^a!!i &oshua !en ananiah. The,as%ed him whether the resurrected dead would need to !e sprin%led with water on the thirdand the seventh da,s (to remove the ritual impurit, resultin" from contact with a corpse .^a!!i &oshua replied'


9/51

!odil, t,pe of resurrection. 9an 1+:+F* envisa"es a spiritual or heavenl, t,pe ofresurrection.11A + Macca!ees' however' does not mention marital relations as an aspect ofresurrected life.

Two apocal,pses written thirt, to fort, ,ears after Mar% express the expectation thatthere will !e an earthl, messianic rei"n followed !, the eternal new a"e.- /ra 2:+0F44

descri!es the revelation of the messiah' an earthl, messianic rei"n for four hundred ,ears'the death of the messiah and all others livin" at that time' seven da,s of primeval silence'and then the appearance of the new' incorrupti!le world' the resurrection' and the jud"ment.

lthou"h the messianic a"e is earthl,' the resurrection ta%es place after its end. Theresurrection life is portra,ed as spiritual and heavenl, (- /ra 2:EAFE0 .2 aruch +Espea%s a!out an earthl, messianic rei"n in which those who have survived to that point willfeast upon =ehemoth and eviathan' will have an a!undance of wine' and will eat manna.=ut all this ta%es place !efore the resurrection' which is descri!ed !riefl, in chapter * . -n amore detailed discussion of the resurrection' it is stated that those who rise will !ereco"ni a!le to those who %new them' !ut then the, will !e transformed into a "lorious'heavenl, form (2 aruch A FA1 .

8aul =iller!ec% concluded that the majorit, of &ews in the time of &esus !elieved in theresurrection and expected marital relations to !e a normal part of resurrected life. -n supportof this conclusion' he cited two ra!!inic passa"es that commented on ) e%iel *2 to theeffect that those who had !een raised !, ) e%iel had children afterward. =ut thisinterpretation is a case of the resuscitation of a corpse to ordinar, human life' not theeschatolo"ical resurrection of the dead. e cited a num!er of other passa"es !ut admittedthat the, ma, refer to the earthl, messianic a"e and not to the eternal new a"e.1+1 -n li"ht ofthe evidence' it is li%el, that the #uestion of the adducees is !ased on a caricature of the !elief in resurrection current amon" &ews in the first centur,C) .

23–26 * The response of the Mar%an &esus here differs from that of ^a!!i &oshua !enananiah in the passa"e cited a!ove and from his own response in vv. 1*F12 to the

#uestion a!out pa,in" tax to Caesar. -n !oth of those cases' wit or humor is used to evadethe #uestion. ere &esus ta%es the #uestion seriousl,' not !, answerin" it !ut !, #uestionin"its premise. The #uestioners are re!u%ed indirectl, for ta%in" as a premise a caricature of !elief in resurrection. The explicit accusation in v. +4 is that the, are mista%en !ecausethe, %now neither the scriptures nor the power of $od.

The statement in v. +A corrects the adducees5 false premise: (2 ar .A1:1 . The, will see 8aradise' the livin" creatures !eneath the throne of $od and thearmies of the an"els. (2 ar . A1:11F1+ . There is no thou"ht of marria"e in this heavenl,scenario.1+6


10/51

2 –27 * =ultmann ar"ued that these verses constitute a later expansion of an ori"inalcontrovers,3dialo"ue that consisted of vv. 10F+A.1+2 iterar, ar"uments can !e made'however' for ta%in" vv. +6F+2 as an inte"ral part of the anecdote. The controvers,3dialo"ue has a concentric structure. The response of &esus in v. +A is directed to theexplicit #uestion of the adducees in vv. 1EF+*. The response in vv. +6F+2' however' is

directed to the description of the adducees in v. 10 as not acceptin" the idea ofresurrection. The latter response either presupposes that &esus %nows that the, areadducees and reject resurrection' or it is directed at the audience of Mar%' who have !een

told a!out that rejection. /r' if one accepts Bellhausen5s ar"ument that the #uestion of theadducees implies that Moses did not !elieve in resurrection'1+0 then &esus5 allusion to )xod

*:6 ma, !e ta%en as an ar"ument that Moses did' on the contrar,' accept the idea ofresurrection. &esus5 ar"ument is !ased on Moses5 description of $od as the $od of

!raham' -saac' and &aco!. =ut' since $od is a $od not of the dead !ut of the livin"'1+E !raham' -saac' and &aco! must !e livin" now (or will live a"ain in the future .

-n an, case' !oth v. +A and vv. +6F+2 constitute responses characteristic of a t,picalcorrection stor,. The, express &esus5 own positions' which contrast sharpl, with those ofhis #uestioners.1* dditional ar"uments for the unit, of the anecdote as it occurs in Mar%include the o!servation that the last two verses round out the anecdote with aninterpretation of scripture that corresponds in a contrastin" manner to the scriptural citationof the #uestioners in v. 1E.1*1 burthermore' &esus5 initial statement in v. +4 introduces hiswhole ar"ument. =ecause the interlocutors do not %now the scriptures' the, den, the realit,of the resurrection (vv. +6F+2D !ecause the, do not %now the power of $od' the,misunderstand the nature of resurrected life (v. +A.1*+

Man, scholars have concluded that' in v. +6' &esus ar"ues in a wa, similar to thera!!is.1** 9an M. Cohn3 her!o%' however' has ar"ued that the ,noptic &esus


11/51

The sixth rule attri!uted to illel' can !e seen as !ased on one of the scriptural passa"es mentioned a!ove' then this rule could stand !ehindthe Mar%an &esus5 ar"ument. The lo"ic is less apparent than the potential application of th

fifth rule' discussed a!ove.-n an, case' the ar"umentation of &esus has some similarit, to certain ra!!inicar"uments concernin" the resurrection. -n the Mishnah' it is stated that all -sraelites have ashare in the world to come. =ut the unri"hteous will not have a share' for example' (&. !anh . 1 .1 . -n the=a!,lonian Talmud' in relation to this mishnah' the #uestion is raised' < ow is resurrectionderived from the TorahG> and answered' < s it is written' And e sha'' gi)e thereo( the

Lord s hea)e o((ering to Aaron the #riest [Ium 10:+0 ]. =ut would aron live for everD hedid not even enter 8alestine' thatteru&ah [the heave offerin"] should !e "iven him [the priestl, dues were rendered onl, in 8alestine]G =ut it teaches that he would !e resurrected'and -srael "ive himteru&ah . Thus resurrection is derived from the Torah> (%. !anh . EE! .

nother ra!!inic ar"ument is even more similar to that of the Mar%an &esus: (%. !anh . EE! . =oth of these texts' however' unli%e the Mar%ananecdote' seem to presuppose an earthl, existence after the resurrection.

To support the idea that the dead rise' &esus refers to


12/51

alread, in the presence of $od. The main points are that the patriarchs experienceresurrection (vv. +6F+2 and that resurrection is spiritualD that is' it does not involve anearthl, t,pe of life.

&esus5 entire repl, to the adducees (vv. +4F+2 ends with aninc'usio . The statementopens and closes with the accusation (\ K NPQᾶ .

12:28– 3 * The 5reatest

borm critics la!el this pericope a pronouncement stor, presented as a controvers,dialo"ue (Ta,lor' bormation' 6AD =ultmann' istor , +6 . =ultmann thin%s the stor, derivesfrom the earl, church' perhaps out of ra!!inic materials (with vv +6F+2 added later .8erhaps' !ut there is no Christian content. Bh, would Christians create tradition that doesnot advance the %er,"ma or clarif, an, si"nificant aspect of Christolo",G -ndeed' are we to !elieve that earl, Christians invented a controvers, dialo"ue' so that &esus could ma%e a pronouncement on the topic of the resurrection' ,et without a hint of his own resurrectionGThis lac% of specific Christian content ar"ues for an ori"in in the life of &esus ( it im

e!en &esu . Moreover' there was no de!ate !etween Christians and earl, ra!!inic &udaismover the #uestion of the resurrectionD all sides !elieved in it. Thus' there is no post3)astercontext or occasion that can plausi!l, account for the creation of the tradition. pre3)asterori"in in the life of &esus is more pro!a!le (see Meier' 9! 5 22 [+ ] *F+4 .

Adela 8arbro ollins, Harold *. Attridge, 0 Harold *. Attridge, Mark : ACommentary on the Gospel of Mark , Her+eneia99a critical and historicalco++entar0 on the ible (3innea2olis4 Fortress Press, $%%!&, 55!)5'5.


