The Pharisees urge a difficulty against the resurrection. 205 SECT. CLV. Our Lord proves the resurrection to the Sadduccees, and answers their foolish objection against it. Mat. XXII. 23—33; Mark XII. 18-27; Luke XX. 27-40. LUKE XX. 27. THEN [the same day] came to him certain of the Sadducees, TH LUKE XX. 27. HEN on that day in which our Lord had SECT, thus confounded the Pharisees and the He clv. which deny that there rodians, some of the Sadducees came to him, who (as Luke is any resurrection; it was before observed) were a set of pretended XX. 27, and they asked him, [MAT. XXII. 23. free thinkers among the Jews, that deny there is MARK XII. 18.] unto us, If any man's any resurrection of the dead, or any future state in which the soul exists after death to receive the reward of its actions. And they applied themselves to Jesus, and asked him a question, in which they put a case which they used often to urge against those who were of a different opinion from themselves, and with which 28 Saying, Master, they also hoped to puzzle him: Saying, Master, 28 Moses [said and wrote if there be, as we know thou teachest, a resurbrother die. [MARK, rection of the dead, how can this difficulty and leave his wife be- which we are going to propose be adjusted? hind him, and leave Moses, as thou well knowest, said, [and] wrote Bo children], that his brother should take his to us this precept (Deut. xxv. 5), That if a man's wife, and raise up seed brother die, and leave a wife and no children beunto his brother. hind him, his surviving brother should take his MARK XII. 19.] wife, and raise up seed to his brother; the first MAT. XXII. 25. child of this second marriage being esteemed Now there were with the child of the deceased, so as to inherit bis [MAT. XXII. 24. Us Seven and the first, when he brethren; whole estate and Lear up his name. Now it Mat. had married a wife, so happened, that there were with us, in a certain XXII.25 deceased, and having family in our neighbourhood, seven brethren;. no [LUKE, children], and the first of these brethren when he had marleft his wife unto his ried a wife, died quickly after, and having had brother. [MARK XII. 20. LUKE XX. 29.] no jection, as we meet with it in the old a Who deny there is any resurrection.] It is generally known that their master Sadoc, from whom the Sadducees took their name, taught that God was not to be served from mercenary principles, that is (as he crudely explained it), from hope of reward, or fear of punishment. His followers interpreted this as an implicit denial of a future state, and so imbibed that pernicious notion of the utter destruction of the soul at death, equally uncomfort able and absurd. See Drusius, in loc.The story which they mention here seems to have been a kind of common-place ob b Or any future state, &c.] As it is expressly said, Acts xxii. 8, that they denied any spirit, and consequently the existence of the soul in a separate state; so our Lord's answer here, and much of St. Paul's reasoning in 1 Cor. xv. goes on the supposition of such a denial on their part See 2 Mac. xii. 42-44, where the au thor proves that Judas believed a resurrection, from his offering sacrifices for the souls of the slain, 206 SECT. clv. Luke Jesus shews their mistaken notion of the resurrection. LUKE XX. 30. And the second took her to wife, and he [likewise] XXII. 26.-MARK 31 And the third no children, left his wife of course to be married to his brother. And upon this the second followed the direction of the law, and took her to XX. 30. wife; and he likewise, after he had been some died childless. [MA1. time married, died childless, as his elder brother 31 did. And then the third took her, and he also XII. 21.-] died as the others had done, without issue and took her and in like in like manner also all the rest went on, till every manner the seven also one of the seven brothers had married her; and [MARK, had her]: And they left no chil they all died, and left no children behind them. dren, and died [MAT. 32 And last of all the woman herself also died with- XXII.-26. out any issue, not having married into any other X.-21. 22.-] 32. [And] last of all 33 family but this. The question therefore is, the woman died also. When they shall rise, as you say they all will, in [MAT. XXII. 27. the general resurrection, whose wife shall she be of MARK XII.-22.] the seven? for all the seven had her to wife and resurrection [MARK, as they stood in an equal relation to her in this when they shall rise], world, they all seem to have exactly an equal whose wife [shall she Mat. XXII.29 Luke XX. 34. 35 claim to her in the next. be MARK 33 Therefore in the of the seven]? for [all] [MARK, the] seven had her to wife. MARK XII. 23.] [MAT. XXII. 29. MAT. XXII. 29. [And] Jesus answered and said unto them, Thus they attempted in a sneering manner to overthrow all the arguments for a future state, which might be advanced either from reason, or from scripture. And Jesus therefore answered and said to them, It plainly appears from your ye do err, not knowmanner of stating the question, that you are ing the scriptures, nor greatly mistaken, and go entirely on a wrong sup- the power of God. position; not knowing, on the one hand, what is [MARK so plainly intimated in the scriptures of a resurrection, which, if well understood, implies no contradiction at all; nor attending on the other hand, to the power of God, which is able with infinite ease to effect what to man seems most difficult and improbable. XII. 24. LUKE XX. 34.-] LUKE XX.