Mark 12:18-27

5. THE QUESTION ABOUT THE RESURRECTION 12:18-27

TEXT 12:18-27

And there come unto him Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave a wife behind him, and leave no child, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. There were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed; and the second took her, and died, leaving no seed behind him; and the third likewise: and the seven left no seed, Last of all the woman also died. In the resurrection whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. Jesus said unto them, Is it not for this cause that ye err, that ye know not the scriptures, nor the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as angels in heaven. But as touching the dead, that they are raised; have ye not read in the book of Moses, in the place concerning the Bush, how God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living: ye do greatly err.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS 12:18-27

664.

Why this concerted effort to ensnare our Lord in His speech?

665.

Give three facts about the Sadducees.

666.

Since they did not believe in a resurrection why ask a question involving it?

667.

Was this a real case or only a hypothetical one? What does a discussion of the sex relationship of marriage reveal about the hearts of the men who ask it?

668.

There are two things absolutely essential in escaping religious errorJesus states them in Mark 12:24what are they?

669.

Why not marry in heaven? Are we to understand we will lose our identity as husband and wife? Discuss.

670.

Are angels distinguishablei.e. are they recognized as separate beings?

671.

Why add the comment on the resurrection?

672.

Show how the reference to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob proves the natural immortality of man. Discuss.

673.

In what did the Sadducees err?

COMMENT

TIME.Tuesday, April 4, A.D. 30, two days after entry into Jerusalem.
PLACE.In the temple, probably in the court of the Gentiles.

PARALLEL ACCOUNTS.Matthew 22:23-33; Luke 20:27-38.

OUTLINE.1. The Sadducees ask an ignorant question, Mark 12:18-23. Mark 12:2. Jesus answers their question and spiritual need, Mark 12:24-27.

ANALYSIS

I.

THE SADDUCEES ASK AN IGNORANT QUESTION, Mark 12:18-23.

1.

Asked by those who did not believe in a resurrection.

2.

Their question was based on the law of Moses.

3.

Whose wife will the much married woman be in the resurrection?

II.

JESUS ANSWERS THEIR QUESTION AND THIER SPIRITUAL NEED, Mark 12:24-27.

1.

You do not know because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God.

2.

There is no marriage relationship in the world to come.

3.

Read again about the burning bushAbraham, Isaac and Jacob are still alive for God said He was their God. There can be and will be a resurrection.

EXPLANATORY NOTES

I.

THE SADDUCEES ASK AN IGNORANT QUESTION.

Mark 12:18. The Pharisees and Herodians having been silenced, it was the turn of the Sadducees to come forward. Their question is as insincere as the preceding; it was a puzzle upon a doctrine in which they were total unbelievers. It proves, however, that the doctrine of the resurrection was everywhere recognized as a doctrine of Jesus.

Mark 12:19-23. This is the so-called Levirate marriage (from Latin levir, a brother-in-law). (See Deuteronomy 25:5-10.) This provision corresponded to the universal desire in Israel for the perpetuation of name and family. So strong was the desire that this provision was made for a putative offspring in default of actual. The custom was older than the law, however (Genesis 38:8), and exists in many Eastern nations. But the obscure expression in Deuteronomy 25:5, If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, leaves us uncertain in exactly what circumstances the law was applicable. There is no case recorded in the Old Testament, though there is an illusion to the custom in Ruth 1:11-13. The transaction of Ruth 4:1-8 is of another kind. These questioners stated the law fairly, but their illustration was an extreme one, meant for a reductio ad absurdum. The language of Mark 12:19 is awkward, but there is no difficulty about the sense.There were seven brethren. In Matthew, There were with us, as if the case were fresh from the life. Mark 12:22 should be, simply, and the seven left no seed: last of all the woman died also. Childless by all the marriages, the woman was not linked to any one of the husbands more than to the others.In the resurrection, therefore, when they (the woman and the seven brothers) shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? It is assumed that she be someone's wife, and how will Jesus judge between the rival claims of the seven?

