All right, if you want to open up your Bibles or at least put your finger in chapter 20, we're going to get there in just a few minutes. I encourage you to— Chris is not here this morning. Chris and his wife and their family are taking a much-needed vacation. They're in Florida enjoying a few days away before they come back. For most of you who may not know, Chris has just been working here part-time, making the commute every week back and forth. From St. Louis area, but when they get back from their vacation, they'll be back in Kansas City on Wednesday night and they'll be back full-time. So I'm looking forward to that as well as I'm sure most of you are as well. But just to encourage you to remember them in prayer as they finish up their last couple of days vacationing together. So, and they'll be back here late Wednesday night. All right, Luke 20. I'm going to continue on our study of Luke. So we'll get to the text in just a minute, but one of the greatest questions that man has pondered for most of history is this one: Is there life after death?
And for most of history, the commonly held view is that, yes, there is life after death. The ancient Egyptians believed in life after death. The ancient Greeks did as well. The American Indians and the Norsemen also believed that there was a life after death. And throughout history, many cultures have felt the pull of an afterlife, or a life after death, or a resurrection of some kind. Many cultures had various burial practices where they would bury a dead person with money or possessions or various items that the deceased individual would need to get into the next life or navigate through the next life. And the Jews of Jesus' time were no different. They had a strong belief in the resurrection. They knew their scriptures, what we know as the Old Testament, promised them resurrection life.
In Psalm 16, David writes, he says, 'Therefore my heart is glad and my whole being rejoices. My flesh also dwells secure, for You will not abandon me to Sheol or the grave. Or let your Holy One see corruption or decay. You will make known to me the path of life; and in your presence is fullness of joy; in your right hand are pleasures forevermore.' David here expresses the hope that he had in that though he will die, he will not remain in the grave. He will find the path of life. The Lord will take him into His presence where he will live in pleasure forever.
In Psalm 49, the psalmist there says, 'But God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol,' or the grave again. 'He will receive me.' Again, we see the confidence that the psalmist had in eternal life, that he wouldn't remain in the grave.
Daniel 12:2, 'Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life and the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.' There will be a resurrection of everyone, some to everlasting life and some to everlasting contempt, some to heaven and some to hell. Numerous other references about a resurrection can be found throughout the book of Psalms, in the book of Isaiah, in the book of Hosea. So it was commonly believed among the Jews throughout their history, and certainly at the time of Jesus, that there will be a life after death. Death, that there is life in the presence of God or out of the presence of God. And there will be a resurrection body. There's going to be a resurrection to life or into contempt and disgrace.
So that's a little bit of the background for our text this morning. So let's read now together Luke 20, beginning at verse 27.
6 · Full reading of the primary text—the Sadducees' challenge about resurrection and Jesus' two-part response proving both the nature of resurrection life and the reality of resurrection itself
'There came to Him some Sadducees,' those who deny that there is a resurrection. And they asked Him a question, saying, 'Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies, having a wife but no children, the man must take the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. Now there were seven brothers. The first took a wife and died without children, and the second and the third took her, and likewise all seven left no children and died. Afterward the woman also died.' In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For the 7 had her as wife. And Jesus said to them, the sons of this age marry or are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. But the dead are raised. Even Moses showed in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him.' Then some of the scribes answered, 'Teacher, you have spoken well.' For they no longer dared to ask him any questions.
7 · Prayer asking for divine illumination and thanking God for the hope of resurrection secured by Christ's death and resurrection
Let's pray. Lord, we thank you for your word. We are grateful for it and how it teaches us about you, how it teaches us about the resurrection life, and for the hope that we are encouraged through this passage in Christ. Lord, our hope in resurrection comes from what Christ accomplished for us on the cross, and when he rose on the third day. So we pray that you would open our hearts and our minds, that we could hear clearly from you this morning, Lord. Teach us what you will, that you might be honored and glorified in our lives. In Jesus' name, amen.
8 · Places the current encounter in the broader narrative context of Luke 20, where various groups have been testing Jesus with hostile questions
All right, so over the last few weeks, have we been working our way through Luke 20. We've read of several attempts by a number of groups who've come to Jesus with the with the intent of trying to trip Him up with their questions in order to find a way to bring charges against Him. And in each case, we've seen how Jesus rebuffed their attempts. Now it's time for the Sadducees to step up to the plate.