13/51

get it is difficult to see how this exchan"e !etween &esusand the !adducees ishistorical. There are two principal difficulties: (1 Bh, would adducees ta%e an, interestin an itinerant teacher from $alileeG -f their interest was a malevolent one (which would !eunderstanda!le ' then wh, as% a #uestion a!out the resurrectionG -f the adducees wereafraid that &esus posed a serious threat' then wh, not as% #uestions a!out the %in"dom of

$od and other aspects of social chan"e on which accusations could !e !asedG (+ The#uestion itself seems out of place. The polemic of Mar% 11F1+ centers on the templeesta!lishment and policies of which &esus is critical. The #uestion of the resurrection fits !etter the earlier period of &esus5 ministr,' where a!!ath law and #uestions of divorce and purit, were discussed. =ut is it pro!a!le that &esus would have encountered a adducee in$alileeG /ne wa, that the pericope could !e accepted in its present context is to view thosewho #uestioned &esus as scri!es with adducean affiliation. The #uestion then mi"ht not !eout of place. Man, #uestions were thrown at &esus' mostl, of a dan"erous %ind ( or ' !ut othersma, have !een part of the t,pical ra!!inic3school de!ates in which #uestions a!out theresurrection or the "reatest commandment (1+:+0F*4 ma, have !een raised. The evan"elistMar% has "athered these various traditions' some from &erusalem' some not' somedan"erous' some not' into the present literar, context.

ccordin"l,' what we pro!a!l, have here is a piece of "enuine' !ut rewor%ed andrecontextuali ed' exe"esis from &esus in support of the resurrection. =ecause this exe"esisopposes adducean interpretation' the evan"elistƒor more li%el, the tradition !efore him ƒhas introduced the pericope in the context of &esus5 #uarrels with the temple authoritiesand has specificall, credited the adducees with as%in" the #uestion. adducean presencein the temple3precinct controversies also rounds out the cast of opponents arra,ed a"ainst&esus.

$iven the Mar%an context of polemic (i.e.' the temple authorities vs. &esus ' theadducees5 #uestion re"ardin" the resurrection ma, have !een an attempt to draw &esus out

with respect to ideas of eschatolo", and restoration. -n its ori"inal settin"' the #uestion pro!a!l, had onl, to do with the resurrection as an academic point of dispute' !ut in theMar%an context the #uestion ma, !e understood as havin" !roader implications. )ver,"roup of major political and reli"ious si"nificance in &erusalem will ta%e a swin" at &esus.is now the adducees5 turn' and the, too will !e !ested in the ar"ument.

$o""ent

18 V_JKL Oἔ ̀ J X JO ῖ \VJ RS L Kὐ ' J LOKQSἵ J NOK K NL NOKἀ Wk R Q K O ἶ ' X O R \kV LZKἐ L Kὐ ' ma, have come from the adjective† ‰Š‹ s *add q,ɩ s *;d


14/51

the adducees' we should not !e surprised to see them sometimes mentioned to"ether withrulin" priests' sometimes as allies ( cts 4:1F4D 1A:12F10 . Be should not' however' assumethat all adducees were priests' or that most priests' even rulin" priests' were adducees.&osephus descri!es onl, one hi"h priest' nanus' as a adducee (cf. Ant. + .E.1 ˆ1EE: < efollowed the school of the adducees [ VQNOKἵ . . . Lk R K ` J X ZK]> . bor more on this

point' see $. $. 8orton' < adducees'> A A:0E4./n the adducees5 denial of the resurrection' see cts 4:+D +*:6F0 ( D 9.@. +.0.14 ˆ16A(< s for the persistence of the soul [’ _ Sῆ ] after death' penalties in ades' and rewards'the, will have none of them> .

K NL NOSἀ '


15/51

provides a more li%el, !ac%drop. -n her case' however' not one of the marria"es wasconsummated' for the evil demon smodeus slew each hus!and !efore the, had cometo"ether. -n the adducees5 h,pothetical example the phrase UQKἔ K X ῖ ' The six !rothers of theori"inal hus!and dutifull,' each in his turn' too% the widow as a wife. get not one was a!leto !e"et a child !, her. -n the end the woman died childless' havin" !een married to allseven !rothers.

23 Kἐ Lῇ K NL NQOἀ Q[ L Kὅ K NL NOKἀ ῶ ] L KJS L Kὐ ῶ NL Oἔ K D Jἱ RV \L Rἑ N_JKἔ Lk R Kὐ K X ῖ '


16/51

man> he will sit -t is widel, assumed

that the adducees did not !elieve in an"els (cf. cts +*:0 . =ut an"els are in the Torah' that part of &ewish cripture the adducees accepted as inspired and authoritative. Thus' &esusstatement that the resurrected ri"hteous ones will !e as an"els in heaven ma, not !e furthersarcasm (as $undr,' Matthe , 446 !ut an extension of &esus5 defense of the resurrection !ased on the Torah (see 9avies and llison' Matthe *:++2F+0 . =elief that humans inheaven will !e an"el3li%e is well attested in the literature of the 5 period (1 noch 1 4:4'6: D Mart. o'. +D cf. 1 ! 4:+4F+6D 4 A11 [ 4 hir !] *A 4D Mek. on )xod14:+E [=e allah ˆ2 .s

26 \QVO R Q R L Kῶ KQXV Kῶ LOὅ Q VJKL Oἐ ' or $od pro!a!l, draws on -sa +6:1E:


17/51

‰~Žyš}—‘|–‡–†— ih * D &Bte k; n %B';t qD&Dnɩ ].> ppeals to the 8rophets (such as -sa+6:1E or the Britin"s (such as 9an 1+:+ and &o! 1E:+6 would !e insufficient to the

adducees. Can &esus find evidence of the resurrection in the passa"e from the aw towhich he has alludedG

UV WἈ ' < !raham.> The name !raham ( e!.…ŽŽ• —}„€a%r;h;&˒ ' the famousfoundin" patriarch' occurs some thirt,3two times in the 5 $ospelsD the onl, occurrence inMar% is here in v +6. -n material found onl, in u%e' &esus addresses the woman with thecurved spine as and X U' The names -saac ( e!.†Žz—‰ is *h *;q and &aco!

( e!. }›†œŽ a EqF%˓ occur in the ,noptics almost alwa,s to"ether and alon" with thename of !raham. The names of the three patriarchs occur in a tradition in which theimpenitent are told: ( u%e1*:+0 . -n the Matthean form of the tradition the impenitent are told that


18/51

illel5s seven interpretive principles' it is "ratuitous to assert' as Cohn3 her!o% does ( 9! 5 11 [1E01] 2* ' that &esus5 exe"esis is part fromthe anachronism that underlies this assertion' &esus5 ar"ument ma, in fact !e an example of

illel5s third principle ( . 9ownin"( 9! 5 1A [1E0+] 4+FA thin%s so. 9ownin" notes too that &esus5 ar"ument parallels ver,

closel, an ar"ument 8hilo ma%es' where!, the three "reat patriarchs are spo%en of aseternal (cf. 8hilo' A%raha& A FAA . 9ownin" also cites 4 Macc 2:10F1E: That is' the adducees have wandered (theliteral meanin" of \ K Kᾶ far from the truth. The, are "reatl, mista%en !ecause the, %now (v +4 . ee Mar% 1*:AF6' where &esus warhis disciples a"ainst false prophets who will tr, to lead them astra, (\ K Kᾶ .

%&'lanation

The evan"elist portra,s &esus in on"oin" sparrin" with various opponents. )ver sincehis arrival in &erusalem (11:1F11 ' tension !etween &esus and the temple esta!lishment has !een escalatin". &esus5 dramatic action in the temple precincts (11:1AF12 resulted in therulin" priests5 desire to destro, him (11:10 . This notice sets the tone for the remainder of passion wee%. ^ulin" priests' scri!es' and elders approach &esus and demand to %now !,what authorit, he is doin" these thin"s (11:+2F+0 . The para!le of the Bic%ed @ine,ardTenants (1+:1F11 offers an implicit answer to the priests5 #uestion. The, wish to arrest him !ut cannot on account of &esus5 popularit, with the crowd (1+:1+ . 8harisees and erodian put to &esus the sensitive #uestion of pa,in" taxes to Caesar: hould a Torah3o!servant &ew pa, taxes or notG (1+:1*F12 . The #uestion was intended to ma%e it possi!le to destro,&esus. false step here and &esus would !e su!ject to arrest. nd finall,' the #uestion oflevirate marria"e in the resurrection (1+:10F+2 was intended to destro, &esus5 credi!ilit, inthe e,es of the crowd with which he was so popular. =ut a"ain &esus stands his "round' anda"ain his opponents5 lose face.