II.

JESUS ANSWERS THEIR QUESTION AND THIER SPIRITUAL NEED.

Mark 12:24. There is something wonderful in the gentleness of the answer, considering the insincerity of the question. He quietly assumed that there was an error, and proceeded to account for it; he did not even distinctly assert it. Do ye not therefore (from this cause) erris it not for this cause that ye errbecause ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? Is not ignorance the secret of your error? Ignorance (1) as to the Scriptures, He did not mean, of course, that the resurrection was mentioned in the Old Testament plainly, as it was mentioned by him, He meant that if they had understood the Old Testament rightly, they would have found the resurrection implied in its teaching, or at least would have been prepared to receive the doctrine, Not unfamiliarity with the Scriptures, but ignorance of their true meaning, kept them from believing in the resurrection. Moreover, a true knowledge of the Scriptures would have prevented their ideas from being so grossly carnal. (2) As to the power of God. All their conceptions of a resurrection were of a low and carnal kind that underestimated the power of God as shown therein. They thought only of re-establishment of the present fleshly life. No conception had they of the power of God to make life altogether new in the resurrection-state, but this is what he will do. Now follows the truth on these two points: (1) The Power of God; (2) The Scriptures.

THE POWER OF GOD.Mark 12:25. He tells them that they have not understood the resurrection: it is something far nobler than they have supposed, and it will work changes such as they never thought of. When they shall rise from the dead, General, and equal to in the resurrection of Matthew.They neither marrycontract marriage as husbandsnor are given in marriage, by the act of their parents, as wives. In the resurrection-state there will be no marriage. The reason, as expressly given in Luke, is that they cannot die any more. Marriage, especially as suggested by the Levirate institution, exists for the sake of offspring. But birth and death are correlatives; they belong in the same world: if one ceases, the other must cease. In that world there is no death; hence no birth, hence no marriage. The power of God will have brought into being that which Paul calls the spiritual body, in which sexual relations will not continue. Notice that this is not a denial of the perpetuity of those mental characteristics which distinguish the sexes in this world. It is not affirmed that they are excluded from the resurrection-state. It is not said that the holy spiritual relations and personal affinities that may have accompanied marriage will not continue, or that husband and wife will be nothing to each other in the future life. The questioners thought of that life as a continuation of this, with its relations unchanged; and he simply told them that marriage, in that world, would be out of place. Upon the relations of soul with soul in that world he did not touch.But are as the angels which are in heaven. Not are angels, but are as angels. The most that we know of angels is drawn from such allusions as this. What is here implied concerning them is that they are immortal, and hence among them the marriage relation does not exist.

Thus far, Jesus expounded the doctrine of the resurrection. The Sadducees rejected it, but they knew it only in a gross form. Very beautiful is his kindness in thus commending a rejected doctrine by presenting it in a nobler form; as much as to say, Would not even you have believed it, if you had known it thus? An example to all preachers and teachers. State your doctrine at its noblest; perhaps those who reject it have never understood it.

THE SCRIPTURES.Mark 12:26-27. Now he turns to prove the doctrine that he has been expoundingi.e. to find it in the Holy Writings. He quoted from the book of the law (the Pentateuch), because from it the question had been drawn; possibly, also, because the Sadducees prized it above the other Scriptures. The relation of this extract to the doctrine in discussion is somewhat peculiar. The expectation of a life beyond the present was expressed with greater or less clearness here and there in the Old Testament. Many of the writers had shown that they cherished such a hope, though not with clearness of the gospel. But it was not the hope or expectation that Jesus now wished to bring out: it was the fact. Hence an expression of human desire or aspiration would not suit his purpose, even though it were made under the guidance of the Divine Spirit. He must find a direct utterance of God. This passage, therefore, may be expected to be of unusual importance respecting a future life. To this peculiarity of the case well corresponds Luke's word: That the dead are raised, Moses also revealedbrought to lightat the bush.Translate, in Mark 12:26, have ye not read, in the book of Moses, at the bush, how God spake unto himi.e. in the section or paragraph where the bush is the subject of discourse. (Compare 2 Samuel 1:18.)I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. The citation here is from Exodus 3:6, the words of Jehovah to Moses.The words might be found in many other places of Scripture: no language was more characteristic of the old covenant or more familiar to Jewish ears. He took no recondite passage, but one of the great words of the old dispensation.In Mark 12:27, therefore is to be omitted. The reading is, He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye do greatly err.i.e. ye greatly err in interpreting the text as if he called himself the God of men who do not now exist. If he is any man's God, you may know that that man exists.