9 · Establishes the political and economic status of the Sadducees—they were the wealthy priestly aristocracy who controlled the Sanhedrin and held the high priesthood
But who are the Sadducees? We all know of them by name. It shouldn't be a name that we haven't heard before. But we may not know much about them because they aren't really mentioned that much throughout the New Testament. I think there's actually only 7 or 8 references to the Sadducees if you look through the New Testament. The Sadducees were a part of the privileged, the ruling elite in Israel at the time. Their priests held the majority of the members of the Sanhedrin, which was the highest court of justice in Jerusalem. And by tradition, one of their members held the position of high priest. Most of the Sadducees were wealthy. They were wealthy members of the upper class. They were the priestly aristocracy.
10 · Contrasts the Sadducees with the Pharisees on political and theological grounds—Sadducees cooperated with Rome and held to a strict Pentateuchal literalism, while Pharisees resisted Rome and followed oral tradition
One commentator describes them as this way. He says, 'They were insular. They were patrician. They were heartless. And they were philosophical materialists.' The Sadducees disagreed with the Pharisees on nearly all political and religious issues. The Pharisees wanted to overthrow the Roman oppressors. The Sadducees, on the other hand, wanted to cooperate with Rome as a way of holding on to their political power. In theological matters, the Pharisees followed the traditions of their forefathers. Including many moral regulations that went far beyond what Scripture called for. The Sadducees, on the other hand, took a very literal interpretation of the Pentateuch or the Law of Moses, which we know as the first 5 books of the Bible. That was what they considered where the true religion of Israel was laid out and defined for God's people in those first 5 books.
11 · Traces the logical consequence of the Sadducees' denial of resurrection—they lived for this life alone, pursuing wealth and power by collaborating with Rome, which made them hated by the people and led to their extinction after AD 70
And since there was no resurrection in their minds, Since there was nothing to be worried about in the life to come, they put all of their stock in this life. The Sadducees went after all the power, all the wealth, all the position, and all the control that they could get. But this required them to cozy up with Rome in order to hold on to that power. It was the Romans who gave them the power that they had, so they did everything they could to appease Rome to make sure that their positions of power and authority were not challenged or questioned. And the people of Israel hated them for this cozying up to Rome. They hated them for their accommodation of Rome. They hated them for their corruption of the way they ran the temple. They did everything— their corrupt temple operation was very challenging, very difficult for the people to navigate through, and it was a continual irritation to the Jewish people. And when the temple was finally destroyed in AD 70, the Sadducees as a sect ceased to exist after that. Once their priestly position that was held in the temple, represented by the temple, was wiped out, their power was broken and they ceased basically to exist as a sect after that.
12 · Establishes the theological identity of the Sadducees—they were defined by their denial of resurrection, heaven, hell, and the immortality of the soul, according to both Luke and the historian Josephus
As I mentioned earlier, it was a common belief among the Jews that there was a resurrection. But it wasn't a view held by all Jews. There were dissenters, and the Sadducees were those dissenters. So they're introduced in our text here this morning with a brief description of what they didn't believe in verse 27. It introduces them, it says, 'Now there were some Sadducees who deny that there is a resurrection.' That's how Luke wants us to know them. And if there was one doctrine that defined the Sadducees, it was their denial of eternal life. They had a strong and complete rejection of the resurrection. According to the historian Josephus, the Sadducees wanted to get rid of the persistence of the soul. They wanted to get rid of the penalties in death, and they wanted to get rid of rewards in the next life. The Sadducees therefore vehemently denied the doctrines of heaven, hell, and human immortality. They believed that the soul perished along with the body.
13 · Connects the Sadducees' theology to their lifestyle—their denial of the resurrection made earthly wealth and power their only rational pursuit, including profiting from temple corruption
So knowing what we do about the Sadducees now, it shouldn't surprise us that they denied the resurrection. These were wealthy men who enjoyed all of the material comforts that life had to offer. If there wasn't a resurrection and a life after death, these guys had nothing better to do than to live for the present. So when the moneychangers made their profits in the temple, most of the profits went to the Sadducees. They lived for today and they gave no thought to eternity.