&esus5 teachin" does not simpl, answer effectivel, the ill3intentioned #uestion of hisopponentsD it affords &esus the opportunit, to spea% on an important topic. /n what !asisdoes &esus !elieve in the resurrectionG Io appeal is made to -sa +6:1E' 9an 1+:+' 8s 16:EF 11' or &o! 1E:+6' texts that more or less support the doctrine. &esus instead appeals to thever, character and !ein" of $od himself. e is the $od of the livin"' not the $od of thedead. -f he is the $od of !raham' -saac' and &aco!ƒas he disclosed himself to Moses the"reat law"iverƒthen life' not death' will surel, !e the destin, of all those lin%ed to him in


19/51

faith. -f all $od5s people are destined to perish and to remain dead' then in what sense is hethe $od of the livin"G The livin" $od will surel, rei"n over a livin" people. Theresurrection is accordin"l, a lo"ical inference and' for those who experience the power of$od' it is an experiential inference.A/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

18–27 5he ne"t attack on 9esus co&es (ro& another source. 5he !adducees, the #riest' c'ass, %eing dis%e'ie)ers in the resurrection, %ring to hi& hat is a##arent' their standing o%6ection, o( a o&an ha)ing se)en hus%ands here, and ask hi& hose i(e she

i'' %e in the resurrection. 9esus ans er is in t o #arts: (irst, that there is no &arriage inthe resurrection state? and second' , that hen Cod ca''s hi&se'( the Cod o( A%raha&,

saac, and 9aco%, their continued 'i(e is i'ied. An thing e'se is inconsistent ith thatre'ation .

18 !"##$%&" $' ῖ ƒThe word denotes the sect as ado%ites. There is little dou!t that theword itself comes from this proper name ado%' and not from† ‰Š‹' meanin"righteous .8ro!a!l,' the particular ado% meant is the priest who distin"uished himself !, his fidelit,in the time of 9avid. + am. 1A:+4 s#.' 1 ž. 1:*+ s#. fter the return from the exile' amon"the different families constitutin" the priesthood' the sons of ado% seem to have occupiedthe chief place. The, were the aristocrac, of the priesthood' and ) e%iel assi"ns themexclusive ri"hts to its functions. ) . 4 :46' 4*:1E' 44:1A' 40:11. The adducees' that is tosa,' were the part, of the priests' and especiall, of the priestl, aristocrac,. s a school ofopinion' the, were characteri ed !, the denial of the authorit, of tradition' maintainin" thesole authorit, of the written criptures. s corollaries of this' the, denied the resurrection'and the existence of an"els or spirits. X O R \kV LZKἐ LJ R Kὐ ' JKLQSƒ and the questionedhi&, sa ing.

\kV LZKἐ ' instead of \kV LkN Kἐ ' Tisch. Tre". B . ^@.„ =C9 Ÿ **' att. 8esh. Memph.

19 &"' +ἀ ῇ ,-&.$./ ."ἵ ῃ ὁ # +$ ἀ " ,$ὐ ῦ , . %." &" ῖ ƒ and 'ea)e no chi'd,that his %rother take the o&an .

L XKJK' instead of L XK ' Tisch. Tre".&arg. B . ^@. „ ca = Ÿ 1' 10' +41' +EE'&ss. at. @et.Memph. /mit LJὐ ῦ after Lk R K K X ῖ ' Tisch. Tre". B .„ =C Ÿ 1' 61' + E' one&s. at. @et. Memph.This #uotation is from 9eut. +A:A' 6. -t is introduced in order to show that the law itself

provides for these successive marria"es' thus expressl, le"ali in" these successiverelations' which the resurrection would ma%e simultaneous. Their #uestion is' therefore'whether the same criptures teach this' and the resurrection' which is inconsistent with it.The #uotation does not attempt to reproduce the lan"ua"e.

21 &"," ' . - " ƒ not ha)ing 'e(t seed.Wk R X L O\Z R K' instead of X O R J Q Rὐ LJ RSὐ XQἀ ῆ ' and neither did he 'ea)e ' Tisch. Tre". B . ^@.„

=C **' one&s. at. @et. )",ptt.

22 &"' $ἱ ," ἑ $ &ὐ + &".ἀ ῆ - " ƒ and the se)en 'e(t no seed .

5 raig A. 6vans, Word Biblical Commentary : Mark :!"-#$:!% , vol. 7 , *ordiblical o++entar0 (Dallas4 *ord, ncor2orated, $%%$&, $51)$5".


20/51

/mit UJKἔ Lk R Kὐ X O R !efore J Xὐ X Kἀ ῆ ' Tisch. Tre". B . ^@.„ =C9 Ÿ +0' **' Memph.This childlessness is specified as the chief element in the indeterminateness of the

#uestion' since if either of them had had children' that mi"ht have decided the #uestion towhom the woman !elon"ed.

N_ LJKἔ \ KLZK X O R ἡ Kk R \ P KQKἀ ƒ 'ast o( a'' the o&an died a'so.

N_ LJKἔ ' instead of N_ Lkἐ ' Tisch. Tre". B . ^@.„ =C$ ž Ÿ 1' 1*' +0' **' 6E'&ss. at. @et.)",ptt. 8esh.

23 .ἐ ,ῇ ." , 'ἀ , .$ " , .ὐ ῶ ,"'ἔ %.;Dƒ n the resurrection, hose i(e sha'' she %e o( the&H This was pro!a!l, the standin" pu le of the adducees' in which the,sou"ht to discredit the resurrection !, reducin" it to an a!surdit,.

/mit J Kὖ ' there(ore ' !efore K NL NQOἀ ' Tisch. Tre". B . ^@.„ =C )b H@7 ¡ two&ss. at.@et. /mit L K! K NL NOKἀ ῶ ' hene)er the arise. Tre". B . ^@.„ =C9 Ÿ +0' **' two&ss. at. @et.)",ptt. 8esh.

24 +Ἔ " ,$ὐ ῖ ὁ $ Ἰ ῦ /


21/51

27 < &ὐ ,'.ἔ @ $ . & .ῶ " ἀ AB., . ƒBithout the art.' £QJ RS !ecomes the pred.'not the su!j.' and KQXV Kῶ is also anarthrous' so that it reads' e is not a Cod o( dead &en,%ut o( 'i)ing .

s this is commonl, explained' it is made to hin"e on the use of the present' instead ofthe past. The statement is' heis their $od' not he as D and hence' the, are still livin". =ut

this is anon sequitur ' since it is a common expression in re"ard to !oth dead and livin"' andwould !e ta%en in the same sense' or used in the same sense' !, either 8harisees oradducees. =ut it follows from the nature of $od that' when he calls himself the $od of

an, people' certain thin"s are implied in the statement a!out these people'e.g. that the, areri"hteous' not sinnersD !lessed' not wretchedD and here livin"' not dead. That is' immortalit,ma, !e inferred from the nature of $od himself in the case of those whom he calls his. =ut&esus applies it to the resurrection of the dead "enerall,' and not simpl, of the ri"hteousdead. Bhat the adducees denied was the possi!ilit, of the resurrection on materialistic"roundsD at the !asis of their denial of the resurrection was the other denial of spiritual !ein". =ut &esus proves the possi!ilit, of the resurrection !, examples.+ Iotice that &esusdoes not reveal the fact of the resurrection' !ut ar"ues it from ac%nowled"ed premises.$iven' he sa,s' the fact of $od' and the resurrection follows. e reco"ni es the rational"round of immortalit,. nd what is of more importance' he reco"ni es the validit, of ourintuition a!out $od. Be can sa, that certain thin"s ma, !e assumed a!out him on first principles.

/mit ὁ !efore £QJ RS' Tre". B . ^@. =9ž M &arg. Ÿ . /mit £QJ RS !efore KLZK' Tisch. Tre".B . ^@. „ =C9bž M &arg. H7 Ÿ att. )",ptt. 8esh.

$ % ". =ᾶ ƒ ou &ake a great &istake. This concise statement at the close ma%esan a!rupt' !ut for that reason' forci!le endin" of the conversation.

/mit WQ S# ῖ J Kὖ ' ou there(ore ' Tisch. Tre". B . ^@.„ =C Ÿ one&s. at. @et. Memph.6

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////The main assertions of this pronouncement stor, are in vv. +A and +2. The account

certainl, has 8alestinian roots and was not the invention of the $entile church. This is seenin the ra!!inic form of ar"ument of !oth the adducees and &esus and the allusion to the&ewish law of levirate marria"e.