-94. The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage : 35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead And as to this particular difficulty which you now object, it ought to be considered, that the children of this world do indeed marry, and are given in marriage, according to the wise provision which God has made by that institution, for repairing the wastes of mortality by the production of new generations. But they who shall be counted worthy to obtain that blessed world which God has prepared for his people above, and to be admitted to the never-fading honours that will succeed the resurrection of good men shall rise], neither mar [MARK, when they from the dead, will be in very different circum- ry, nor are given in mar stances when they shall rise, and neither marry, riage. [MAT. XXII. 30, -MARK XII. 25.-] 36 nor are given in marriage: For they can die 36 Neither can no more, and therefore the rise of new genera- they die any more: tions is no longer necessary; since in this respect for they are equal unto the angels [of He proves the resurrection from the law of Moses. being the children of 207 civ. Luke God in heaven), and they are equal to the angels of God in heaven, SECT. are the children of God, and are the children of God, and heirs of immorthe resurrection. [MAT. tality and glory, being the children of the resurXXII.-30. MARK rection, which shall instate them in a complete XX. 36. XII.-25.] felicity, answerable to so near a relation to the Divine Being and consequently all such difficulties as you have now been urging are entirely superseded by the happiness and perfection of so exalted a state. 37 [But as touching the resurrection], that even Moses shewed at But as for the evidence of the resurrection in 37 the dead are raised, general, not to insist on many plainer passages in the other books of scripture, for which you the bush, when he do not profess so great a regard, I may say, calleth the Lord, the that even Moses in effect shewed that the dead are God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and to be raised, when speaking of what happened at the God of Jacob: the burning bush (Exod. iii. 6), he calls the Lord, [MARK, have ye not from whom he there received his commission, read in the book of the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, Moses, how in the bush God Are equal to the angels of God in heaven.] Matthew and Mark say only that they are as the angels (wç ayliño), and though Luke expresses it by a stronger word (ay), that they are equal to the angels, yet all arguments drawn from hence, as proving an entire equality of glorified saints with angels in all respects, must be apparently weak and inconclusive. It is indeed the glorious scheme of redeeming love to incorporate angels and saints into one happy society under Christ as their Common Head, (Eph. i. 10.) but there are subordinations in united societies. And if the fall of the apostate spirits occasioned any thing like a vacancy in the celestial hierarchy, it would seem most probable it might be filled up from heavenly spirits of an inferior order, who might be preferred to the rank their degenerate brethren lost, as a reward for their approved fidelity to God. But it becomes us to be exceeding modest in our conjectures on such subjects as these, lest we incur the censure of intruding into things which we have not seen. Col. ii. 18. And are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.] This plainly intimates that good men are called God's children, with a view to the inheritance to which they are adopted, on the final possession of which they enter at the resurrection, Compare Rom. viii. 17. Gal. iv. 7. 1 John iii. 2. and Rom. viii. 29. See the Essay on Divine Dispensations, p. 8, 9. * Other books of scripture, for which you do not profess so great a regard.] The Sadducees are thought by many to have agreed with the Samaritans in rejecting all and the other parts of holy scripture but the five books of Moses; which is particularly con tended for by Serrarius. (Trihæres, lib. ii, cap. 21, and Minerval. lib. iv. сар. 14.) But this is questioned by Drusius (de tribus sectis, lib. iii. cap. 9), and Reland (Antiq. Heb. part ii. cap. 11.) and Scaliger maintains the contrary, and shews that the passage from Josephus (Antiq. lib. xiii. cap. 10 (al. 18), § 6), which is commonly alledged in defence of that opinion, only relates to their rejecting all traditions. (Elench. Trikeres, cap. 16.) And indeed, as it appears from the Talmud that other parts of the Old Testament were often quoted by the Sadducees, and arguments were brought from thence against them by the Pharisees to prove the resurrection, which they endeavoured only to cvade, without disputing the authority of texts, though they were not taken from the law of Moses; it is more reasonable to believe with Dr. Lightfoot (in his Hor. Hebr. on John iv. 25), that they did not reject the other books of the Old Testament, but only gave a great preference to the five books of Moses; and, laying it down as a principle, to receive nothing as an article of faith, which could not be proved from the law, if any thing was urged from other parts of scripture that could not be d duced from Moses, they would explain it in some other way. And this might be sufficient to induce our Lord to bring his argument to prove the resurrection from what Moses had said, and to confirm it by that part of scripture which was most regarded by the Saddu. cees, and upon which they now had grounded their objection to it. t I ant 208 clv. Luke God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. unto you by God], saying, 1 [am] the God of Abraham, and the God of Jacob?][MAT. XXII. 31, 32.—Mark XII. 26. God of Isaac, and the 38 For [God is not a God of the dead, but MARK, the God] of the living; for all live unto him: [MARK, Ye therefore do greatly err.] [MAT. XXII.32. MARK XII.