14 · Situates the encounter chronologically and emotionally—the Sadducees are furious because Jesus has disrupted their profitable temple operations, and they see Him as a threat who must be discredited
Remember, this discourse between Jesus and the Sadducees is taking place on Wednesday. It's 2 days before He goes to the cross. It's already been a busy day for Jesus. He's been dealing with the moneychangers and the sellers in the temple, driving them out. He's been teaching in the temple. He's been interacting with the people in and around the temple. The scribes, the chief priests, and the Pharisees have all come. 'After him.' And now it's the Sadducees' turn, and they are furious at Jesus for what he had done earlier in the day when he had driven out the money changers. So we don't see the Sadducees very often, but when we do see them, we do read about them, they're always in the temple. That's where they spent their time. They ran the temple operations, I said. It was a very financially lucrative operation, and Jesus had just a few hours before this driven out the moneychangers, the sellers, and the Sadducees were understandably very furious for what He had done. If there's one man in all of Israel who threatened the Sadducees' way of life, it was Jesus. And now they were hoping to find some way of discrediting Him in order to finally be rid of Him. So they come to Jesus with an elaborate question that's designed to show what they believe to be the absurdity of the resurrection.
15 · Introduces the Sadducees' challenge question—a hypothetical about a woman married seven times under levirate law—and explains the biblical basis for levirate marriage in Deuteronomy 25
The Sadducees' approach is to discredit Him in front of the people by asking Him a question that nobody else has been able to answer. This is their ultimate question about the resurrection. It's probably the one that they had practiced and used before on the Pharisees, and it's the one that had probably stumped everybody who believes in the resurrection. So this is their best shot. They hope they could make Jesus look foolish by this one simple question on the resurrection. They say, 'Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies, having a wife but no children, the man must take the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. Now there were seven brothers. The first took a wife and dies without children. And the second and the third took her, and likewise all seven left no children and died. Afterward the woman also died.' In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For the 7 had her as wife.' Now, their question is actually based on a law that we read about in Moses, the very part of the Old Testament the Sadducees claimed to know inside and out, to know very, very well. It's the one that they supported and defended, and it comes from Deuteronomy 25. It says, '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 into her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. 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.' It's in Deuteronomy 25:5-6. 25, beginning in verse 5. 'So if a married man dies childless, his brother'—this would be the woman's brother-in-law—'was to marry her, and the first son of that marriage would be considered the son of the deceased man.' The purpose of this marriage was to produce a son that could then carry on the family name and inheritance of the brother who had died. It was a way of protecting and preserving the nation and the identity of the people and the places that God had given them. And designated for them. It's called levirate marriage, from the Latin word meaning brother.
16 · Describes the Sadducees' rhetorical strategy—taking a legitimate law to an absurd extreme to make resurrection belief look foolish—and captures their confident expectation that they've finally trapped Jesus
So in raising their hypothetical question, the Sadducees take what is a good biblical law to a crazy extreme—one bride for 7 brothers. They take it to extreme hoping to prove a point—just how ridiculous, at least in their minds, the idea of resurrection is. 'Who would this woman who's been married 7 times be married to in the resurrection? Surely she can't be married to all 7 of them.' Well, that's a good question. Maybe. It wouldn't take too much imagination now to see the Sadducees smugly waiting for Jesus to come up with an answer for this one. 'We got Him now. Good question, Simeon. Good question.' They're slapping each other on the back, patting each other. Smug, all excited. They've come up with a question they believe is going to stump Jesus.
17 · Uses humor to expose the absurdity of the Sadducees' question—imagining the perspective of successive brothers reluctant to marry a woman whose previous seven husbands all died
But in reality, it's very possible this question was just— they had used this question many times, as I had said. They practiced it on the Pharisees. They practiced it on others who believed in the resurrection. They had tried it out. They'd come up with various forms of it, and now they pull out their best one, thinking they're going to get Jesus here. But it's not really a question at all. They're really trying to make a point here. That's all they want to do. They want to make a theological point with Jesus. They don't sincerely want to know who this woman's going to be married to in the resurrection. It was hypothetical most likely and very highly speculative. How likely was this kind of scenario actually to happen? And what woman would actually want to marry 7 brothers? And consider it from the perspective of the brothers as well. Imagine being brother number 4. If it's me, I'm getting out of town. I've watched my 3 other brothers die when they married this woman. It seems everyone who marries her dies. Imagine if you're the 4th or 5th or 6th brother. How eager do you think that the 5th or 6th or 7th brother is to actually marry her and take her as his wife. Finally, in verse 32, and mercifully, we're told that the woman died. So I wonder how many lives were saved by this death.