-n recordin" the account' Mar% set forth evidence for the Christian !elief inresurrection' a !elief often assailed !, $reco3^oman critics who conceived of the !od, assomethin" evil and worth, onl, of perishin". Mar% also "ave some indication of thespiritual nature of the resurrection. Io dou!t some Christians in his da, were stillinfluenced !, the crude' materialistic concept of some 8harisees. Mar%5s emphasis on the

spiritual nature of the resurrection places him at one with 8aul (1 Cor 1A:*AFA .12:18 The adducees are mentioned explicitl, onl, here in Mar%5s $ospel.Comparativel, little is %nown a!out them' and there is uncertaint, a!out several items. Ione of their own literature has survived' and all references to them are in the writin"s of

' 6:ra Pal+er ould, A critical and exe&etical commentary on the Gospelaccordin& to St' Mark (New 8or;4 .


22/51

their enemies (the Iew Testament' &osephus' ra!!inic literature . The name is thou"ht to !ederived from that of ado%' a hi"h priest in 9avid5s time (+ am + :+A .

The adducees seem to have emer"ed as an identifia!le part, durin" late Macca!ean orearl, asmonean times' i.e.' the second centur,=.C. The, were wealth, aristocrats andwere pro!a!l, amon" the a!sentee estate owners alluded to in 1+:1. 8oliticall, the, were

ver, li!eral and were #uite willin" to cooperate with the authorities of the ^omanoccupation in order to preserve their favored position. -n fact' the, were more of a politicalthan a reli"ious part,' despite the followin" considerations. Theolo"icall, the, were #uiteconservative. The, usuall, were associated with the temple' the hi"h priesthood itself' andthe hi"h priestl, officialdom' althou"h onl, one hi"h priest was explicitl, identified as a

adducee. -t is uncertain whether the, accepted onl, the 8entateuch as cripture' as wasclaimed !, later Christian writers' or whether the, merel, ascri!ed more authorit, to it thanthe 8rophets and the Britin"s. Bhat is certain is that the, rejected the oral tradition of thescri!es (


23/51

will !e no further marria"es in heaven. 8ro!a!l, the !est understandin" is that no Christianwill !e deprived of an, meanin"ful relationship with !elievin" famil, mem!ers and friends. Iot the "rief of loss !ut the surpassin" jo, of new and e#uall, meanin"ful relationshipsmar%s life in $od5s famil,' whether now in the church or in the future.

12:26–27 The inexact wa, in which )xod *:6 is cited is understanda!le since ancient

=i!les had no chapters and verses as do modern ones. The $ree% reads literall, =ut as the su!ject is death and resurrection' we are not warranted to extend thee#ualit, here tau"ht !e,ond the one pointƒthei&&orta'it of their nature. !eautifulclause is added in u%e ( u + :*6 ƒƒnot in respect ofcharacter, which is not here spo%en of' !ut ofnature ƒ

26 Lnd as touchinI the dead/ that theE rise: haJe Ee not read in the KooM oG Noses ƒ ( u + :*2 ' whom the, had just #uoted for the purpose of entan"lin" im.

hoD in the Kush Ood sPaMe unto hiH ƒeither a+es A. roo;s, Mark , electronic ed., vol. $7, ogos ibrar0


24/51

saEinI/ Q aH the Ood oG LKrahaH/ and the Ood oG Qsaac/ and the Ood oG acoK ƒ ()x *:6 .

27 e is not the Ood oG the dead/ Kut the Ood oG the FiJinI ƒnot or This last statementƒfound onl, in u%eƒthou"h addin"nothin" to the ar"ument' is an important additional illustration. -t is true' indeed' that to$od no human !ein" is dead or ever will !e' !ut all man%ind sustain an a!idin" consciousrelation to imD !ut the here means These sustain a "racious covenant relation to $od which cannot !e dissolved.(Compare ^o 6:1 ' 11 . -n this sense our ord affirms that for Moses to call the ord the of is patriarchal servants' if at that moment the, had no existence' would !eunworth, of im. e ƒenjo,in" is victor, over the adducees.< nd after that the, durst not as% im an, [#uestion at all]>ƒneither part, couldD !oth !ein" for the time utterl, foiled.0/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

10 Lnd there coHe Sadducees to hiH/ such as cFaiH there is no resurrection/ andtheE Proceed to inUuire oG hiH/ saEinI/ Teacher/ Noses Drote Gor us/ QG oneVs KrothershaFF die and FeaJe Kehind a DiGe and FeaJe not a chiFd/ Fet his Krother taMe his DiGe araise uP seed Gor his Krother SeJen Krothers there Dere Lnd the Girst tooM a DiGe and/dEinI/ did not FeaJe seedW and the second tooM her and died/ not FeaJinI seed KehindWand the third FiMeDiseW and the seJen did not FeaJe seed Xast oG aFF aFso the DiGe dieQn the resurrection oG DhoH oG theH shaFF she Ke DiGe Gor the seJen had her as DiGe.

Matthew writes


25/51


26/51

monstrous alread, in this life and how much more in the life to come? /r which one of theseven shall !e her hus!and' and wh, the one' and wh, not some other one of the seven' shehavin" had a child !, noneG Bhen seven hold e#ual ri"hts' wh, set six asideG "ain animpossi!le situation. The adducees are certain that there is no resurrection' and that Moseshimself proves it in 9euteronom,' and that no man can overthrow this solid proof. Be ma,

suppose that the, had tried this proof in controvers, with man, a 8harisee and had made alau"hin"stoc% of ever, opponent. &esus was to !e the next victim.The lo"ic offered in this case is areductio ad a%surdu& of the ar"ument presented !,

the defenders of the resurrection. This ar"ument would !e sound if the resurrection reall,involved an a!surdit,. The adducees thin% that the a!surdit, can !e proved !, the case ofthe seven !rothers and the one wife. The, thin% that this case involves what the lo"icianscall a dilemma' either horn of which offers an impossi!le' untena!le' even a ludicroussituation. The fallac, of this lo"ic lies in the falsit, of the assumption that in this adducaicdilemmatertiu& non datur . These men thou"ht that the, were wieldin" a two3ed"ed sword'either ed"e of which would prove fatal to &esus' and the, never dreamed that he wouldstri%e the flat side of their !lade and snap it off at the ver, handle.

This affords a sample of how some men stud, the criptures !, means of their ownsupposedl, infalli!le lo"ic. These deniers of the resurrection still have man, followers. Thetheolo"ical supposition that &udaism developed the doctrine of the resurrection at a late da,(sa, in olomon5s time ' and that it was little %nown even after that period should no lon"e !e advanced as a theolo"ical fact. !raham !elieved that $od could raise his son from thedead ( e!. 11:1E . mon" the &ews onl, the s%eptic adducees dis!elieved theresurrection' and their ver, o!jection shows how extensivel, the doctrine was !elieved.=etween these two terminals there is extensive cripture evidence' and even !rahamspea%s of the resurrection as somethin" that was lon" and full, %nown.

+4 Yut esus said to theH: Lre Eou not deceiJinI EourseFJes Gor this reason thatEou did not MnoD the ScriPtures nor the PoDer oG Ood Cor Dhen theE rise uP GroHthe dead theE neither HarrE nor are IiJen in HarriaIe Kut are as anIeFs in theheaJens Yut concerninI the dead/ that theE are raised uP/ did Eou not read in theYooM oG Noses/ on the Yush/ hoD Ood sPoMe to hiH/ saEinI/ Q aH the Ood oG LKrahaHand the Ood oG Qsaac and the Ood oG acoK e is not the Ood oG dead Hen Kut oGFiJinI Hen Zou are IreatFE deceiJinI EourseFJes.

The kἔ is a mere variant of Q \Q ἶ . &esus proceeds to puncture the !u!!le that has !een !lown !, the i"norant foll, of the adducees. Be re"ard \ K NPQᾶ as a middle: (ourversions . The adducees deceive themselves !, drawin" a false conclusion from 9eut.+A:A' etc.' one that does not lie in the words a!out the levirate marria"e. ow the adducees

came to do this the causal participle Wk R Q LQSἰ ' which explains O R LJ LJῦ (^. 2 'explains: what these criptures teach on soimportant a point. This is how the, come to a!use Moses5 word. The adducees run in a


27/51

false premise that is a!solutel, forei"n to Moses' namel, that in the other world the sameconditions prevail that o!tain in this world. Bhere does the /ld Testament teach an,thin"of thisG

have the, %nown' i.e.' from the criptures. This is not $od5s power to raise the dead !ut his power in re"ard to the dead !odies when he raises them' as

if the onl, possi!le wa, for him to raise them would !e to ma%e them exactl, as the, werein this life. Bhat a pitiful conception the adducees had of the power of $od in the worldto come? That conception was the product of their !lindness and not of the revelation which$od had placed in their hands. =ut that is exactl, the wa, in which man, handle the

criptures to this da,' and do that also re"ardin" the ver, revelation concernin" theresurrection of the dead. &esus declares that the /ld Testament reveals the resurrection'even the power of $od in the wa, in which he will raise the deadD !ut theolo"ians of "reatlearnin" den, what &esus asserts re"ardin" the /ld Testament. /ne as%s himself how the,can continue the self3deception of the adducees.

