Matt 22:30

[EllenMaksoud]

I'm sorry, but I have forgotten the Mormon explanation for Matt 22:30, and I know that it is one of the scriptures that my son and I will talk about. Is it different in the JSV? I don't have time for research right now.

[JLHPROF]

It is explained using D&C 132 which talks about the different levels of marriage - Jesus was explaining to the Sadducees who had no eternal marriage and didn't even believe in resurrection.  The principles he taught would have applied to them specifically.

 

D&C 132 - vs 7

7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

 

vs 15-17

15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

[Kate]

From:  Vitality of Mormonism, James E. Talmage

“CERTAIN Sadducees once came to Christ with a question concerning martial relations following the resurrection. The real point of their inquiry was in part hidden, or, in current vernacular, camouflaged. Their chief purpose was that of disputing the doctrine of the resurrection itself, the actuality of which the Sadducees as a sect strenuously denied.

They cited a case, presumably hypothetical, of a woman who had been married, and then six times remarried under the levirate law, and seven times widowed, and who eventually had died, childless. The question as submitted was: "Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven?"

"Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." (Matt. 22:28-30.)

Three of the evangelists make record of the incident; and the most extended version of our Lord's reply is given by Luke (20:34-38). From this we gather that while marriage and giving in marriage—that is to say the association of eligible parties in wedlock, and the authoritative solemnization of the union by a duly qualified official—are necessary and honorable undertakings among mortals, they to whom the Savior referred shall neither marry nor be given in marriage in the resurrection, but at best shall be made equal to the angels.

The inquisitorial Sadducees must have felt the force of the Master's rebuke in being told that they were in error "not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God," for they prided themselves on their learning and superior qualities of understanding. Nevertheless, the reproof was merited, for had they opened their hearts to the spirit of Scripture, had they considered with honest desire to comprehend the words of the Lord who spoke to them, whose utterances were and are Scripture of the highest and most sacred order, they would have been able to distinguish between ceremonies performed for time only under the regulations of human law, and ordinances administered by the authority of God for both time and eternity.

Sacred rites that pertain both to the period of mortality and to the life beyond must be solemnized on earth. Compliance with the laws and ordinances of the Gospel, or the rejection of these, determines the individual test for which the world was prepared as the abode of men—to "prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them." (Pearl of Great Price, p. 66.)

Thus, in the case of the initiatory ordinance, baptism, it is essential that it be administered to mankind in the flesh; for Scripture nowhere avers that in and after the resurrection men shall be baptized in water for the remission of sins done in mortality. And so is it with respect to marriage.

True, as we have heretofore seen, the merciful economy of God makes possible the vicarious administration of baptism for the disembodied, that is for the dead prior to their resurrection; but the actual baptism is to be solemnized by and upon mortal beings, who, having been already baptized for themselves, may officiate for their dead kindred by complying with the revealed laws and regulations. So also the marital union of the worthy dead, who have lived in lawful and honorable wedlock as regulated by secular law, may be confirmed and superseded by the ordinance of Celestial Marriage, wherein the family relationship is perpetuated by sealing under the authority of the Holy Priesthood, to be of force and effect in and after the resurrection from the dead.

The family relationship was primarily designed to be perpetual; and only as mankind have forfeited or rejected the ministration of the Holy Priesthood has mere temporal union become a necessary yet but partial substitute for the eternal order of marriage. Paul's comprehensive precept "Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:11) has an application beyond the marital state in mortality.

The full measure of progression in eternity is unattainable without the perpetuity of the family organization; and the family unit must be established on earth through the order of Celestial Marriage, which comprises marriage for time as well as for eternity, or, in the case of the dead by the confirmation and extension of earthly wedlock through the vicarious sealing of the parties in Celestial Marriage. Otherwise, that is if the marriage of any couple shall have been by secular authority only, without the authority of the Holy Priesthood, the parties shall find in the resurrection that neither are they married nor can they then be given in marriage.

Following the visitation of the Risen Christ to the Nephites on the Western Continent we read of the marriage institution associated with specific blessings, indicating the authorized administration of the higher and eternal order of matrimony: "And they were married, and given in marriage, and were blessed according to the multitude of the promises which the Lord had made unto them." (Book of Mormon, 4 Nephi 1:11.)

Concerning those who are wedded for this life only, the word of God as revealed in the present age is in strict accord with the Lord's affirmation to the Sadducees:

"Therefore, when they are out of the world, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory." (D&C 132:16.)”

[MormonMason]

There is that and the fact that the verses in Matthew referred to seven specific individuals who were with the Sadducees in question ("there were with us seven brethren").  Jesus says that "they" will neither marry nor be given in marriage.