18 · Diagnoses the fundamental flaw in the Sadducees' argument—they use a biblical text to support an unbiblical conclusion—and warns that this error is still common today
But there's a bigger problem with this question. It uses a biblical premise in order to advance an unbiblical conclusion. The Jews were instructed that if a man did die without children, his brother was to marry the woman and produce offspring for him. But they come to an unbiblical conclusion. They make an error that is often made today as well. Just because someone starts an argument or defends their position with a Bible verse, quoting out a scripture, doesn't mean that they really understand what the Bible says. The Sadducees didn't.
19 · Uses prosperity gospel preachers as a contemporary example of how Scripture can be misused to support false theology through selective quotation out of context
And we're prone to that problem today if we're not very careful. Just look at all the prosperity gospel preachers. They use Scripture to support their point, but they totally miss what the gospel is in their presentations. So the Bible can and is used to defend unbiblical theology when texts and passages are taken out of context.
20 · Pronounces final judgment on the Sadducees' hermeneutics—they exemplify bad exegesis despite their claim to be strict interpreters of Scripture
So the Sadducees here quote from Deuteronomy, but they completely missed the point. It's a textbook case of bad exegesis.
21 · Introduces Jesus' response from Matthew's account—a direct rebuke accusing the Sadducees of ignorance of both Scripture and God's power, striking at the very identity they claimed for themselves as Scripture experts
And over in Matthew's version of this encounter, Jesus begins by rebuking the Sadducees. In Matthew 22:29, Jesus begins His answer, He says, with this. He says, 'You are wrong. You are wrong because you neither know the Scriptures nor the power of God.' It was hard and painful for them earlier in the morning, for the Sadducees to watch what Jesus did as He drove the moneychangers out of the temple. But now He takes direct aim at their theology. The Sadducees prided themselves on being good interpreters of Scripture, keepers of the true religion that was laid out in the books of Moses. They are mocking the resurrection now, making a joke out of it, and Jesus knocks their feet out from underneath them and says, 'You are wrong. You are wrong,' He begins. But why are they wrong? Says, 'Because they know neither the scriptures nor the power of God.' Had they known the scriptures, they would have known that God promises resurrection life. It's quite an indictment of these guys and their theology.
22 · Explains why Jesus must answer the Sadducees despite the foolishness of their question—because denial of resurrection strikes at the heart of the gospel, undermining atonement, judgment, and the entire Christian message
But as bad as the question was, it still needed to be answered because the Sadducees were bringing up something that strikes at the very heart of the gospel. The gospel is the good news about what Jesus has done to save us from our sins. The gospel is the cross and the empty tomb, the death and the resurrection of Jesus. When Jesus died on the cross, Jesus suffered the punishment that we deserve for our sins. He died. He was placed in a grave. When He rose again 3 days later, He broke the power of death. The denial of the resurrection is a denial of half the gospel. So if there's no resurrection, there's no good news for sinners. And if there's no resurrection, there's no final judgment. Therefore, there's no need for the atonement. This was an attack on Jesus' mission, and he had to respond to the question, no matter how foolish it may have been.
23 · Explains Jesus' first response—He dismantles the Sadducees' false premise by teaching that marriage belongs only to this present age, not to the age of resurrection
He answers by basically completely dismissing one of their main premises or assumptions about resurrection life. In Luke 20:34, he answers, he said, 'The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage.' But those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. So he's basically saying that their assumption that they used in their argument is that marriage in the resurrection is completely wrong. Because men and women are married in this life, They were basing their question on an assumption that it would be the same in the resurrected life. It's characteristic of this present age that some people get married. It will be different, however, in the coming age when no one will get married at all.
24 · Develops Jesus' reasoning—marriage exists in this age primarily for procreation, which is necessary because people die; in resurrection life where death is abolished, marriage has no purpose
Jesus gives a bit more of an explanation, telling them that we won't be married or given in marriage because those who attain to the resurrection from the dead cannot die anymore. So one of the primary purposes of marriage is procreation. From the beginning of the world, God told His people to be fruitful and to multiply and to fill the earth. That was essential in order for the continuance of the human race. But no one will or can die in the resurrection. Therefore, there's no need for marriage, no need for more children in the resurrection. Sadducees were assuming that if there is a life to come, Married people will still be married. That's why they ask, 'And who is that woman going to be married to?' They base their question on the assumption that if there is life after the resurrection, it would basically be the same as this life, only without end.
