Matthew 22:23-33

Matthew  •  Sermon  •  Submitted
0 ratings
· 9 views
Notes
Transcript

Introduction

Sadducees Ask About the Resurrection

23 The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question, 24 saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.’ 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died, and having no offspring left his wife to his brother. 26 So too the second and third, down to the seventh. 27 After them all, the woman died. 28 In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her.”

29 But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” 33 And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching.

This week we’re jumping back into the Gospel of Matthew after taking a break to celebrate and look at Christ’s resurrection. In a sense, today, we’re going to rewind the timeline of resurrection, back a few days, and continue looking at the events that led up to it. We’re a couple days away, in Matthew, from what the Church has historically called Good Friday, a couple days before Jesus’ execution.
If you’ve just recently joined us since our last few sermons through Matthew, I want to remind you that what we’re witnessing in our text today is Jesus’ final and climactic confrontation with Israel’s religious leaders. In fact, the next chapter, chapter 23, will be Jesus’ most scathing and comprehensive condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees. His words will consume the entire chapter, and will finally lead directly to his arrest and crucifixion.
But leading up to chapter 23, are three final confrontations with Israel’s religious leaders, three scenes where they put Jesus to the test, and attempt to trap him in his words in front of the crowds, that they might have a charge against him. In fact, they throw everything at him this time. At first, starting in verse 15 of chapter 22, the Pharisees team up with a Jewish sect known as the Herodians. These two groups were typically enemies, the Pharisees despised Rome’s rule, while the Herodians were seen as traitors for supporting Herod and his sons. But Jesus brings these unlikely bedfellows together, he becomes a common enemy between the Pharisees and Herodians, so they team up to take him down, famously challenging Jesus on the issue of Roman taxation.

Sadduccees

Then, today, in verses 23-33, we read that the Sadducees challenged him as well. It says there in verse 23,

23 The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question,

They’re another Jewish sect that we don’t know a lot about, but who gladly joined the alliance to take down Jesus. While the Pharisees were the theological conservatives of Jesus’ day, the Sadduccees were the theological liberals. They rejected the Pharisee’s oral traditions that had been added to the OT law, and they even rejected a vast majority of the OT books. They rejected 34 of the 39 books in the OT canon, and would only affirm the first five books of Moses, known as the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy).
And because of this, their theological positions were vastly different than that of the Pharisees. We know they didn’t believe in God’s providence, that God ordains all that comes to pass, whereas the Pharisees affirmed God’s providence, or what theologians call compatiblism, that God ordains all that comes to pass while humans still exercise power in their moral decisions.

Denying the resurrection

Matthew also tells us here that they denied the doctrine of the resurrection. Or, to be more specific, they denied that the human soul was immortal, that there wasn’t any life after death. And as a result they were far less concerned with sin.
The Jewish historian, Josephus, would later write that they,
“suppose that God is not concerned in our doing or not doing what is evil; (165) 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 every one, that they may act as they please.” (Josephus, Whiston (1987), Complete Works, p. 608)
Josephus goes on to affirm what Matthew tells us, that,
“They also take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in Hades.” (166) (Josephus, Whiston (1987), Complete Works, p. 608)

Resurrection in the OT

In other words, they denied any kind of final judgement, which gave them a license for sin. Their denial of the OT books beyond the Pentateuch meant that they could ignore passages from Job, Isaiah and Daniel that refer to a hope in a future resurrection.
Turn with me to Job 19:25-27, he writes,
25  For I know that my Redeemer lives,
and at the last he will stand upon the earth.
26  And after my skin has been thus destroyed,
yet in my flesh I shall see God,
27  whom I shall see for myself,
and my eyes shall behold, and not another.
My heart faints within me!
Then turn with me to Isaiah 26:19, the Prophet writes,

19  Your dead shall live; their bodies shall rise.

You who dwell in the dust, awake and sing for joy!

For your dew is a dew of light,

and the earth will give birth to the dead.

And lastly, turn with me to Daniel 12:1-2,

The Time of the End

12 “At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. 2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

The Sadduccees had to dismiss all of these texts, and they generally did so by arguing that they weren’t authoritative. Whereas, the Pharisees would have affirmed all of these texts as Scripture, and would have built their case for the future resurrection with them. So it’s pretty significant that the Pharisees were willing to put these differences aside in order to have the Sadduccees take a shot at Jesus. They were willing to ignore their differences on this theological issue in order to take down Jesus.
In fact, in the Book of Acts, we see just how divisive this particular issue was. Turn with me to Acts 23:6-10,

6 Now when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. It is with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial.” 7 And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all. 9 Then a great clamor arose, and some of the scribes of the Pharisees’ party stood up and contended sharply, “We find nothing wrong in this man. What if a spirit or an angel spoke to him?” 10 And when the dissension became violent, the tribune, afraid that Paul would be torn to pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him away from among them by force and bring him into the barracks.