+A The V clause points out where the "reat error lies. Bith one stro%e it sweeps awthe seven men that the adducees use in their self3deception. The horns of the dilemma onwhich &esus is to impale himself crumple up and fade into nothin". !ut u"ustine. s the num!er of thean"els is complete and fixed' so will !e that of the children of $od in the resurrection.

This is alread, enou"h to esta!lish the li%eness !etween the an"els and the saints. =utwe ma, add that our !odies will !e lifted a!ove the narrow limitations of matter as it is at presentD the, will !e made perfect instruments of the spirit to accord in all thin"s with the"lorious conditions in the world to come. The view that the an"els possess corporeit, iswithout a cripture !asis. This old speculative view assumes an ethereal' fireli%e !od, forthe an"elsD and' when it is consistentl, held' a !od, of some indefina!le form also for $od.=ut the criptures %now of an"els onl, as \KQ W L '


28/51

unexpected #uarter. =ut wh, does he use )xod. *:6 or its parallels instead of o!vious passa"es such as 9an. 1+:+G ome answer that he does this !ecause the adducees acceptedonl, the 8entateuch and rejected the prophetic !oo%sD !ut the proof for this seems to !e tooslender. &esus pro!a!l, used )xodus !ecause this passa"e involves a deduction as proof forthe resurrection. The adducees had used 9euteronom, with a false deduction' &esus shows

them how to use cripture with a true deduction' one that clearl, lies in the cripture wordsthemselves and does not "o one inch !e,ond them. The phrase \O

Rἐ L Sῆ U LJ

is complete in itself and not elliptical for 9eath has suffered its death!low. ^edemption has notfailed. -t has turned the death of $od5s saints into a mere sleep. The proof is theresurrection !, which $od wa%es these dead !odies from their slum!er. The precious dustof $od5s saints ma,' indeed' to our e,es appear as other dust'dead dustD in realit,' $od'Christ' heavenl, power are over and in that dustƒit is'i)ing dust' we shall see it live in


29/51

"lor, forever. Thus the ver, name and title which $od "ave himself in the /ld Testament asearl, as )xodus proves the resurrection

The stran"e interpretation is offered that the souls of the patriarchs are in sheo' ' thefa!led intensifies what &esus has said alread, in v. +4.The ver! is a"ain the middle: states its full seriousness. 8aul !rin"s out all the fatal results in 1 Cor.1A:1*F1Eƒno !etter commentar, can !e offered. The denial of the resurrection of the !od,denies not merel, one "reat fact !ut unravels the whole plan of salvation and leaves us E///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

[ The \uestion oG NarriaIe (12:18–27)

S=>>?RT% 5 %@ A: This theological question tries to trap Jesus between tworeligious groups.

12:18 Iot much is %nown a!out the adducees. The, were inclined to trust what the,could see' so the, denied supernaturalism' includin" resurrection' an"els' and demons.The, were wealth, aristocrats' more than willin" to ali"n themselves with the prevailin" political climate to protect their status. The, held stron"l, to the 8entateuch' less so to the8rophets and the Britin"s. fter the destruction of the temple in.9 . 2 ' the adduceesdied out. -t is possi!le that !, attac%in" &esus the, were hopin" to attac% the !eliefs of the8harisees and the common people.

12:19 The adducees !rou"ht to &esus the law' found in 9euteronom, +A:A.-f a man died without an heir' his !rother was to marr, his widow. The first son would !enamed with the man5s name in order to %eep his line intact and his propert, within thefamil,.

12:20–22 This ma, have !een a true stor,' or it ma, have !een a retellin" from theapocr,phal !oo% of To!it. Mar% does not sa,' and the point is made without %nowin" forsure where the stor, comes from. =roo%s notes that the adducees


30/51

&esus held the same materialistic doctrine of resurrection as did man, 8harisees. Thisdoctrine held that defects in the ph,sical !od, and various earthl, relationships would !ecarried over into future life> (=roo%s' Mark ' p. 1EA .

12:23 The #uestion was meant to cast &esus in a !ad li"ht. The #uestion' for those not !elievin" in the resurrection' was a!surd. bor those who did !elieve in the resurrection' it

was meant to show how impossi!le such a situation would !e.12:24 &esus declared that the, had misunderstood the criptures and the power of $od.-f the, had understood the power of $od' the, would have reali ed that $od could raise a person from the dead. The, would have reali ed also that the afterlife is more than just acontinuation of the life on earth.

12:25 This is a difficult verse' and it has caused people much consternation. ome haveta%en this to mean that the spouse a person has when he dies is the spouse he will have inheaven. This interpretation' however' carries too much of this world into the next one.

ome interpreters have ta%en the reference to an"els in heaven to mean that humans willspend all their time worshippin" $od' such as the an"els do' and will not have time forearthl, relationships. /ther interpreters !elieve the sexual relationship will !e done awa,with' !ecause its ori"inal creation was for procreation' for populatin" the earth. -n heaven'such repopulatin" will not !e necessar,.

The truth is that the =i!le has little teachin" a!out the nature of heaven' except that wewill have "lorified !odies' we will enjo, $od' and we will worship and serve him forever.Bhatever earthl, relationships we enjo, now will !e transformed. Be will continue toenjo, these relationships in heaven' we do not %now the exact nature of these relationships.

12:26–27 &esus too% the adducees into further teachin"' and he tau"ht them from theonl, part of cripture the, respectedƒthe 8entateuch' or the first five !oo%s of the =i!le.The account oG the Kush refers to the time when $od spo%e to Moses ()xod. *:6 . $odsaid'


31/51

( The "en in the as)ing. I5hen co&e unto hi& the !adducees, hich sa there is noresurrection? and the asked hi&J (Mar% 1+:10 . The adducees were rivals of the8harisees. The, were the apostates of reli"ion' for the, did not !elieve in the existence ofspirits or an"els' nor did the, !elieve in the immortalit, of the soul' nor in the resurrection.Their theolo", was secular and focused on this life more than eternit,.

( The "oti*ation in the as)ing. I@hich sa there is no resurrectionJ (Mar% 1+:10 .Their contention was a!out their un!elief in the resurrection. Therefore' !, their #uestion'the, endeavored to moc% the resurrection and ma%e it appear that it would create !i arresituations in the after3life if there was one.

( The "ethod in the as)ing. < Master, Moses rote unto us, ( a &an s %rother die, and'ea)e his i(e %ehind hi&, and 'ea)e no chi'dren, that his %rother shou'd take his i(e, andraise u# seed unto his %rotherJ (Mar% 1+:1E . The 8harisees used flatter, in their method of approach' !ut the adducees method of attac% was to #uote cripture. owever' the

adducees' li%e most cults' perverted cripture to favor their unhol, doctrine. )rrorfre#uentl, tries to show that their stran"e doctrines are supported !, the cripture.

( The "arriages in the as)ing. I o there ere se)en %rethren? and the (irst took ai(e, and d ing 'e(t no seed. And the second took her, and died, neither 'e(t he an seed K

se)en had her, and 'e(t no seed? 'ast o( a'' the o&an died K n the resurrection K hosei(e sha'' she %eJ (Mar% 1+:+ F+* . )rror invents the most ludicrous stories to tr, and

prove some doctrine wron". The, set up ridiculous straw men to tr, to show that =i!ledoctrine creates stran"e and impractical situations.

2 The LnsDer to the QnUuirE (NarM 12:24–27)"ain the answer of Christ puts those as%in" #uestions in the corner and shames them.

( The rebu)e in the ans+er. I9esus ans ering said unto the&, o e not there(ore err,%ecause e kno not the scri#tures, neither the #o er o( CodJ (Matthew 1+:+4 . Christ !e"an is answer to the adducees !, "ivin" them a justified re!u%e.Cirst/ thedefectiveness for the re!u%e.


32/51

cripture' e exposes their i"norance of the cripture and how their doctrine of noresurrection is not supported !, cripture11///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

6 NarriaIe and the hereaGter (12:18–27)The testin" now moves on to marria"e and the after3life. This time the #uestion comes fromanother interested part,' the adducees. Cranfield5s description of them is helpful:

The adducees were the aristocratic part,' made up of the hi"h priestl, and leadin"la, families of &erusalem. The, were wealth, and worldl,. Their arro"ance andharshness in the administration of justice were notorious. Conservative in doctrine'the, rejected what the, re"arded as 8harisaic innovationsD !ut their main concernwas for the maintenance of their privile"es not for doctrinal purit,. The ori"in of thename is uncertain.