25 · Personal testimony acknowledging the emotional difficulty of Jesus' teaching—the pastor confesses his own struggle to imagine relating to his wife outside of marriage, while affirming faith that it will not be awkward in the resurrection
Now, some of us might find Jesus' answer to them a little bit disappointing, especially for those of us who are in good marriages. I love my wife. We've been together for nearly 34 years. We've raised a family together. We enjoy being together. We enjoy our lives. Our marriage is rewarding. I find it comforting. And it's hard to be apart. When we have to separate for long periods of time, that's difficult. It's hard for me to imagine not relating to her or relating to her in a way outside of being husband and wife. But it's awkward now. Awkward to think of that, but I know that it won't be awkward then. Pam's going to be a dear sister in the Lord. I look forward to eternity with her, but I got to admit, it's a little hard to imagine now what that's going to be like when I know her as my wife and that's the only way I know her.
26 · Explains the second truth Jesus teaches—only those God counts worthy will be raised—and unpacks the Greek word to show that worthiness is not achieved but bestowed by God through faith in Christ's righteousness
In exposing the false premise of the Sadducees, though, Jesus was teaching important truths about the life in the resurrection. The first truth He taught was about marriage and that there will not be marriage in a resurrection life. There won't be marriage in heaven. Second truth is that not everyone is going to go to heaven, but only those, He says, who are considered worthy. This is a message or a truth about merit. Only the people who God finds worthy are going to receive the blessing of the resurrection. And that raises an important and quite obvious question for us then. If I want to go to heaven when I die, and if heaven is only for the people who God finds worthy to be there, then what do I have to do for God to find me worthy? Well, Jesus doesn't actually answer that question completely in this text, but if you read through the New Testament, it should be very clear to you. But he does give us a couple of clues. The Greek word that he uses here gives us some clues to the meaning there. The word is simply translated as worthy in the ESV, but it carries far more weight with it than that in the Greek. The word means to be counted worthy or made worthy. So worthiness is not something that we do, but it's something that's done to us. It's not something that comes from inside of us, but something that God declares about us and gives us by His grace. Because of our sin, we are not worthy in ourselves. But God does consider us or count us as worthy, and He does that on the basis of the perfection of His Son and the righteousness of Jesus Christ. And that's what the gospel is about. We are not worthy, but Jesus is. We put our faith in Jesus, God considers us to be worthy in His sight. The Apostle Paul says he wants to be found in Christ in Philippians 3:9. It says, 'Not having a righteousness or a worthiness.' 'of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness,' again, or worthiness, 'from God that depends on faith.' Our worthiness comes from Christ and Christ alone.
27 · Explains the third truth—resurrected believers will be immortal like angels—and clarifies that 'equal to angels' means sharing their immortality and unmarried state, not becoming angels
The third great truth that Jesus teaches about the resurrection is that when God raises us from the dead, we will never die again. Jesus said, 'People who are counted worthy of the resurrection cannot die anymore. So our resurrection life is going to be eternal. We are raised from the dead, we are told that we will be equal to angels. He isn't saying that we will become angels, but that we will be equal to the angels. So in certain respects, we are going to be equal to angels in the resurrection life. The NIV, I think, does a little bit better job of the translation. It says they are like 'Angels.' So in what ways will we be like angels? There's a number of points of comparison that the text doesn't really go into, so I won't go there this morning, but there are two that the text leads us to. The first one is that angels never marry, and Jesus just clarified that we will not marry in heaven either. But the main comparison here seems to be that the angels are immortal. They will not and cannot die. And when God raises us from the dead, we too will be immortal. It's an everlasting immortality which is essential to the joy of eternal life.
28 · Identifies the fourth truth—resurrected believers will be called sons of God—and emphasizes the corporate family nature of resurrection life
The fourth truth I think that Jesus teaches us here about resurrection life is that we'll be raised up to be called sons of God. It says, 'Those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection of the dead are sons of God.' So we will be the sons and daughters of God. And life in the resurrection will be celebrated and enjoyed together as the family of God.
