Matthew 22:23-33

[Yep]

In another thread the following was being discussed:

23 ¶The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,

24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:

26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.

27 And last of all the woman died also.

28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

I would like to see a discussion focused on this passage as I feel it to be a rather important passage.

I believe that Christ isn't evasive and is not condemning eternal marriage either. I believe he is simply stating that the Sadducees already know whose wife the woman is and/or is not.

[bluebell]

The Sadducees were the group that did not believe in the resurrection at all, right?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

In another thread the following was being discussed:

I would like to see a discussion focused on this passage as I feel it to be a rather important passage.

I believe that Christ isn't evasive and is not condemning eternal marriage either. I believe he is simply stating that the Sadducees already know whose wife the woman is and/or is not.

Or that "they" as Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, and therefore would not have taken part in eternal marriage.

[Yep]

The Sadducees were the group that did not believe in the resurrection at all, right?

Correct. They may have even denied the immortality of the soul. They were only temporally minded.

[Yep]

Or that "they" as Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, and therefore would not have taken part in eternal marriage.

So, a claim that the men and women involved were Sadducees in their practice?

If so, I find Christ's answer even more interesting. The Sadducees also had no belief in angels and demons. How does this fact then impact the meaning of verse 30? Is Christ stating that the temporal marriages are the same as the Sadducees' view of the angels and thus non-existent in the eternities?

[Thunderfire]

I acknowledge that many here are far more versed in Hebrew history and custom than I am. Yet I was taught that in Jesus day, the people didn't understand resurrection as we do today. For them, they could only live on through their children and their children's children. In Eusebius' book "History of the Church", he uses this example as to why the scriptures list two different ancestral lineages for Jesus.

As example, if a man died childless, his brother would take his wife that she might bear a child. Yet any children born of this union would be "credited" on behalf of the deceased brother. Now we can see how the Sadducees were taking this to the extreme with a woman having to marry seven brothers in order to have a child for the deceased brothers lineage.

In my opinion, this is where Jesus was really shaking up things with Jewish belief. Presenting an entirely different paradigm of resurrection that was not tied in with lineage. So this is not about eternal marriage, but a new revelation regarding resurrection for the individual not tied in with lineage for them to live on.

[volgadon]

So, a claim that the men and women involved were Sadducees in their practice?

If so, I find Christ's answer even more interesting. The Sadducees also had no belief in angels and demons. How does this fact then impact the meaning of verse 30? Is Christ stating that the temporal marriages are the same as the Sadducees' view of the angels and thus non-existent in the eternities?

Not quite true. Their position was a lot more nuanced, as they couldn't very well reject the existence of angels entirely when the Pentateuch mentions several of them.

[Yep]

Not quite true. Their position was a lot more nuanced, as they couldn't very well reject the existence of angels entirely when the Pentateuch mentions several of them.

There is the following:

8 For the ^aSadducees say that there is no ^bresurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

However, the Sadducee view might be closer to the LDS view of angels, which would probably be considered denying the existence of angels according to much of the popular traditional views of angels.

Still, from a perspective that the Sadducee denies the angels in some manner, the implication of verse 30 is still a bit different than a casual reading might assume.

What do we know of the Sadducee view on angels? What would Christ's statement mean given their position?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

So, a claim that the men and women involved were Sadducees in their practice?

If so, I find Christ's answer even more interesting. The Sadducees also had no belief in angels and demons. How does this fact then impact the meaning of verse 30? Is Christ stating that the temporal marriages are the same as the Sadducees' view of the angels and thus non-existent in the eternities?

There are two accounts, also see "Sadducees" in Bible Dictionary.

[rongo]

Here is what I said in the other thread:

--------

He also didn't say what you say He said, either. Those who live by "strict constructionist" can also die by it, too . . .

What He said was "in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." He did not say "in the resurrection, absolutely every person who ever lived, worlds without end, neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." He also didn't say "there is absolutely no marriage at all in the hereafter, for anybody ---- it simply doesn't exist." That is what critics insist is so clear in these passages in the synoptic gospels.

Who are the "they" Jesus was talking to? The first thing He said before even giving His answer, was that those posing the hypothetical scenario "do err, neither understanding the scriptures nor the power of God." That is completely consistent with the LDS interpretation of what Jesus meant: those who err and don't understand or accept the scriptures or the power of God will indeed not marry, nor be given in marriage.

And why would Jesus bring up the "power of God" when talking about marriage in the hereafter, anyway? Notice His answer: those who insist that there is no marriage "do err," and don't understand the scriptures or the power of God.

Sounds like our critics who try to use this as a proof-text, doesn't it?

Edited January 29, 2013 by rongo

[BCSpace]

Speaking of Sadducees, I've always liked this little commentary:

"... in the Apocrypha... we read of a young woman, Sarah, who had been married to seven husbands (all brothers), each of whom was killed on the wedding night by a demon. But in the story (Tobit 6:10-8:9), Sara ultimately marries an eighth husband, Tobias, son of Tobit, who, following instructions from the archangel Raphael, manages to chase the demon away and is therefore not slain. Of special interest is the fact that the archangel (who, according to Tobit 3:17, had been sent to arrange the marriage) tells the young man that his wife had been appointed to him "from the beginning" (Tobit 6:17). This implies that she had not been sealed to any of her earlier husbands, which would explain why none of them would claim her in the resurrection, as Jesus explained. But if she were sealed to Tobias, the situation changes. Assuming that the Sadducees (whose real issue was one of resurrection, not of eternal marriage) were alluding to this story but left off part of it, this would explain why Jesus told them, 'Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God'"

Tvedtnes, J., "A Much-Needed Book That Needs Much", FARMS Review of Books, vol. 9, no. 1, 1997, p. 41.