 

Note:  Some English translations of the Bible omit the "with us" words even though they are in all Greek texts I have encountered, which essentially omits the context the persons to whom Jesus' remarks were addressed.  But even here, English texts also conceal the fact that "marrying" and "giving in marriage" are verbs representing the actions of groom actively taking a wife and bride being actively given to the groom, which is something that will not take place in the resurrection.  Even in LDS teachings, this ordinance must be performed before resurrection.

 

The most common LDS teaching I see, however, is that only the first husband will get the wife.  I disagree with that position on linguistic grounds.  According to the passage, none of the men of the group of seven mentioned would have the wife.

[daz2]

But Jesus didn't really answer the question.  Assuming that the widow is sealed to all 7 after all of them die, as is the case under current LDS practice.  Which husband will be hers?  Will all of them?  Some of them?  Who makes the choice?  On what basis?  Or suppose it is a man who had serially seven wives, and after all are dead, he is sealed to all of them.  Which wife will be his?  All? Some?  Who makes the choice?  On what basis?  Suppose the deceased has had children in more than one of the marriages.  Who will be the sealed parents of that child?  Who decides?  On what basis?  I think under current sealing policies for the deceased, the child is sealed to both biological (or adoptive) parents, and the parents are sealed to each other.  Is that the way it will be in heaven?  Will there be eternal plural marriage--polygyny and polyandy (and maybe polyamory)?  To my knowledge there are in current correlated official teachings of the church nothing whatever on these subjects--just God will take care of it.  See "Family members need not worry about the sealing situation of blended families as it might be in the next life. Our concern is to live the gospel now and to love others, especially those in our family. If we live the gospel to the best of our ability, the Lord in His love and mercy will bless us in the next life and all things will be right. . . . We are not concerned about who will be sealed to whom. We simply trust in the Lord’s wisdom and love and try to live righteously." Robert E. Wells, “Uniting Blended Families,” Ensign, Aug 1997, 24

[daz2]

My own view of Jesus' answer is that he meant something like: "The way you see marriage in this life is not the way it will be in the afterlife."  I don't know what it means to say my wife and I are sealed for eternity to our children.  I doubt they will be living with us under the same roof.  What will it mean to be " married"?

[JLHPROF]

But Jesus didn't really answer the question.  Assuming that the widow is sealed to all 7 after all of them die, as is the case under current LDS practice.  Which husband will be hers?  Will all of them?  Some of them?  Who makes the choice?  On what basis?  Or suppose it is a man who had serially seven wives, and after all are dead, he is sealed to all of them.  Which wife will be his?  All? Some?  Who makes the choice?  On what basis?  Suppose the deceased has had children in more than one of the marriages.  Who will be the sealed parents of that child?  Who decides?  On what basis?  I think under current sealing policies for the deceased, the child is sealed to both biological (or adoptive) parents, and the parents are sealed to each other.  Is that the way it will be in heaven?  Will there be eternal plural marriage--polygyny and polyandy (and maybe polyamory)?  To my knowledge there are in current correlated official teachings of the church nothing whatever on these subjects--just God will take care of it.  See "Family members need not worry about the sealing situation of blended families as it might be in the next life. Our concern is to live the gospel now and to love others, especially those in our family. If we live the gospel to the best of our ability, the Lord in His love and mercy will bless us in the next life and all things will be right. . . . We are not concerned about who will be sealed to whom. We simply trust in the Lord’s wisdom and love and try to live righteously." Robert E. Wells, “Uniting Blended Families,” Ensign, Aug 1997, 24

 

I agree with your points, but the Sadducees who Jesus was talking to had no concept of sealing, so Jesus answered the question as they would have understood it.

Your points are interesting but I don't think they connect to this scripture.

[BCSpace]

I'm sorry, but I have forgotten the Mormon explanation for Matt 22:30, and I know that it is one of the scriptures that my son and I will talk about. Is it different in the JSV? I don't have time for research right now.

 

It should be noted that the Sadducees did not ask an honest question here because they did not believe in the resurrection.

 

The short answer is that by the time the resurrection roles around, it's too late to marry; hence Jesus' answer does not preclude eternal marriage.

 

The Church approaches it from the pov of the eternal marriage doctrine:

 

(21- 8 ) Matthew 22:23–33. Is There to Be Marriage in the Resurrected State?