How did he draw such an inference? By a fresh and rich principle of interpretation, arguing from the nature of God, and of God's relations to man. The Sadducees took the passage to mean, I am the God in whom Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob put their trust during their brief existence, which is now forever ended. But Jesus reasoned thus: A God who did for the patriarchs what he did would not speak so of himself, He was gloriously their Godso gloriously that he could not call himself their God in such a sense, if their being had been but transient, If men were destined to become extinct, he could not be so gloriously a God to them. That such a God is or can be their God is proof that they are more than mortal, The argument is that the relations in which God enters, or proposes to enter, with men imply their immortality. The richness of man's relation to God is the fact from which Jesus infers his continued existence. See what a God becomes man's God, and it will be plain that he is no creature of a day. Notice that he does not present this as a fact that lies upon the face of Scripture, so that no one can miss it. The Sadducees missed it, and others may; but Jesus teaches us that they who explore the Scriptures by the light of God's nature will find it.As if in order to ensure that this should not be taken as an argument for conditional immortalityi.e. immortality for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as chosen onesLuke adds that all live unto himi.e. in such sense that he is God of the living to them, all are alive. A distinct statement of the continued existence of all human beings. The relation to God from which the argument is derived is naturally possible to all, if not actual; and so the conclusion, of immortality, is true of all.Notice that he draws no distinction here between continued existence and resurrection. The assertion of the former he regards as sufficient to establish the latter. If persons continue to exist, it is proper to speak of their resurrection. Compare John 5:29, where resurrection is predicted for the two classes that include all men.

Luke adds that after this answer some of the scribes responded, Rabbi, thou hast well said, being, perhaps, as Farrar says, pleased by the spiritual refutation of a scepticism which their reasonings had been unable to remove.The fresh method that he thus introduced, of interpreting Scripture in the light of the nature of God and of his relations to men, is a method of boundless suggestiveness. This one specimen of exegesis is enough to prove the freshness and originality of the Christian light upon the word of God. (W. N. Clarke)

FACT QUESTIONS 12:18-27

757.

How can we know the question of the Sadducees was as insincere as that of the Pharisees?

758.

To ask the question in the manner they did was to admit the doctrine of Jesuswhat was it?

759.

What was a Levirate marriage? Why was it practiced?

760.

What was wonderful about the manner in which Jesus answered the question?

761.

Did Jesus mean to say that the resurrection was taught in the Old Testament? Explain.

762.

Not unfamiliarity with the Scriptures but something else kept them from believing in the resurrection, what was it?

763.

How was their understanding of the power of God limited?

764.

Why no marriages in the resurrection-state?

765.

Are there to be no sexes in heaven? Discuss.

766.

What beautiful example in teaching is given here for preachers and teachers of today?

767.

Why quote from the Pentateuch?

768.

Jesus wasn-'t concerned with merely the hope or the expectation of life beyond but with the of it.

769.

Just how did Moses reveal that the dead are raised?

770.

Please explain how Jesus drew the inference He did concerning man's immortality?

771.

Are all men inherently immortal?

772.

Notice that Jesus draws no distinction between continued existence and resurrectionwhat does this prove?

773.

How does John 5:29 relate to this section?

774.

Were some of the questioners helped by His answer?

775.

The method here introduced by Jesus of interpreting scriptures is one of boundless suggestiveness.what is it?