29 · Pivots from Jesus' first answer (no marriage in resurrection) to His second, more crucial answer (proof that resurrection happens)—framed as the knockout punch after softening jabs
So Jesus began His answer to the question from the Sadducees by showing that their question was based on a completely flawed assumption that there will not be marriage— that they believed that there will be marriage in the resurrection. He denies that. There's much more that could be said about what resurrection life will be like. But Jesus continues on with what I believe to be a more crucial part of His answer and His response to the Sadducees. And that's this, that the dead really do rise. It's far more important than the argument over will we or won't we be married in heaven. Jesus continues on backing up the dead will rise. The Sadducees claimed again that there is no resurrection, and they believed that the Scripture itself supported that. So Jesus begins the next part of His answer to them with this. He says, 'Even Moses showed.' He's going to point out the foolishness of their question. He's pointed out the foolishness of their question. Now He's going to go at the very heart of their theology. A couple of little jabs to soften them up. And here comes the knockout punch.
30 · Introduces Jesus' proof of resurrection from Exodus 3—God's identification as 'the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob' in the present tense implies these patriarchs are alive, not dead
So He simply asserted up to this point that there is a resurrection. It's assumed in His response that we will rise from the dead. But at the end of His response to the Sadducees, He begins to prove that the doctrine of a resurrection can be found in the Old Testament. And He goes back to the books of Moses. In verse 12, going back to Luke 20:37, He continues His response to the Sadducees. But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Now He is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to Him. So the Sadducees again prided themselves on their knowledge of the Pentateuch, of the first 5 books of the Bible. They were convinced that the Pentateuch had nothing to say about the resurrection. But here is Jesus about to prove to them that the resurrection does exist and can be found in the Pentateuch. So let's take a quick look at one of the probably most significant passages in the Old Testament, and it's the story of the burning bush that's found in Exodus. God's people were slaves in Egypt at the time, and they were crying out for deliverance. After fleeing Egypt and spending many years in the wilderness, Moses met the living God up on the mountainside, and God spoke to Moses, as we'll recall, through a burning bush, a bush that burned but was never consumed by the fire. It was here that God called Moses to be His prophet, and with this call came God's promise to lead His people out of Egypt and back into the Promised Land, as well as the revelation of His special and divine name. So before all that takes place, though, God identifies Himself here to Moses as the God of the Covenant, the God who had made everlasting promises to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. The wording here is important. In Exodus 3:6, God says, 'I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, 'And the God of Jacob.' God was speaking to Moses in the present tense. He didn't say, 'I was the God of these men,' but, 'I am the God of these men.' He was showing Moses that He was a living God and a God of living people. So Jesus uses this meeting or this encounter between God and Moses as the basis for the resurrection.
31 · Develops the logical argument—God can only claim to be the God of these men if they are alive; otherwise He would be the God of non-existent beings, which is absurd
The recounting of this meeting between God and Moses would be a passage that the Sadducees should have been very, very well acquainted with. So Jesus uses this passage from Exodus to show that when God said, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,' He was not just saying something about God Himself. He was also saying something about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God's claim to be the God of these men is only true if Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are still alive. So this is centuries now After these men had died, it's centuries after Moses had had that encounter with God on the mountainside, yet God was still identifying Himself as their God. There has to be a living Abraham, a living Isaac, and a living Jacob for Him to be the God of.
32 · Quotes Leon Morris to reinforce the logical conclusion—the patriarchs must be alive beyond the grave or God's identification makes no sense
And this can only be true, says Leon Morris, if they are alive, referring to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, if they are alive beyond the grave. The alternative is to think of God as the God of non-existent beings, which is absurd.
33 · Deepens the argument by connecting resurrection to covenant faithfulness—God must raise the patriarchs to fulfill His promises to them, which were not fully realized in their lifetimes
There's a bit more though. How could God even call Himself the God of these men unless He kept His promises to them? God is using covenant language when He calls Himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. At the end of Exodus 2:24, when God responds to the cries of a people, We're told that God remembered His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. These were the men whom God had promised to save forever. So God kept many of His promises to these men during their lifetimes, but none of them ever had full possession of the Promised Land when they died. None of them saw the promised offspring that would be like the stars in the sky or the sand in the desert while they were still alive. None of them saw the promised Savior that God said He would give for the nations through the line of Abraham. They didn't see the promised Savior in their lifetimes. So God identifies Himself to Moses as the God of these men, and He can only say that to Moses without apology because every last one of His promises made to the men will come true in the resurrection. They will reach the promised land of God's glory. They will worship with their children in the eternal city. They will know the crucified and risen Christ. If God could not raise the dead, then He would not be much of a God for those men, and He could not keep His— could have kept His everlasting promises to those men. But He is the God who raises the dead.
