←
Explanation for:
Matthew
22
:
28
At the resurrection therefore whose wife of the seven shall she be? for they all had her.
11
more explanations
& daily audio-books
spoken by
– enjoy in Theosis App –
Start your
Bible-journey
with explanations
& daily audio-books
only 4$* per month
{"arr":[{"author-name":"Ephraem the Syrian","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c88b589fc3e99eb7bb1839_Ephraem%20the%20Syrian.png","category":"Holy Fathers and Teachers","century":4,"exegesis-text":"Can we anticipate that intermarriage will occur in a future realm? If the Jewish people believe that marital unions will continue after the resurrection of the dead, it is not surprising that they are departing from the path of purity even in the present."},{"author-name":"John Chrysostom","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c88ea76859f9f8e2ffd3ee_John%20Chrysostom.png","category":"Holy Fathers and Teachers","century":4,"exegesis-text":"They sought to further mock the teaching of the resurrection. Thus, they proclaimed that \\"all had it,\\" believing that after this, He had no further words to offer."},{"author-name":"Theophylact of Bulgaria","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c8989296bafed9104677d7_Theophylact%20of%20Bulgaria.png","category":"Holy Fathers and Teachers","century":11,"exegesis-text":"They inquire, \\"To whom will the wife belong?\\" We could indeed respond: foolish Sadducees! She rightfully belongs to her first husband if the marriage persists at the time of resurrection, as the subsequent husbands are not her genuine lawful partners, but mere substitutes."},{"author-name":"Euthymios Zigabenos","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c96d263b8c22d9c467bdab_no-pic-theosis.png","category":"Christian Authors","century":11,"exegesis-text":"The Sadducees propose seven marriages to complicate the inquiry. Their intention is clear: regardless of whether He claims there to be one marriage or seven, they could counter that if marriages were to continue, it would inevitably lead to childbirth, property ownership, conflicts, ailments, and death—mirroring the current existence. If the afterlife is akin to this one, the question arises: what significance does the resurrection hold? Thus, they conclude there can be no resurrection. \\n\\nWhat, then, is the role of Christ? (The wife can symbolize human nature, while the seven brothers represent the laws bestowed upon her by God at various intervals for her spiritual nurturing and the cultivation of righteous deeds. Each of these laws, akin to husbands, did not yield genuine fruits during their time. The first law was given to Adam in paradise, the second was bestowed upon him outside the garden as a consequence of sin, the third was bestowed upon Noah regarding the construction of the ark, the fourth was given to Abraham concerning circumcision, the fifth was again addressed to him regarding the offering of Isaac, the sixth was delivered through Moses, and the seventh was conveyed via the prophets. The adversaries, promoting disbelief in the resurrection, cunningly question which of these seven laws human nature would adhere to after death. Whatever answer is provided would suggest that human existence would revert to being unfruitful and plagued by previous hardships. However, the authentic and redemptive message of God dispels these doubts, affirming that post-resurrection, life will be entirely transformed. Regardless of whether one considers the current world as spanning seven thousand years or recognizes seven epochs of human existence, the essential truth remains intact. After the resurrection, she will no longer be bound to any of those laws, as they all will cease, and she will belong to a new age—the eighth—which is eternal.)"},{"author-name":"Abbot Panteleimon about the Trinity","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c96d263b8c22d9c467bdab_no-pic-theosis.png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"The Pharisees assert, as do you, that there is a resurrection of the dead and that the human soul is eternal. However, it is apparent that not only is there no evidence of the soul's immortality in the writings of Moses, but there exists a principle directly opposed to the resurrection doctrine: the law of fatality. According to your belief, at the Rapture, when all seven husbands rise, which of the seven will she belong to? Since all have claimed her, she must either belong to all seven husbands or to none at all, which is equally absurd. Such an unreasonable law could not possibly have been established by Moses, the most esteemed lawgiver. If this were the case, it would imply that Moses did not contemplate the resurrection of the dead or have faith in it; otherwise, he would not have crafted such a statute. Hence, it validates our stance that we too do not believe in the resurrection of the dead. What do you respond to this? St. Chrysostom remarks that their entire narrative seems fabricated; the third husband would not have taken her as his wife, knowing that two of her husbands had already perished. If he had, it stands to reason that the fourth or fifth would refrain from marrying her, fearing the same outcome. Such apprehensions were held by the Jews, who tended to avoid these unions, even though the law mandated them. Why did the Sadducees concoct a scenario with not just two or three, but seven husbands for one wife? Their aim was to scoff at the belief in resurrection. Observe how the Lord clarifies that there will indeed be a resurrection, and it will unfold differently than they envision."