[Storm Rider]

As I read the above comments it appears that people are alluding that eternal marriage was practiced at the time of Jesus. Although I have heard that eternal may have be practiced at different period through history, I was not aware of any evidence that EM was practiced at the time of Christ. If so, can someone point to some information that supports this position?

[Yep]

As I read the above comments it appears that people are alluding that eternal marriage was practiced at the time of Jesus. Although I have heard that eternal may have be practiced at different period through history, I was not aware of any evidence that EM was practiced at the time of Christ. If so, can someone point to some information that supports this position?

Given that a large part of the purpose of the LDS temple is the redemption of the dead, the timeframe when the sealing ordinances were performed is largely irrelevant.

• If the ordinances were available and rejected then, correct me if I am wrong, it is not offered again.
  
• If the ordinances were available and performed, then the ordinance is in force.
  
• If it was not offered then the opportunity to accept vicarious ordinances is available, and thus the ordinance is de facto in force.
  

Thus, given that individuals live worthily and do what they can do, all ordinances will be made available to those individuals.

If the ordinance was not present, I believe that the hope thereof was. And with regards to possibility, the hope of God's children is a powerful thing.

[Alan]

Given that the Jews did not have the Melchizedek Priesthood amongst them at that time, there could have been no eternal marriage, and there wouldn't have been for about 400 years or more.

[BCSpace]

Might someone argue that the MP was had or imitated or passed down by small/obscure Jewish sects?

[3DOP]

Hi Yep,

You started a thread back in early July of last year where this whole idea was discussed in quite a bit of detail, but pretty much only from the Catholic point of view. To refresh your memory, you had made a long list of "items that we believe are indicative of the apostasy": They were as follows:

Baptism no longer by immersion

Infant baptism

Concept of Infants not being innocent at birth

Governmental Change in the Church (the calling of Apostles done away with and the introduction of Cardinals and Archbishops)

The use of the term "the Holy Father" when referencing the Pope (i.e. see Matthew 23:9-10)

Celibacy requirement of bishops and priests

The worship and elevation of Mary

The praying to saints as advocates instead of only praying to God with Christ as advocate.

Grace without works leading to complete salvation

Etc.

Although you could not continue to dialogue, I carried on for over a month getting all the way to your misgivings about our veneration of the Mother of God. It was like hardly anybody at all was interested anyway and I just ran our of gas before I finished. However, I did talk about the passage you are interested in discussing now. I am wondering if maybe you saw it in late August, and either way, if you think there is any merit to the way I understand the text and other pertinent Scripture passages. The discussion of this passage would begin on p. 9.

http://www.mormondia...h/page__st__160

Thanks,

3DOP

Edited January 31, 2013 by 3DOP

[TAO]

I believe it talks about this in Mircale of Forgiveness and also in Jesus the Christ. Essentially, because she was not sealed to the other seven men, she will not be joined to them.

[theplains]

And why would Jesus bring up the "power of God" when talking about marriage in the hereafter, anyway? Notice His answer: those who insist that there is no marriage "do err," and don't understand the scriptures or the power of God.

Sounds like our critics who try to use this as a proof-text, doesn't it?

Mat 22:28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

The answer that Jesus basically gave them was that none of the seven men would be given

in marriage to her. Also seems to imply that angels are unmarried creatures of God.

Thanks,

Jim

[Yep]

Hi Yep,

You started a thread back in early July of last year where this whole idea was discussed in quite a bit of detail, but pretty much only from the Catholic point of view. To refresh your memory, you had made a long list of "items that we believe are indicative of the apostasy": They were as follows:

Baptism no longer by immersion

Infant baptism

Concept of Infants not being innocent at birth

Governmental Change in the Church (the calling of Apostles done away with and the introduction of Cardinals and Archbishops)

The use of the term "the Holy Father" when referencing the Pope (i.e. see Matthew 23:9-10)

Celibacy requirement of bishops and priests

The worship and elevation of Mary

The praying to saints as advocates instead of only praying to God with Christ as advocate.

Grace without works leading to complete salvation

Etc.

Although you could not continue to dialogue, I carried on for over a month getting all the way to your misgivings about our veneration of the Mother of God. It was like hardly anybody at all was interested anyway and I just ran our of gas before I finished. However, I did talk about the passage you are interested in discussing now. I am wondering if maybe you saw it in late August, and either way, if you think there is any merit to the way I understand the text and other pertinent Scripture passages. The discussion of this passage would begin on p. 9.

http://www.mormondia...h/page__st__160

Thanks,

3DOP

Thank you fror that 3DOP. I ran into some issues that made it impossible to be very active online for a while, sorry for not continuing that discussion at the time.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

So, a claim that the men and women involved were Sadducees in their practice?

If so, I find Christ's answer even more interesting. The Sadducees also had no belief in angels and demons. How does this fact then impact the meaning of verse 30? Is Christ stating that the temporal marriages are the same as the Sadducees' view of the angels and thus non-existent in the eternities?

He said, ye do err not knowing the scriptures...what scriptures?

[brightpath]

This scripture means that we are all sons and daughters of God. In the pre existence we were one big family. When we die and return to him it will be the same. There will be no family units. We will all be sons and daughters of God and one big family. So the wife married 7 times belongs to no one in the after life. She belongs to God as a daughter and a sister to her earthly husbands. This is why Jesus was never married.