34 · Reiterates the logical conclusion and brings Jesus' argument full circle to His opening rebuke—the Sadducees don't know Scripture or God's power because they deny what Scripture proves
So the only conclusion that logically can come to here, as Jesus is trying to point out, is that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob must still be alive. So again, Jesus is proving to the Sadducees here. His opening words to them over in Matthew's version of this, He said, 'You are wrong because you neither know the Scriptures nor the power of God.' They didn't get it as they read through the Scriptures. They were wrong. Jesus tells them they didn't know the Scriptures and they don't know the power of God to raise the dead.
35 · Extends the argument from the patriarchs to all believers—everyone who comes to God through faith shares the same resurrection life, proven by Jesus' own resurrection
So everyone who comes to God through faith in Jesus has the same resurrection life. We will be raised from the dead by the power of the living God so that we too can glorify God and enjoy Him forever. It all depends on the resurrection, which is essential to the whole relationship that God has with His people. He is not our God unless He is able to raise us from the dead and establish a relationship with us that will last for all of eternity. For proof of that resurrection, Jesus just uses Exodus. We can go and look at the empty tomb. Our God is the God of the living. He is the God of Abraham. He is the God of Isaac. And He is the God of Jacob. He's the God of Moses. He's the God of all of us who believe in Christ Jesus alone for the salvation of our souls. But most of all, He's the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, who on the third day was raised to everlasting life. By the resurrection power of God.
36 · Acknowledges the congregation's likely intellectual assent to resurrection doctrine as preparation for challenging whether their lives reflect that belief
I'm willing to take a little bit of a guess here that most everyone in this room, particularly those of us who are born-again believers, would have no issue with the doctrine of the resurrection. If we were to take a poll, I'm guessing that we would probably have 100% unanimous approval or validation that we believe in the resurrection. We are taught it, we believe it, it's where our hope is.
37 · Issues the sermon's central application challenge—believers must examine whether their life choices reflect resurrection hope or functional Sadduceeism, listing specific areas for self-examination
But I have a question for us this morning to consider, and it's this: Do I live a life that reflects my hope in the resurrection, or do I live as a functional Sadducee in a way that denies the resurrection and the hope of eternal life? Remember, these guys, the Sadducees, didn't believe in the resurrection, so their life was all about this one. They lived it to the fullest. They went after everything that they could in this life. They put all their stock in this life. They went after all the power, all the wealth, all the position, all the control that they could get in this life with no regard to the next life. So I want to challenge us this morning with this question: do the choices that we make in our life, how we schedule our time, How we spend our money, how we make choices about family, our careers, where to live, how we treat others, how we care for others, our conversations, our thoughts about retirement, self-preservation, our thoughts, our dreams, and how we measure success and health. Do all of those reflect our belief and hope in the resurrection and eternal life with God? Or do we live in a way that I would identify us as being functional Sadducees?
38 · Uses the cultural slogan 'He who dies with the most toys wins' and his father's rebuttal t-shirt to illustrate the functional Sadduceeism of hedonistic materialism
A number of years ago, there was a popular slogan that was something like this. He said, 'He who dies with the most toys wins.' The idea being to collect as many toys, and however you would define that, as you can in this lifetime. And the one who collects the most I won. It's all about this life. My dad had an interesting shirt. It was very similar to that one. Remember, a t-shirt. On the back it said, 'He who has the most toys still dies.' My dad was not a believer, but that was a very accurate statement on the back of his t-shirt. That message in that statement, though, 'He who dies with the most toys wins,' describes a very hedonistic philosophy. That's very common in this day and age. The acquisition of things and the pursuit of pleasure are for many the driving force and measuring rod of a successful life.