},{"author-name":"Michail (Lusin)","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c89550c567e172d15b3055_Michail%20(Lusin).png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"The Sadducees approached the Savior with a peculiar account, rather than directly addressing the resurrection. They conjured a fabricated scenario about seven brothers, seemingly intending to confuse Him and disprove both the concept of resurrection and its nature as taught by Christ. To avoid being questioned about the situation of one woman having seven husbands, they cited Moses, despite the dubious nature of their tale. It would be illogical for the third brother to marry her after two had already died, and if he did, the subsequent brothers would likely hesitate to take her out of fear for their own lives. The Jews were often prone to such apprehensions. \\n\\nThe Sadducees created a situation where one woman had multiple husbands—seven, to be exact—hoping to further mock the idea of resurrection. They argued that all brothers had been married to her, believing this would leave Jesus with no substantial reply. By invoking the law of Moses and illustrating the supposed difficulty in harmonizing it with the resurrection, the Sadducees asserted that, in their view, the concept of resurrection contradicts the divine law established for faith."},{"author-name":"Gladkow B.I.","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c88bf0ceef8c96e09a6521_Gladkow%20B.I..png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"In reference to the Mosaic law, they posed the scenario: “There were seven siblings, the eldest of whom married a wife but passed away without children. His spouse was then taken by the second brother, who also died childless. This continued with the third brother, then the fourth, and so forth, with all seven ultimately dying without producing offspring. After all had passed, the woman also died. If there is indeed a resurrection of the dead, to whom will this woman be united in the afterlife? After all, she had seven husbands! It seems impossible for her to be both the wife of each man or of none, as that would stretch logic. A mighty and divinely inspired lawgiver like Moses could not permit such contradictions in his teachings. Therefore, based on Moses' guidance, it follows that resurrection does not occur.”"},{"author-name":"Lopuchin A.P.","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c891400ee1341634d2276d_Lopuchin%20A.P..png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"The main followers of Christ had primarily been the Pharisees. The other influential group, the Sadducees, comprised the affluent and religious leaders who had largely remained aloof from these matters, viewing Christ with the disdain typical of their attitudes toward the unsophisticated Galileans. However, as the teachings of the Galilean Master resonated throughout Jerusalem and drew remarkable responses even from the Pharisees, the Sadducees felt compelled to engage with Him directly and challenge His understanding of the law and Jewish beliefs. To accomplish this, they formulated one of the most intricate questions related to their skeptical views, particularly centered on the concepts of life after death and resurrection. They presented a scenario derived from rabbinic debate involving a woman who married seven brothers in succession, each of whom passed away without children, inquiring to whom she would be united in the resurrection. Although fictional, this situation was plausible due to the legal stipulation that if a husband died childless, his brother was obligated to take his widow as a wife to preserve his lineage, with the firstborn of that union considered the deceased's heir. Disbelieving in the afterlife and resurrection themselves, and presuming that Jesus, who had spoken of these themes in ways akin to the Pharisees, would be confounded by such a perplexing dilemma, they relished the idea of using this inquiry to shame Him and undermine the doctrine of resurrection. While some rabbis harbored more elevated views regarding the afterlife, most adhered to more simplistic and fleshly concepts. They believed that resurrection would entail individuals returning not only in their previous bodies but also retaining their former desires and appetites; thus, the resurrected would eat, drink, and marry, even appearing in the same attire and bearing the same physical characteristics and flaws, so that others might recognize them as the individuals they encountered in their earthly lives. The very question posed by the Sadducees had already found a resolution among the rabbis, who postulated that a woman married to two husbands in this life would reunite with the first in the world to come. Armed with this crude interpretation and generally denying the idea of resurrection (a doctrine which they argued did not exist in the Mosaic law they accepted), they approached the Savior with their question."},{"author-name":"Paul Matwejewski","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c8969f5be0d592d5a10576_Paul%20Matwejewski.png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"Numerous temptations of this nature were crafted for Him, yet the Lord, in His profound wisdom, vanquished them through His love and compassion. After the Pharisees were dismissed, new adversaries approached Jesus Christ—the Sadducees—who, although not as malicious, opposed the Pharisees, known for their rigid interpretation of the law. The Sadducees denied the existence of the soul after death and claimed that there was no resurrection, nor any angels or spirits (Acts 23:8). They sought to capitalize on the disgrace of their rivals, hoping to elevate themselves in the sight of the people, and dared to pose a question to the Divine Teacher that they believed would serve as their primary argument against the immortality of souls and the resurrection of