Be ma, add' for a proper understandin" of this stor, in Mar%' that onl, the written law inthe five !oo%s ascri!ed to Moses was authoritative for them. The, rejected the oral law. /nthis !asis the, also refused the idea of resurrection ( cts +*:0 . The aim of their #uestion istherefore to show what trou!le ,ou "et into !, !elievin" in an after3life. ince the, wereresponsi!le for the tradin" in the temple which &esus had interrupted and critici ed (11:12their #uestion is all the sharper. ; At the resurrection hose i(e i'' she (a woman widowedseven times? !e' since the seven were married to herG5 (+*

There is enormous s%ill in &esus5 answer. birst' the cripture he #uotes to them comesfrom the !it of the /ld Testament the, did accept. Their !asis was pro!a!l, 9euteronom,+A:A (the so3called evirite law' from atin'levir ' !rother3in3law . &esus replies in terms of )xodus *:6' ar"uin" that the meanin" of that verse is that !raham' -saac and &aco! are stillalive in $od at the time of Moses. ow can there not' therefore' !e resurrectionG The case

depends on the continuation of scriptural teachin" and the power of $od' the latter' as Iineham su""ests' includin" the idea that the $od the, have %nown reveals such "oodnessthat he will surel, !e carin" for them now. s C. b. 9. Moule puts it ;death cannot !rea% arelationship thus !e"un5.

econdl,' &esus touches them on a raw spot. Their %nowled"e of cripture at deeplevels was not their stron"est characteristic. &esus told them so? )ven more' the, plainl,%new little of the power of $od (!ecause the, did not !elieve in resurrectionG (+4 .

Thirdl,' the, had missed the point that resurrection life is not simpl, the projection ofthis life on to a timeless scale. -t is of a different #ualit, alto"ether ('ike the ange's inhea)en 5' +A . Bhat a lot the, were missin" !, rejectin" this idea. ow limited a vision?

!cri#ture and the #o er o( Cod

The interloc%in" of these two provides an interestin" commentar, on our interpretation ofcripture. The two need to !e held in proper !alanceƒperhaps even tension.

concentration on cripture alone so easil, loc%s us into discussion of texts and

11 >ohn . utler, Analytical Bible .xpositor: Mark ( linton, A4 Publications,$%%"&, $% )$11.


33/51

provenances' li%elihoods or unli%elihoods' and !ecomes increasin"l, academic. -t needsconsideration of the power of $od to save it from ;lowest common denominator5conclusions. /n the other hand' a spiritualit, dominated !, ;the power of $od5 conceptsoon !ecomes less and less related to proper "uidelines' to sound %nowled"e and to health,doctrine. -t ends up wild and unrelated to the truth of ever,da, life. Be need !oth' in

health, interaction.1+

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The \uestion LKout the Resurrection 12:18–27

12:18–23 5he !adducees uestionThe adducees come next' one more "roup of reli"ious leaders' mentioned onl, here in

Mar%. The, !elon" to aristocratic priestl, families. The, have resisted


34/51

¦ Ione of the conditions of our prior earthl, life will !e remem!ered or !e relevant.

Be are told too little to insist on an, of these. Bhat seems clear is that those raised willnot enter into marria"es as we %now them in this life. 8roducin" offsprin" to solveinheritance pro!lems will no lon"er !e necessar,. That is li%el, the point on which we will !e 'ike the ange's . The adducees would not !e persuaded !, &esus5 clarification that wewill !e 'ike ange's? the, do not !elieve that an"els exist.

&esus5 onl, clear statement a!out the nature of the future resurrection life is that $od is powerful enou"h to desi"n it. &esus criti#ues their dou!ts that $od can wor% out thelo"istics of a resurrection life. Bhen as%ed a!out the nature of the resurrection life' - wouldrather sa,' . eddert, Mark , elievers church ible co++entar0 (


35/51

adducees as a !asis for their ar"ument. The purpose of the #uestion was to attempt to prove the impossi!ilit, of a resurrection !, reducin" it to an a!surdit,. +4.]rr The $ree% ver! meansto 'ead astra . The, were !ein" led astra, (or' the,were leadin" themselves astra, for two reasons. /ne' the, did not understand what the /T

criptures tau"ht concernin" resurrection (cf. vv. +6' +2 . Two' the, underestimatedthe

PoDer oG Ood to raise the dead and to resolve all seemin" difficulties connected with theidea of a resurrection. +A. Bith this one statement of fact &esus swept awa, their apparent pro!lem. The,had erroneousl, assumed the continuation of marria"e relationships after the resurrection.-nstead' Christ explained' people will have the same relations asthe anIeFs There will !eno need for conju"al union nor the reproduction of children. +6. The #uestion'haJe Ee not read/ expects an affirmative answer' for Christ %newwell that these adducees were thorou"hl, familiar with the 8entateuch. e referredspecificall, to )x *:6' #uotin" the 77. +2. The truth demonstrated here is the fact of immortalit,. To !e the $od of

!raham is to !e in fellowship with !raham. -t is therefore not possi!le to !ethe Ood oGthe dead/ !ut onl, oG the FiJinI Thus when $od spo%e out of the !urnin" !ush' thou"h the patriarchs had !een dead for ,ears' he was still in fellowship with them. The ar"ument ofChrist then assumes that since there is life after death' this is sufficient to prove thatresurrection will follow. 8erfect human existence demands the union of soul with !od,.14///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

126 NarriaIe and the resurrection (Natt 22:23–33W NarM 12:18–27W XuMe 20:27–40)

Iext a "roup of adducees came to &esus with a #uestion. ccordin" to the law of Moses' if a man died childless' his !rother was to have a temporar, marital relationship with thewidow for the purpose of producin" an heir (9eut +A:AF6 . The #uestion put !, the

adducees concerned an unli%el, situation where a widow would meet seven hus!ands' all

!rothers' in the resurrection. ince adducees did not !elieve in an, form of life after death'their #uestion was intended to ma%e fun of &esus and the doctrine of the resurrection ( u%+ :+2F** . (bor other !eliefs of the adducees see earlier section' ;The Iew TestamentBorld5.

&esus told the adducees that their #uestion was without meanin"' !ecause -srael5s lawsapplied onl, to life in the present ph,sical world. ife in the a"e to come is not acontinuation of present earthl, life' !ut is a different %ind of life alto"ether ( u%e + :*4F*6cf. 1 Cor 1A:*AF44 .

To show that life after death was a fact the, could not den,' &esus #uoted from the !oo%of )xodus (which' !ein" part of the 8entateuch' was one of the few parts of the cripturesthat the adducees read . on" after !raham' -saac and &aco! had died' the criptures

spo%e of $od as havin" a livin" personal relationship with them. The, must therefore still !e livin"' even thou"h their !odies are dead and !uried ( u%e + :*2F*0D cf. )xod *:6 .ome of the scri!es (pro!a!l, 8harisees were impressed with &esus5 answer and were

pleased to see the adducees silenced ( u%e + :*EF4 .1A////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

1 harles F. P ei er 0 6verett Falconer Harrison, The Wycli/e Biblecommentary : *e+ Testament ( hicago4 3ood0 Press, 1 '$&, 3r 1$.1")$!.


36/51

18 X O R V_JKL Oἔ ` J X JO ῖ ] -.e. LOKQ RS L Kῶ ` J X ZK ( c. . This part, has not !een mentioned !, Mc. or c. hitherto (see however Mc. 0:11' note . -t was nearl,identified with the priestl, aristocrac, ( cts A:12ὁ V_OQVQ RSἀ X O R \ KLQS Jἱ N R K Lὐ ῷ' ἡ J Nὖ VQNOSἵ L Kῶ ` J X ZK ' and its head#uarters were at &erusalem' whilst the8harisaic scri!es were to !e found in $alilee as well as in &udaea ( c. A:12 D moreover' its

adherents were relativel, few (&os.ant. 10. 1. 4 ' and were not' li%e the 8harisees' in possession of the popular esteem (i%. 1*. 1 . 6 . The present opportunit, of approachin"&esus upon the #uestion which divided them from the 8harisees was pro!a!l, the firstwhich had offered itselfD the discomfiture of the disciples of the 8harisees left the field freefor their rivals.