“Jesus stopped not, however, to question the elements of the problem as presented to Him; whether the case was assumed or real mattered not, since the question ‘Whose wife shall she be?’ was based on an utterly erroneous conception. ‘Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.’ The Lord’s meaning was clear, that in the resurrected state there can be no question among the seven brothers as to whose wife for eternity the woman shall be, since all except the first had married her for the duration of mortal life only, and primarily for the purpose of perpetuating in mortality the name and family of the brother who first died. Luke records the Lord’s words as follows in part: ‘But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.’ In the resurrection there will be no marrying nor giving in marriage; for all questions of marital status must be settled before that time, under the authority of the Holy Priesthood, which holds the power to seal in marriage for both time and eternity.” (Talmage, Jesus the Christ, p. 548.)

http://www.lds.org/manual/the-life-and-teachings-of-jesus-and-his-apostles/section-5-the-week-of-the-atoning-sacrifice-to-the-resurrection/chapter-21-woe-unto-you---hypocrites?lang=eng

 

 

You might also find this interesting, especially footnote 77:

 

Those who are married in Latter-day Saint temples are "sealed" so that the union lasts beyond the Resurrection and into eternity, provided the participants reach the highest degree of glory in heaven. (D&C 132:15-17) This is often considered one of the most bizarre LDS beliefs, especially given a certain statement by Jesus:

"The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him... 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: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." (Matthew 22:23-30)

A variation of Jesus' answer is given in Luke, where Jesus says "The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage", etc. (Luke 20:34-36)

One must realize that Jesus would never have cast this, his most precious pearl, before the Sadducee swine, who did not even believe in a resurrection and were only trying to trap Jesus in his words. Given that, what was Jesus talking about? The "children of this world", not the children of God, are the ones who remain separate in the resurrection. And indeed, the seven brothers in question were "children of this world", for they were apostate Sadducees ("there were with us seven brethren"). Jesus was merely warning the Sadducees of their ultimate fate without revealing His most sacred mystery. Those who fail to participate in this sacred rite in this world, whether in person or by proxy, "neither marry, nor are given in marriage," because all such contracts have already been finalized. Interpreted in this way, the passage is not at all contradictory to LDS belief.77

Some readers might find it hard to believe that Jesus would be secretive about such an important belief, but the fact is that early Christianity, as well as various Jewish apocalyptic sects, had a rich esoteric tradition of both doctrine and ritual.78 Indeed, R.M. Grant notes that "In Ephesians 5:22-33 the prophecy of Genesis 2:24 ['the two shall become one flesh.'] is described as 'a great mystery' and is referred not only to Christ and the church but also to Christian marriage in general."79

While answering certain unknown questions the Corinthians had posed to Paul, he advised against marriage. "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.... I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." (1 Corinthians 7:1, 9) And yet, later in the chapter Paul made clear that this was not a general principle, but special counsel in unusual circumstances (persecution? apostasy?): "I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be." (1 Corinthians 7:26) Paul expounded the general principle later in his letter when he said, "neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord." (1 Corinthians 11:11)

I can imagine the eye-rolling that is going on among Catholic readers at this point, but the fact is that many early Jewish Christians interpreted the scriptures in a similar manner! In the early third century Origen complained about certain Jewish Christians, apparently considered orthodox, who believed in marriage after the resurrection.

"Certain persons... are of the opinion that the fulfillment of the promises of the future are to be looked for in bodily pleasure and luxury.... And consequently they say, that after the resurrection there will be marriages, and the begetting of children, imagining to themselves that the earthly city of Jerusalem is to be rebuilt.... Such are the views of those who, while believing in Christ, understand the divine Scriptures in a sort of Jewish sense, drawing from them nothing worthy of the divine promises." 80

Can you believe the temerity of these people - interpreting Jewish scriptures in a "Jewish sense"?!81 Cardinal Danielou infers a similar interpretation from an enigmatic passage in the Didache, a first-century(!) Jewish Christian work. "And every prophet, proved true, working unto the mystery of the Church in the world, yet not teaching others to do what he himself doeth, shall not be judged among you, for with God he hath his judgment; for so did also the ancient prophets."82 Danielou links this mystery to the type of "spiritual marriages" some Gnostic groups practiced:

"The expression 'cosmic mystery of the Church' seems to stand in opposition to a 'heavenly mystery of the church'. This heavenly mystery is the celestial marriage of Christ to the Church, which also finds its expression in this world. The allusion in this passage would therefore seem to be to those spiritual unions which existed in Jewish Christianity between prophet-apostles and a sister... The relation of these unions to their heavenly ideal is explicitly stated by the Gnostics: 'Some of them prepare a nuptial couch and perform a sort of mystic rite (mystagogia)... affirming that what is performed by them is a spiritual marriage after the likeness of the unions... above' (Adv. haer. I, 21:3)." 83

As with so many other doctrines, Catholicism has rejected the Judaeo-Christian outlook in favor of Hellenistic ideals. Robert Markus observes, "The ideal of the philosophic life was among the most important of the sources which nourished Christian monasticism.... In contrast with Judaism... the whole Hellenistic and Roman philosophical tradition offered a rich store-house of commonplaces extolling the ascetic life."84

Who Holds the Keys?  (Pope or Prophet) Response by Barry Bickmore

77 LDS scholar John Tvedtnes offers a novel explanation for Jesus' statement: "... 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.)

