Some Sadducees came up. This is the Jewish party that denies any possibility of resurrection. They asked, “Teacher, Moses wrote us that if a man dies and leaves a wife but no child, his brother is obligated to take the widow to wife and get her with child. Well, there once were seven brothers. The first took a wife. He died childless. The second married her and died, then the third, and eventually all seven had their turn, but no child. After all that, the wife died. That wife, now–in the resurrection whose wife is she? All seven married her.” Jesus said, “Marriage is a major preoccupation here, but not there. Those who are included in the resurrection of the dead will no longer be concerned with marriage nor, of course, with death. They will have better things to think about, if you can believe it. All ecstasies and intimacies then will be with God. Even Moses exclaimed about resurrection at the burning bush, saying, ‘God: God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob!’ God isn’t the God of dead men, but of the living. To him all are alive.” Some of the religion scholars said, “Teacher, that’s a great answer!”
Luke 20:27-39
The one thing we need to know is the background to the Sadducees to understand why they are asking this question. [The following is clipped from E-Sword’s International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE)]
Sadducees
This prominent Jewish sect, though not so numerous as their opponents, the Pharisees, by their wealth and the priestly descent of many of them had an influence which fully balanced that of their more popular rivals. They were a political party, of priestly and aristocratic tendency, as against the more religious and democratic Pharisees.
Name: Etymology – Probably from Zadok the High Priest: The Talmud form suggests derivation from the name of their founder, but the form in New Testament and Josephus would imply connection with the verb “to be righteous.” The probability is, that the name is derived from some person named “Zadok.” The most prominent Zadok in history was the Davidic high priest (2Sa_8:17;2Sa_15:24;1Ki_1:35), from whom all succeeding high priests claimed to descend. It is in harmony with this, that in the New Testament the Sadducees are the party to whom the high priests belonged.
Alleged Relation to Differences Between Prophets and Priests: It has been suggested that the earlier form of the conflict between the Sadducees and Pharisees was opposition between the priests and the prophets. This, however, is not tenable; in the Southern Kingdom there was no such opposition; whatever the state of matters in the Northern Kingdom, it could have had no influence on opinion in Judea and Galilee in the time of our Lord. By others the rivalry is supposed to be inherited from that between the scribes and the priests, but Ezra, the earliest scribe, in the later sense of the term, was a priest with strong sacerdotal sympathies.
From a Political to a Religious Party: Thrown into the background by the overthrow of their candidate for the high-priesthood, they soon regained their influence. They allied themselves with the Herodiana who had supported Hyrcanus, but were subservient to Rome. Though they were not theological at first, they became so, to defend their policy against the attacks of the Pharisees.
Feared Roman Interference if Jesus’ Messianic Claims Are Recognized: The Sadducees at first regarded the struggle between our Lord and the Pharisees as a matter with which they had no concern. It was not until our Lord claimed to be the Messiah, and the excitement of the people consequent on this proved likely to draw the attention of the Roman authorities, that they intervened. Should Tiberius learn that there was widespread among the Jews the belief in the coming of a Jewish king who was to rule the world, and that one had appeared who claimed to be this Messiah, very soon would the quasi-independence enjoyed by the Jews be taken from them, and with this the influence of the Sadducees would depart. An oligarchy is proverbially sensitive to anything that threatens its stability; a priesthood is unmeasured in its vindictiveness; and the Sadducees were a priestly oligarchy. Hence, it is not wonderful that only the death of Jesus would satisfy them.
Sadducees Antagonistic to the Apostles: Pharisees More Favorable: After the resurrection, the Pharisees became less hostile to the followers of Christ; but the Sadducees maintained their attitude of suspicion and hatred (Act_4:1). Although a Pharisee, it was as agent of the Sadducean high priest that Paul persecuted the believers. The Sadducees gained complete ascendancy in the Sanhedrin, and later, under the leadership of Annas, or as he is sometimes called by Josephus, Ananus, the high priest, they put James the brother of our Lord to death with many others, presumably Christians. The Pharisees were against these proceedings; and even sent messengers to meet Albinus who was coming to succeed Festus as governor to entreat him to remove Annas from the high priesthood.
Disbelief in the Spiritual World, in a Resurrection, Their Materialism: The most prominent doctrine of the Sadducees was the denial of the immortality of the soul and of the resurrection of the body. The Pharisees believed that Moses had delivered these doctrines to the elders, and that they had in turn handed them on to their successors. The Sadducees rejected all these traditions. From Acts (Act_23:8) we learn that they believed in neither “angel or spirit.” As appearances of angels are mentioned in the Law, it is difficult to harmonize their reverence for the Law with this denial. . . Josephus distinctly asserts that the Sadducees believe that the soul dies with the body. He (Josephus) claims they deny divine providence. Their theology might be called “religion within the limits of mere sensation.”
Relation to Temple and Worship a Heathenish One: The Sadducean high priests made Hophni and Phinehas too much their models. Annas and his sons had booths in the courts of the temple for the sale of sacrificial requisites, tables for money-changers, as ordinary coins had to be changed into the shekels of the sanctuary. From all these the priests of the high-priestly caste derived profit at the expense of desecrating the temple (Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus, I, 371 ff). They did not, as did the Pharisees, pay spiritual religion the homage of hypocrisy; they were frankly irreligious. While officials of religion, they were devoid of its spirit.
Less Denounced by Jesus than the Pharisees: As the doctrines and practices of the Sadducees were quite alien from the teaching of our Lord and the conduct He enjoined, it is a problem why He did not denounce them more frequently than He did. Indeed He never denounces the Sadducees except along with their opponents the Pharisees; whereas He frequently denounces the Pharisees alone. As His position, both doctrinal and practical, was much nearer that of the Pharisees, it was necessary that He should clearly mark Himself off from them. There was not the same danger of His position being confused with that of the Sadducees. Josephus informs us that the Sadducees had influence with the rich; Jesus drew His adherents chiefly from the poor, from whom also the Pharisees drew. The latter opposed Him all the more that He was sapping their source of strength; hence, He had to defend Himself against them. Further, the Gospels mainly recount our Lord’s ministry in Galilee, whereas the Sadducees were chiefly to be found in Jerusalem and its neighbourhood; hence, there may have been severe denunciations of the Sadducees that have not come down to us.
Attitude of Sadducees to Jesus: The Sadducees probably regarded Jesus as harmless fanatic who by His denunciations was weakening the influence of the Pharisees. Only when His claim to be the Messiah brought Him within the sphere of practical politics did they desire to intervene. When they did determine to come into conflict with Jesus, they promptly decreed His arrest and death; only the arrest was to be secret, “lest a tumult arise among the people” (Mat_26:5). In their direct encounter with our Lord in regard to the resurrection (Mat_22:25ff; Mar_12:20ff; Luk_20:29ff), there is an element of contempt implied in the illustration which they bring, as if till almost the end they failed to take Him seriously.
Let this description of the Sadducees soak in and then return to the question they asked. We will deal with the question in the next Gem.
You may have weaknesses, but God has strength. You may have sin, but God has grace. You may fail, but God remains faithful!
Anon
Sometimes the way we see the problem is the problem.
Jeffrey Rachmat
DISCIPLINE is just choosing between what you want NOW and want you want MOST.
Anon
Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.
Carl Jung