J LOKQSἵ J NOK K NL NOKἀ Wk R Q K O ἶ ] Cf. cts +*:0 ` J X JO ῖ J NOK Wk R Q K O ἶ K NL NOKἀ W LQ Q JKἄ W LQ \KQ Wῦ . &os.ant. 10. 1. 4 ` J X JOS Q R L RS ’ _ RSὁ JS

N K K QO LJ S ῖ N W NO. bor further information as to the part, and their tenets seech¨rer' 11. +. p. +E ff.' Ta,lor'!a ings ' )xc. *.' and cf. &os. . 9. +. 0. 14 ’ _ Sῆ LQ Lk R KO WJKk R K X O R L RS X P̓ J$ LOWZV S X O R LOW RS K OVJ NOKἀ ῦ bor J LOKQSἵ . cf. 4:+ ' E:1'

1A:2' and see BM.' p. + E' note' and =p. i"htfoot on $al. 4:+4' A:1ED the relative clauseapplies to the adducees in "eneral' not onl, to the particular mem!ers of the part, towhom reference has !een made. K NL NOSἈ as a theolo"ical term appears first in + Macc.(2:14' 1+:4* ' 8s. 6A. (2 . tit. -n the I.T.' !esides the present context and its s,noptic parallels' it occurs c.ev. +' act. 11' &o.ev. 4' apoc.+' 8aul0' e!. *' 1 8et.+' usuall, with a #ualif,in""en. ( OX ZK' KQXV Kῶ ' Z Sῆ ' XV NQZS' kNJ ῦ ©VONLJῦ or clause (ἡ Xἐ KQXV Kῶ ' !ut onceonl, ( c. +:*4 in a non3technical sense. k R Q K O ἶ D this ne"ation of the resurrection wasmatter of opinion' not of fact (J Xὐ Q K O ἶ D cf. BM.' p. 6 4.

X O R \kV LZKἐ L Kὐ ] The #uestion was perhaps partl, tentativeD the, were curious to%now the exact position which this teacher' who was %nown to !e adverse to the 8harisees'would ta%e with re"ard to the main point at issue !etween the 8harisees and themselves.=ut their purpose was hostileD the extreme case the, offer for is opinion is clearl,intended as areductio ad a%surdu& of an, view !ut their own.

19 O NX Q] /n their lips the title is purel, formalD there is here no pretence of adesire to learn such as ma, have dictated its use !, the disciples of the 8harisees (). 14 .The actual #uestion ( \kV LZKἐ does not come !efore). +*D !ut all that precedes is pream!le to what the, intended to as%.

Z N Sῆ V ’QKἔ W Kἡ ῖ XL .] -n 9eut. +A:A ff. The exact words are not cited !, the,noptists' nor do the, a"ree in the form adoptedD c. on the whole follows Mc.' !ut Mt.

chan"es the aw%ward Kἐ LOKJS Q Sἀ into Kἐ LOS' and for Uῃ uses the technical\O WUVQ NQOἐ ( 77. 1 #. in 9eut. '.c. D \% . Q . in I.T. . &osephus (ant. 4. 0. +* states the

law of levirate marria"e thus: Lk R K LQXKJKἄ L K VJ RSἀ Lὐ ῇ LQLQ Q LkX LJSὁ Q J RSἀ XQ KJἐWQ LZ X O R LJ R K \ ῖ LJ R K QK WQKJK Lῷ LJῦ LQPKQ LJSῶ X N S K W LO& LVQ LZ LJῦ

X VJ O J_JK. /n the institution as it existed in -srael see 9river' euterono& ' p. +0ff.' and for an earl, instance of its use' cf. $en. *0:0 (a chapter assi"ned to &' 9river' ntr.' p. 1A . bor the attri!ution of 9eut. to Moses see 1 :* f. LO' Kἵ a confusion of twoconstructions' LOὅ R K( \JP Kἀ ῃ W’QL O and Kἵ R Kἐ \JP Kἀ ῃ Uῃ' which c.avoids !, omittin" LOὅ . V ’QK) Kἵ ' i.e. V ῇ KQLQ LJἐ Kἵ cf. 1*:*4.

15 Donald . Fle+ing, Concise Bible commentary ( hattanooga, -enn.4 A3Publishers, 1 &, 1.


37/51

Kἐ LOKJS Q J RSἀ \JP Kἀ ῃ] The 9euteronomic law is limited to a special case: R Kἐ X LJOX NOKῶ Q JOἀ \O Rἐ LJ R Lὐ .


38/51

inexcusa!le in mem!ers of the priesthood' as most of these men pro!a!l, were (see). 10 .The ord deals with the second of these causes of error first' since it is fundamental. bor W

Wk cf. 6:11' 1*:1A (BM.' p. 61+ f. ' and for ἱ V ' ;the contents of the canon'5 see14:4E' c. +4:+2' +4:*+' +4:44 f.

25 L Kὅ RV Xἐ KQXV Kῶ XL .] Mt. K RV L K NL NQO.ἐ ῇ ἀ c. recasts the sentence: J Q R ἱ

X L qOZP KLQS LJ KJS XQ KJ L _Q K X O R L S K NL NQZS L S X KQXV K.ῦ ἰῶ ἐ ῖ ῆ ἀ ῆ ἐ ῶTheadducees (and the 8harisees also' so far as the, connected marria"e and the propa"ation of the race with the future life shewed themselves incapa!le of conceivin" a power whichcould produce an order entirel, different from an, within their experience. The, assumedeither that $/9 could not raise the dead' or that e could raise them onl, to a life whichwould !e a counterpart of the present' or even more replete with material pleasures. Thpht.:WQ S# ῖ RV JXQ LQ ῖ LOὅ \ OK LJO Lk X L NL NOS NZW LOXZL V W QO Q K . “ J Xὐ NLOἔ

Rἀ PQOJL V LOS X O R Q OXἀ . Compare t 8aul5s answer to the #uestion \ Sῶ Q VJKL Oἐ Jἱ KQXVJ ' \Jῳ Q R N W LO V_JKL Oἔ D (1 Cor. 1A:*A ff. . °QXVJ is anarthrous in

the phrase Xἐ KQXV Kῶ ' with the sin"le exception of )ph. A:14D on the other hand we find \J RἀL Kῶ K.' Mt. 14:+' +2:64' +0:2 ( \J Rἀ K.' c. 16:* ' !ut in another connexion D WQL R L Kῶ K.' c.+4:AD \QVO

R L Kῶ K.in(ra, ). +6D \Q

RV# L Kῶ K.' 1 Cor. 1A:+E. L K' K NL NOKἀ ῶ ' ;when the,

shall have risen'5 i.e. in the life which will follow the resurrection' ¡ W Q NP O'W NXQNP O ( c. has !oth forms' cf. =lass'Cr. p. A+ ' of the woman' ;to !e "iven in

marria"e5D !oth are words of the later $%.D for W QOK cf. 1 Cor. 2:*0 (B chm.' p. 1¡ WQ K ῖ is used here' in its proper sense' of the manD see note on 1 :11 f.' and cf. Mt. +4:*0'

c. 12:+2.ἀ ʼ Q NO R Kἰ Sὡ Q JOἄ [Jἱ] Kἐ LJ S ῖ Jὐ.] imilarl, Mt.D c.' who paraphrases throu"hout:

J Q Rὐ RV \JP KQ Kἀ ῖ LOἔ K KL O' N Q JOἰ V Q NOKἰ ' X O R Jἱ Q NOKἰ PQJῦ (cf. $en. 6:+'e!. and 77. cod. = L Sῆ K NL NQZSἀ JO Rἱ KLQS! . ee 9alman'@orte ' 1. p. 161. Their

e#ualit, with an"els consists in their deliverance from mortalit, and its conse#uences: cf.8hil.de sacri(. A%. et 4ain +' UV RWἈ X O\Z R Kἐ L R PKkL R \VJNL PQL O Lῷ PQJῦ ῷ X V\J WQKJS P VN Kἀ ' NJS/ JOSἀ Q JK S. Comp. )noch 1A:4 ff. for the &ewish viewof the freedom of n"els from the conditions which render marria"e necessar, forman%ind. The reference to an"els meets in passin" another adducean tenetD the ord waswith the 8harisees in their maintenance of the doctrine of n"els and spirits' as well as intheir !elief in a future resurrection (cf. cts +*:6 ff. . /n Christ5s doctrine of the future lifeas disclosed in this passa"e see atham'!er)ice o( Ange's ' pp. 4 ff.' A ff. )ven if we omitJἱ (vv. ll. ' Kἐ LJ S ῖ J V KJ Sὐ ῖ is to !e connected with Q JOἄ (cf. 1*:*+ ' not with Q N Kἰ .

26 \QVO R Q R L Kῶ KQXV Kῶ XL .] ;-t is' then' possi!le for human life to exist under newconditions which will remove the supposed difficult,. Iow as to the "eneral #uestion. $/9 can create new conditions under which a risen life ma, !e possi!le. =ut is there reason forsupposin" that e will do soG The law itself' ri"htl, understood' implies that e will.5 bor\QV 'quod attinet ad ' at the head of a sentence' introducin" the su!ject which is to !e statedor discussed' see BM.' p. 462. Q VJKL O( '


39/51


40/51

10:1+ f. . K K6 ' \ K NP Oᾶ ' are used in a moral sense !, the 77. from 9eut. 4:1Eonwards' esp. in the sapiential !oo%s and the 8rophets' and !, the I.T. writersexclusivel,.16//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

1E=942 (1 K7 Uῃ se usa como una cl²usula imperativa: sus her&anos tienen que .