The Apostle Paul had been at the Temple in Jerusalem, and was accused of bringing an uncircumcised Gentile near the Temple building itself. The crowd goes berserk and eventually he ends up before the the chief priests and the council, probably what they would have known as the Jewish Sanhedrin, the ruling body of the Jews made up of something like 71 religious and political leaders, including Pharisees and Sadduccees.

The resurrection, a hot button issue

And Paul knows just how much of a hot button issue the resurrection from the dead is between the Pharisees and Sadduccees, so he uses it to escape the council’s wrath against him. Rather than their focus being upon him, he pits them against one another by proclaiming his hope in the resurrection from the dead. So all of a sudden the council becomes divided, and the Pharisees even come to his defense, Luke writes,

and some of the scribes of the Pharisees’ party stood up and contended sharply, “We find nothing wrong in this man. What if a spirit or an angel spoke to him?” 10 And when the dissension became violent, the tribune, afraid that Paul would be torn to pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down and take him away from among them by force and bring him into the barracks.

My point, is to demonstrate just how contentious of an issue the resurrection of the dead was between the Pharisees and the Sadduccees, so that we can see how significant it was for them to form an alliance to take out Jesus. Jesus essentially believed and taught the same thing as the Pharisees concerning the resurrection from the dead, but the Pharisees didn’t care, they’d rather let the Sadduccees win an argument against him, to humiliate him in public, and alienate him from those within the Sanhedrin. They needed the full support of the Sanhedrin to have him executed, and it’s likely that the Sadduccees made up a large portion, if not a majority, of the council.

Levirate Marriage

So the question they put before Jesus is another trap. We read there in verse 24,

and they asked him a question, 24 saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.’ 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died, and having no offspring left his wife to his brother. 26 So too the second and third, down to the seventh. 27 After them all, the woman died. 28 In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her.”

So the Sadduccees are referring to what’s called a levirate (lev-rut) marriage, or a marriage that involves a husband’s brother. The Latin word ‘levir’ (le-veer) literally means, “husband’s brother” or “brother-in-law”. That when a husband died, his brother was encouraged to marry his wife (assuming he was still single). The intention was twofold, 1) that the family name would continue, and 2) that his widow would be taken care of.
Now, for most of us, this kind of marriage probably sounds incredibly strange, especially considering our modern sensibilities and customs, but this practice in Israel was important for their society. In fact, it was intended as a compassionate prescription encouraged by God. It was practiced prior to the law given by Moses, but we see it prescribed by Moses in Deuteronomy 25:5-10, so, if you would, turn with me to Deuteronomy 25, we read, starting in verse 5,

Laws Concerning Levirate Marriage

5 “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. 6 And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. 7 And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate to the elders and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother to me.’ 8 Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him, and if he persists, saying, ‘I do not wish to take her,’ 9 then his brother’s wife shall go up to him in the presence of the elders and pull his sandal off his foot and spit in his face. And she shall answer and say, ‘So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother’s house.’ 10 And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, ‘The house of him who had his sandal pulled off.’

Now, outside literature seems to indicate that this type of marriage had largely fallen out of practice by Jesus’ time, but it was still a legitimate practice in Israel, nonetheless. And probably the closest and most notable example of such a marriage was Boaz to Ruth in the OT Book of Ruth. If you’re at all familiar with the story, it’s one of the most beautiful narratives in all the OT. It’s a story of death and despair, followed by redemption, romance and compassion. And while we don’t have time to look at it here today, I encourage you to go home and read it in light of our text today.

Reductio ad absurdum

Now, the Sadduccees, decided to use this practice of remarriage to try and make the teaching of bodily resurrection look ridiculous, to make it look absurd. In fact, the kind of argument that they use against Jesus is what we refer to as reductio ad absurdum (lit. reduction to the absurd). In other words, this kind of argument is intended to “disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous,” or “absurd” conclusion. (Wikipedia, Reductio ad absurdum, 2021)
Let me give you an example, often when you visit a National Park in the United States you’ll see signs that ask you not to touch the stalactites in the caves or to pick the flowers in the gardens. However, we’re usually tempted to ignore these signs and say, “Well, I’m just going to pick one flower.” Yet, we know that the park ranger would argue that, “Yes, but if every visitor just picked one flower, there wouldn’t be any left!” He’s pointing out that your assertion that you’re only going to pick one flower doesn’t work, because if we follow that argument to its logical conclusion we can see that all of the flowers will eventually be gone. This is an example of reductio ad absurdem.
Which is precisely what the Sadduccees try to use against Jesus. They know what Jesus believes, they know what he teaches about the resurrection of the dead. Central to his teachings are the subjects of eternal life and punishment in Hell. It’s no secret that Jesus’ teaching are opposed to what the Sadduccees believe. So the point of their question is to make Jesus’ teachings on life after death look ridiculous, to make them look absurd.
That’s why they ask him a hypothetical question to try and point how his teaching about the resurrection of the dead can’t be true, by saying, “Well, if there really is life after death, then which man will have the widow who’s been married 7 times to 7 different men?” They’re attempting to argue that the belief in life after death is absurd.