the dead during their debates with the Pharisees. The Pharisees, viewing the afterlife in a manner akin to earthly existence, struggled to address this inquiry. Initially, the logic of the Sadducees appeared compelling, as noted by St. John Chrysostom, though it was built upon “some fable, an incident unprecedented.” By invoking the Mosaic Law regarding levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5-10; Genesis 38:8), the Sadducees aimed to lend an air of credibility to their contrived scenario and to solidify their conclusion in a deceptive manner. Mirroring the Pharisees, they began their discourse with the Lord with the pretense of respect: “Teacher, Moses wrote unto us, saying, If any brother die, and leave his wife, but leave no children, let his brother take his wife, and raise up seed to his brother. There are seven brothers among us, and the first took a wife and died without leaving children; and the second took her, and he also died, and neither did he leave children; and the third likewise: and the seven had her, and left no children. Last of all the woman died also. In the resurrection, when they rise again, whose wife shall she be? For the seven had her as a wife.” From their perspective, the Pharisees might argue that the woman would belong to the first husband in the resurrection, yet this response would not resolve all the complexities of the dilemma, leaving the rights of the other rightful husbands ambiguous. The Sadducees likely believed that the Savior adhered to the Pharisaical view of immortality, expecting their question to ensnare Him in a significant quandary. They thought that He had only two options: either to endorse polygamy, which would contradict the Law of Moses, or to deny the resurrection of the dead—thereby anticipating their certain victory."},{"author-name":"Bogolepow D.P.","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c96d263b8c22d9c467bdab_no-pic-theosis.png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"The collaboration of the Sadducees with the Pharisees in this instance is not clearly indicated in the Gospel narratives. It is quite possible that they, witnessing how Jesus had confounded the Pharisees and delighting in that outcome, desired for Him to also mock the Pharisees' belief in the resurrection of the dead — a belief that proposed that with the arrival of the Messiah, all Israelites would rise and inhabit the holy land. At the very least, Jesus’ response brought joy to the scribes (Luke 39) and empowered the Pharisees following the Sadducees' defeat through His reply (Matthew 34). \\n\\nThe Sadducees contended that the law of levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5-6), which permits a woman to be married to multiple husbands during her lifetime, renders the Pharisees’ concept of resurrection life implausible. They argued that one must either deem this law unreasonable or deny the possibility of life after death; since a divinely-ordained law cannot be seen as irrational, they concluded that it indicates a denial of resurrection. Their objection stemmed from the Pharisees’ overly physical interpretation of life after resurrection. In response, Jesus asserts that both the Sadducees and Pharisees “do not know the Scriptures” and clarifies their misunderstanding by stating that after resurrection, “they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven” (Matthew 30). \\n\\nSince their objection was rooted in the belief that a decomposed human body cannot rise again, Jesus states that the Sadducees are ignorant of “the power of God” and demonstrates through Scripture (Exodus 3:6) that there is existence beyond the grave, affirming the reality of the resurrection of the dead."},{"author-name":"Alexander Gorsky","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c8884037c1e1c51e1332e2_Alexander%20Gorsky.png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"When the Pharisees were rendered speechless by this response, the Sadducees, belonging to the same Sanhedrin and reveling in their embarrassment, promptly posed a question to Him regarding the resurrection of the dead, a doctrine they had dismissed due to the absurd conclusions they had drawn. Just as the Lord had condemned the Pharisees, He addressed the Sadducees by dismantling the very foundation of their misguided belief. They cited the case of a woman who had been married to seven brothers according to human law. The Lord unveiled to the Sadducees that their misconception arose from (1) their failure to comprehend the Scriptures and (2) their lack of understanding regarding the omnipotence of God. Had they truly grasped even the texts they acknowledged—not just in their literal sense, but also in their spiritual significance—they would have recognized the essential link between the religious teachings within them and the belief in the everlasting existence of humanity. Moreover, if they understood God’s omnipotence, they would not assume that human existence in the future mirrors the present in all its aspects, but would affirm that God can bestow a transformed, glorified existence upon humanity. He then disclosed that the life to come must align with that of the exalted spirits. To support this notion, He referenced the frequent expressions found in the writings of Moses, speaking of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. How could God forge such an intimate relationship with these notable figures, granting them such profound significance and dignity by being called their God, if they were mere fleeting occurrences rather than eternal beings?"}]}
Support this project and get full access for only 4$/month
Commentarie text can’t be scrolled on PC at the moment. Please use your phone. We’re working on a fix.