+* MT14A )l ver!o aoristo N_JKἔ tiene una idea de in"resoD el tema es laformaci³n del v´nculo matrimonial.

+4 ^2 )l participio causal Q LQSἰ en realidad es explicativo de LJ LJῦ : #orque ustedes no sa%en .

+A =91 1 $eneralmente la vo activa de W Z se refiere al hom!re , la vo pasiva se refiere a la mujer. s´ sucede a#u´ ( W JKL O no si"nifica m²#ue el simple pasivo WJ KL O ƒ 41 .12

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

La ResurrecciNn (JJ 18–27.18 ]ntonces Jienen a ^F Fos Saduceos/ Uue dicen Uue nohaE resurrecci_n ƒ


41/51

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤

12:18–27 ]F HatriHonio en Fa resurrecci_n (Jer Nat 22:23–33W Xuc 20:27–40) a!iendo silenciado a los fariseos' se lle"aron a µl los saduceos' los ricos no!les #ue

controla!an tanto el templo como el anedrń' el "ran concilio reli"ioso de -srael. )stoslle"aron para !urlarse de su fe en la resurrecci³n presentando una ilustraci³n ridćula' , pro!a!lemente no !asada en la vida real' acerca de una mujer #ue se ha!á casado muchasveces. os fariseos ,a ha!án dictaminado #ue una esposa as´ pertenecerá a su primeresposo en la resurrecci³n (la #ue ellos interpreta!an de una manera mu, materialista' casii"ual a lo #ue creen los musulmanes de nuestros dás . os saduceos' por supuesto'apro!a!an la costum!re mosaica #ue se menciona a#u´' #ue tená el prop³sito de retener la propiedad dentro de la familia de la viuda' pero recha a!an totalmente la idea deresurrecci³n al"una. 8ara ellos' esta vida era todoD con ra ³n eran duros' materialistas' ,con frecuencia ricos. Todos conocemos a "ente as´. )n primer lu"ar' &es¶s ani#uil³ todo elar"umento recha ando las ideas materialistas crudas de la resurrecci³n' tema en #ue µlcreá' i"ualmente #ue los fariseos. Como lo dice 8a!lo' nuestro cuerpo resucitado ser² deotro tipo (1 Cor. 1A:44 . #u´ &es¶s lo compara con el de los ²n"eles. os asuntos de sexo relaciones f´sicas no tienen incum!encia. Tam!iµn tenemos #ue recha ar ideas materialistascrudas del si"nificado tanto de la resurrecci³n como del < ijo de 9ios>' como si si"nificarasencillamente una paternidad f´sica. )stos temas son piedras de tropie o impidiendo larecepci³n del mensaje de las !uenas nuevas.

)n !ase a los li!ros de Moisµs' #ue eran reconocidos por los saduceos' &es¶s les mostr³#ue la idea de la resurrecci³n podá compro!arse en !ase a la relaci³n de los patriarcas conel 9ios viviente. )llos la vida eterna en 9ios' como nosotros lo hacemos enCristo en el dá de ho,' pero es un nuevo tipo de vida' demostrando el poder de 9ios.1E/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

12:25 umans do not !ecome an"els in the resurrection !ut are merel,'ike an"els. That is'

the, are no lon"er earth, creatures !ut heavenl, ones (1 Co 1A:*AFA .+

¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤

The Uuestion aKout the resurrection (12:18–27) (8arallels: Mt. ++:+*F**D %. + :+2F4 .Bhereas the former #uestion had !een aimed to place &esus in a political diificult,' thisnext one was aimed to place im in a theolo"ical difficult,. -t was addressed to im !,mem!ers of the priestl, and aristocratic adducean part,' who endeavoured now to ma%ethe doctrine of the resurrection' in which the, dis!elieved' loo% ridiculous. Theircontention' ultimatel,' was that it was incompati!le with the law of levirate marria"e' aslaid down in 9t. +A:AF1 ' which the, #uoted loosel, to &esus (1E . &esus in effect denied

autista de Publicaciones, $%%$&, 115.

1 D.A. arson et al., *0evo comentario B56 blico : Si&lo veinti0no , electronic ed.(3ia+i4


42/51


43/51

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The \uestion aKout the Resurrection (12:18–27)Then the Sadducees/ Dho saE there is no resurrection (12:18) The adduceesconsidered the Mosaic directives alone as !indin" and rejected what the, perceived to !etheolo"ical innovations. Conse#uentl,' the, did not !elieve in a resurrection since it doesnot appear in the 8entateuch. Their attitude ma, !e captured in the h,mn to honor ancestorsin irach 44:1F+*: The onl, immortalit, one can hope for is havin" posterit, and !ein"remem!ered.

hen the dead rise/ theE DiFF neither HarrE nor Ke IiJen in HarriaIeW theE DiFF Ke FiMethe anIeFs in heaJen (12:25) The adducees understand resurrection to !e onl,reanimation. &esus declares that life in heaven should not !e confused with life on earth. ecompares it to the life of an"els' who are immortal' ma%in" procreation and thereforemarria"e unnecessar,.

aJe Eou not read in the KooM oG Noses/ in the account oG the Kush (12:26) Thereference to the passa"e reflects how cripture was cited !efore chapter and versedivisions. The point is that the livin" $od will not tie his name to three corpses.+4/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

106 T ] \ ]STQj LYj T T ] R]S RR][TQj

Natt 22:23–33 (NarM 12:18–27W XuMe 20:27–39)+*/n that da, there came to him adducees' the, that sa, that there is no resurrection:

and the, as%ed him'+4sa,in"' Teacher' Moses said' -f a man die' havin" no children' his

!rother shall marr, his wife' and raise up seed unto his !rother.+A

Iow there were with usseven !rethren: and the first married and deceased' and havin" no seed left his wife unto his !rotherD+6in li%e manner the second also' and the third' unto the seventh.+2 nd after themall' the woman died.+0-n the resurrection therefore whose wife shall she !e of the sevenGfor the, all had her.+E=ut &esus answered and said unto them' ge do err' not %nowin" thescriptures' nor the power of $od.* bor in the resurrection the, neither marr,' nor are "ivenin marria"e' !ut are as an"els in heaven. (*4 nd &esus said unto them' The sons of thisworld marr,' and are "iven in marria"e:*A !ut the, that are accounted worth, to attain tothat world' and the resurrection from the dead' neither marr,' nor are "iven in marria"e:*6for neither can the, die an, more: for the, are e#ual unto the an"elsD and are sons of $od' !ein" sons of the resurrection . (=ut that the dead are raised' even Moses showed' in the

place concernin" the =ush .*1

nd as touchin" the resurrection of the dead' have ,e notread that which was spo%en unto ,ou !, $od' sa,in"'*+- am the $od of !raham' and the$od of -saac' and the $od of &aco!G $od is not the $od of the dead' !ut of the livin"D (,e

$ linton 6. Arnold, 9ondervan ,ll0strated Bible Back&ro0nds Commentary:Matthe+( Mark ( 0ke' , vol. 1 ( rand Ra2ids, 3 4 Iondervan, $%%$&, $!5.


44/51


45/51

The men' !ein" the initiators of the process in such a stron"l, patriarchal culture'


46/51

their duplicit,. &esus "oes on to tell the stor, of the tenants in the vine,ard (1+:1F1+ 'sa,in" as clearl, as he can that the &ewish leadership will lose their power (v. 1+ ' and thevine,ardƒa s,m!ol for -srael (-sa. A:1F2 ƒwill !e handed over to the leadership of others.The leaders5 fear of the crowd (v. 1+' cf. 11:*+ means that the, withdraw and send othersto ta%e &esus on (v. 1* . The alliance of 8harisees and erodians (cf. *:6 as% a!out the

le"alit, of pa,in" taxes to Caesar and receive &esus5 in"enious response which exposestheir h,pocris, in as%in" and prioriti es the service of $od (1+:1*F12 . The adduceescharacteristicall, as% a!out resurrection (1+:10F+2 and &esus ar"ues that resurrection isthere in the criptures the, reco"ni e' citin" )xod. *:6' 1A to show that the patriarchs arestill alive. #uestion from a more friendl, scri!e follows (1+:+0F*4 a!out the "reatestcommandment' to which &esus responds with a com!ination of 9eut. 6:4f. and ev.

comentarios sobre marcos 12.25

Documents