—27.) SECT. and the God of Jacob." And he had the highest God spake unto him authority for the expression; for have ye not [that which was spoken read in the book of Moses how God spake to him in XX. 37. the bush by this title? and have ye not observed what was then in effect spoken to you by God, saying in express terms, "I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac, and the God of Ja38 cob?" Now certainly God is not to be called the God of them who are entirely destroyed, and left to continue in the state of the dead, but the God of those who may be yet considered as the living nor would he ever own the high relation of a God to those whom he finally abandons, and suffers to sink into nothing; much less would what he did for the holy patriarchs, whose names he commemorated with so much honour, answer such a title, since he left them exposed to so many trials and calamities, which multitudes escape of whom he has never spoken in such language: so that those good men must be considered as still in existence; and therefore it may be concluded, by a strong train of consequences that all the faithful live unto him; for he, on the foot of Abraham's covenant, owns himself the God of all such: and consequently I am the God of Abraham, &c.] It is surprising to me to find learned inen so much divided in their sentiments on this easy text. The force of the argument cannot surely rest on the word [am]; because though it be in the Greek, it is not in the Hebrew, where the words may possibly signify, I [have been] the God of Abraham, &c. and the possibility of such a version would affect the conclusion on that supposition. But our Lord's argument is equally forcible either way; for it is evident, that it cannot properly be said, that God either actually is, or hath been, the God of any whom he has suffered finally to perish; and (as the apostle strongly intimates) he would, humanly speaking, be ashamed, or think it infinitely beneath him, to own that relation to any for whom he had not provided a city, or a state of more permanent happiness than any which could be enjoyed in this mortal life. (See Heb. xi. 16.) So that the argument by no means turns (as Archbishop Tillotson and Grotius suppose) on the calamitous circumstances in which these patriarchs often were; but would have held good, bad all their lives been as pros perous and glorious as that of Abraham seems generally, notwithstanding his peregriuations, to have been. I cannot, as he some modern writers of note do, fall in with Mr. Mede's notion, (in his Works, p. 801,802), that our Lord refers to the necessity of Abraham's being raised from the dead to inherit Canaan, in order to the accomplishment of God's promise to give it to him; both because I can see no such necessity, and because then I think it would have been much more to our Lord's purpose to have quoted the promise of the land of Canaan, than these general words. g So that all the faithful live unto him.] It is evident that yg must here have the force of an illative particle, and may be rendered [therefore], or [so that]; for what it introduces is plainly the main proposition to be proved, and not an argu ment for what immediately went before. In this connection the consequence is apparently just; for as all the faithful are the children of Abraham, and the Divine promise of being a God to him and his seed is entailed upon them, it will prove their continued existence and happiness in a future state, as much as Abraham's. And, as the body, as well as the soul, makes an essential part of man, it will prove both his resurrection and theirs, and entirely overthrow the whole Sadducean doctrine on this head, After Reflections on the certainty of the resurrection. 39 Then certain of the scribes answering, well said. MAT. XXII. 33. And when the multiwere astonished at his tude heard this they doctrine. 203 clv. Luke he must be an everlasting patron and friend to SECT. XX11.33 Then some of the scribes who were present, be- 39 said, Master, thou hast ng of the sect of the Pharisees, were pleased to hear a doctrine of their own so judiciously defended, and said in reply, Master, thou hast spoken so well upon this subject, that nothing solid can be objected to thy discourse. And indeed Mat. when all the multitude that was present in the temple at that time heard [this] unthought of, yet convincing, argument, together with so clear an answer to a cavil in which the Sadducees used to triumph as invincible, they were greatly astonished at his doctrine, and plainly testified the admiration and delight with which they had attended his discourse. And as the Sadducees Luke had nothing to reply, they were ashamed and disappointed; and after that they durst not any more presume to ask him any thing at all, but retired in silence and confusion. LUKE XX. 40. And after that, they durst not ask him any ques tion at all. XX. 40 IMPROVEMENT. xxii. 23--28 WITH what satisfaction should we read this vindication of soimportant an article of our faith and hope! Easily was this boasted argument of the Sadducees unravelled and exposed, and all the Mat. pride of those bold wits, who valued themselves so much on that imaginary penetration which laid men almost on a level with brutes, covered with just confusion. Indeed objections against the resurrection, much more plausible than this of theirs, may be answered in that one saying of our Lord's: Ye know not the scriptures, nor the power of God, Were the scripture doctrine of the resurrection 29 considered on the one hand, and the omnipotence of the Creator on the other, it could not seem incredible to any that God should raise the dead. (Acts xxvi. 8.) How sublime an idea does our Lord give us of the happiness of Luke those who shall be thought worthy to attain it! They shall be equal After that, they durst not ask him any thing at all. It is evident that this is meant of the Sadducees, and must be un to derstood as limited to them; because in xx. 35, 36 |