39 · Identifies YOLO as heretical denial of resurrection and warns that Christians often live by this philosophy despite professing resurrection hope—evident in prayer, pursuits, and priorities
There is another common phrase that's very similar to this one as well. It's called, 'You only live once,' or YOLO for short. We hear it quite often, and it too flies in the face of the teaching of the resurrection. It denies the resurrection. It's heretical. But sadly, it's a sentiment that we often hear among Christians. The very people whose hope is in the resurrection denying it with that phrase and living lives that reflect the YOLO philosophy far more than their stated belief in the resurrection. It can be seen in pursuits of earthly pleasures, experiences, possessions, and safety ahead of the pursuits of godliness in Christian maturity. We can hear it in how we pray for each other, how we pray for ourselves.
40 · Humorous hypothetical imagining the Sadducees selling YOLO t-shirts in the temple to reinforce the connection between ancient Sadduceeism and modern functional denial of resurrection
If there had been a way to mass-produce t-shirts back in the first century, I have no doubt that the Sadducees would have printed t-shirts and had those phrases on their chest or on the back, and they would have been selling them there in the temple.
41 · Personal confession about bucket lists and love for mountains as vehicles for challenging the congregation to evaluate whether their aspirations reflect earthly fixation or resurrection hope
How many of us have bucket lists? I have one. I'm sure most of us do if we're honest with ourselves. And what is on your bucket list? If you're like me, it probably reflects things that you enjoy doing, things that you value. The question is, though, again for us this morning, and I've had to wrestle with this as I've prepared this message the last few weeks, does it reflect my belief in the resurrection that I'm going to spend eternity with God, with my Savior? On the new earth, a new earth that's unblemished. There'll be no smog, there's going to be no water pollution, there's going to be no sadness, no sickness, no tears, no death. It's going to be far more glorious than this life. I love going to the mountains. If I could live anywhere, if I had my choice, I would live in the mountains or very close to them. I just love the majesty, the grandeur. I love seeing the snow in the winter, the green in the summer, in the spring and summer. To me, that's just— that's where God lives, in the mountains. But I— and I want to do a lot of things on vacation. Let's go to the mountains. Let's do the mountains. But I need to come to grips with the fact that those mountains, as much as I love them and I want to look at them now, they're going to pale, they're going to pale in light of mountains on the new heaven and the new earth. So what's on our bucket list? What do we want to pursue? Are we pursuing things of this earth alone, or are we thinking with the resurrection, the life to come, as we pursue our lives here?
42 · Clarifies that the application is not ascetic rejection of creation or health but proper ordering of affections—we should steward and enjoy God's gifts without making them ultimate
But don't hear what I'm not saying. So we are the temple of the Holy Spirit, and it's right for us to care for our bodies. To eat right, to exercise, and to care for them in a way that's wise and prudent as good stewards. It's good for us to enjoy all that God has given us—our families, foods, cultures, our homes, the beauty of creation—and to appreciate all that He's given, all of His blessings and all He's given us, to give thanks for.
43 · Grounds the proper ordering of affections in Paul's instruction—hope in God rather than wealth, laying up treasure for the coming age to take hold of true life
Paul in 1 Timothy 6 actually speaks about that. But he says not to put our hope in wealth, but to put our hope in God so that we will lay up for treasure for ourselves as a firm foundation for the coming age so that we may take hold of the life that is truly life.
44 · Introduces closing quotation from Darrell Bock to synthesize the sermon's theological and practical implications
I want to close with this quote from Darrell Bock.
45 · Closing quotation from Darrell Bock synthesizing the passage's theological significance—Jesus' superiority, the reality of resurrection, rejection of reincarnation, and the ultimate question of whether one is a child of God
Says, 'This passage is important because it shows again that Jesus' understanding of God's way and will is superior to his opponents' perception. In addition, it shows Jesus' affirmation of a resurrection and an afterlife that is different from life now in certain particulars. There is no reincarnation, nor is this life all there is. In the face of modern doubts about resurrection and rising belief in reincarnation and other ideas of karmic recirculation, this text makes it clear clear that this life is our one mortal moment and that after it we are accountable to God for how we have spent it. Death is not the end, only a beginning. The question is, the beginning of what? And only one's response to Jesus determines the answer to that question. Childless Levirate wives need not worry about— need not worry which man is their husband. All should worry, though, whether they are a child of God.'