No marriage in the resurrection

However, Jesus doesn’t find their conclusion to be a problem, because to him it’s obvious that they’ve made an assumption that they can’t prove. They assume that if there is life after death, that life, as they know it, would remain entirely the same, they assume that in the resurrection people would still marry and be given in marriage. They hadn’t thought through their assumptions, so Jesus sets them straight there in verses 29-30,

29 But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

So we must not assume that life in heaven will be just like life on earth. One of the primary reasons for marriage is to have children, to fill the earth as we were commanded in the Garden of Eden, but in heaven this will no longer be necessary.
Now, I think this often comes as a shock to some of us. God has made marriage so integral to our lives here on earth that it’s almost impossible for us to imagine life without it, which is why the Sadduccees had undoubtedly made the assumption that it would continue if the resurrection from the dead were true.

Purpose of marriage

So it’s important for us to realize that, first, marriage is temporary, and second, that while earthly marriage is temporary, that it still serves an eternal purpose beyond this life. For some of you, you may be relieved to hear that marriage is temporary, but to others, you may find yourself distressed that your marriage will eventually come to an end.
On one hand marriage serves temporary purposes such as filling the earth, having children, raising children, it serves God’s intention that man should not be alone, that most would eventually leave father and mother behind to become one flesh. However, more than that, and higher than that, is God’s purpose that marriage would reflect his relationship with us. That our love and service to one another, that a husband’s love toward his wife, and a wife’s submission to her husband would paint a picture of Christ and his church, bringing him glory. And it’s this purpose that will remain and persist into the next life. And while our relationship to one another, as husband and wife, will eventually end, the love that we share will not. In fact, our love for one another will be superior in the resurrection, than the love we experience today, for sin will be no more.
And the only bride in heaven will be the church, and the only bridegroom, Christ our Lord. You see, the earthly institution of marriage serves a good, but limited purpose in this life, a temporary purpose, that will be eclipsed by a far superior marriage, our union with Christ, when we see him face to face. A far superior reality that will not diminish our relationships with one another, but rather enhance them.
I’m reminded of the refrain in the hymn called ‘Turn your eyes upon Jesus’ where it says,
Turn your eyes upon Jesus, Look full in His wonderful face, And the things of earth will grow strangely dim, In the light of His glory and grace.
You see, the earthly institution of marriage will pale in comparison to when we see our Lord face to face, in fact, our earthly marriages will find their ultimate fulfillment in our heavenly one.

Taking the fight to them

Now, as we reach the end of our text, Jesus ends his confrontation with the Sadduccees by challenging their position on the resurrection. He isn’t satisfied merely to have their argument fall flat, but he takes the fight to them. He confronts their denial of the resurrection. We read there, starting in verse 31,

31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” 33 And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching.

Jesus quotes from Exodus 3:6, the time when God spoke to Moses out of a burning bush. When God tells Moses not to come too close, but to take off his sandals because he’s standing on holy ground, and then Yahweh says,

“I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.”

It’s important to note that Jesus makes his challenge by appealing to the Book of Exodus, He doesn’t go to Job, or Isaiah or Daniel, because he knew that the Sadduccees only recognized the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) as Scripture, so he makes his argument from there. And if you’ve read those first five books at all you’ll know that this refrain of how God identifies himself with the patriarchs is everywhere. That he was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. This was how Yahweh distinguished himself, and how he identified himself, identifying with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Everlasting Covenant

This is God, who has made an everlasting covenant with these men. An everlasting covenant that promised Abraham that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars in heaven. And so Jesus’ argument is related to the nature of that promise, the nature of the covenant made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that this covenant isn’t cancelled by their death, and that their relationship to God was not terminated by their death, therefore they remain alive even to this today, in the presence of God, for just as Jesus said, “he is not [the] God of the dead, but of the living.”
The Sadduccees’ denial of the resurrection had resulted in their believing that the only experience of life after death was found through their offspring, through their children. That the only comfort in death was that their legacy would be carried on by their children, that their family name would persist because of their children. It’s probably the other reason they chose the OT concept of levirate marriage to argue against the resurrection of the dead, because they thought it somehow taught that the perpetuity of their lineage was ultimately all that mattered. However, they had missed what God was doing, and what God intended to due through Christ.

Conclusion

They couldn’t see that God’s intention was far greater than ensuring the continuity of Abraham’s lineage on the earth, that was not the promise and that was not the hope, for he is not the God of the dead, but of the living. God’s intentions were to redeem us from our sin, to abolish death, and to purify a people for his own possession, a people as numerous as the stars in heaven. And those like Abraham, who believed God, will be numbered in those stars, not merely as people who lived and died, but as a people who forever live before the face of God, for he not the God of the dead, but of the living.

Prayer

Related Media
See more
Related Sermons
See more
Copyright 2024 Logos Bible SoftwareFeatures|Pricing|Privacy|Terms of Use|Support