78 See Stroumsa, G. G., Hidden Wisdom: Esoteric Traditions and the Roots of Christian Mysticism, (New York: E.J. Brill, 1996); also Cardinal Danielou's The Theology of Jewish Christianity.

79 Grant, R.M., After the New Testament, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967,) p. 184.

80 Origen, De Principiis 2:11:2, in ANF 4:297.

81 A Jewish account of the same doctrine occurs in Falasha 5 Baruch. Baruch is being conducted through the heavens by an angel. At the highest level the following conversation occurs: "I asked the angel who conducted me and said to him: 'Who enters through this gate?' He who guided me answered and said to me: 'Blessed are those who enter through this gate. (Here) the husband remains with his wife and the wife remains with her husband.'" (Leslau, W., Falasha Anthology, New Haven: Yale, 1951, p. 65.)

82 Didache 11, in ANF 7:380-381.

83 Danielou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity, p. 351.

84 Markus, R.A., The End of Ancient Christianity, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990,) p. 73.  

http://geocitiessites.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/brb_response.html

Edited October 1, 2013 by BCSpace

[MormonMason]

The Tvedtnes explanation, while novel and interesting, does not take into account what the Sadducees said about the brothers and woman being "with us."  Tobit was not authored by a Sadducee.

[theplains]

Following the visitation of the Risen Christ to the Nephites on the Western Continent we read of the marriage institution associated with specific blessings, indicating the authorized administration of the higher and eternal order of matrimony: "And they were married, and given in marriage, and were blessed according to the multitude of the promises which the Lord had made unto them." (Book of Mormon, 4 Nephi 1:11.)

 

Why were there no temple sealings in the Book of Mormon?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[JLHPROF]

Why were there no temple sealings in the Book of Mormon?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

Short answer - because they were operating under Aaronic law (at least for most of the Book of Mormon) and didn't have that authority.

Long answer - there probably were at certain points but we don't have record of them.

[theplains]

Short answer - because they were operating under Aaronic law (at least for most of the Book of Mormon) and didn't have that authority.

Long answer - there probably were at certain points but we don't have record of them.

 

I view the 'long answer' as highly speculative. Better not to teach something if the scripture

is silent.

 

But as to your 'short answer', what else did they lack authority to do?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[JLHPROF]

I view the 'long answer' as highly speculative. Better not to teach something if the scripture

is silent.

 

But as to your 'short answer', what else did they lack authority to do?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

I don't think the long answer is all that speculative - there are parts of the Book of Mormon where we have every reason to believe they had time periods with the Melchezidek Priesthood - Alma 13 time period, 3 Nephi with the 12 Nephite Apostles.  During these times they could easily have had high enough priesthood offices to perform sealings.  There was also the ordination of Nephi in Helaman 10.

Helaman 10:7 -Behold, I give unto you ^apower, that whatsoever ye shall ^bseal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; and thus shall ye have power among this people.

 

 

 

 

As far as what they lacked the authority to do - anything you need Melchezidek Priesthood or higher to do.  They were operating much like John the Baptist did prior to Christ and the Mount of Transfiguration when the higher keys were restored to Peter, James and John.

This would include confirmations, eternal marriage, the Melch. part of the Temple, and more.

[MormonMason]

Why were there no temple sealings in the Book of Mormon?

 

Thanks,

Jim

6 And now there cannot be written in this book even a hundredth part of the things which Jesus did truly teach unto the people;

7 But behold the plates of Nephi do contain the more part of the things which he taught the people.

8 And these things have I written, which are a lesser part of the things which he taught the people; and I have written them to the intent that they may be brought again unto this people, from the Gentiles, according to the words which Jesus hath spoken.

9 And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them.

10 And if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the greater things be withheld from them, unto their condemnation.

11 Behold, I was about to write them, all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord forbade it, saying: I will try the faith of my people.

12 Therefore I, Mormon, do write the things which have been commanded me of the Lord. And now I, Mormon, make an end of my sayings, and proceed to write the things which have been commanded me.

 

(3 Nephi 26:6-12)

[Rivers]

I'm sorry, but I have forgotten the Mormon explanation for Matt 22:30, and I know that it is one of the scriptures that my son and I will talk about. Is it different in the JSV? I don't have time for research right now.

In Mormonism, marriages don't continue after death UNLESS the couple is sealed by the holy priesthood. Priesthood sealings are simply not part of the equation in this passage.

[cdowis]

The answer is really quite simply.  We believe exactly what it says ==>> there is no "marrying" nor "giving in marriage" in the spirit world.  For those familiar with English grammar, these are verbal forms.  Note that he did not use the noun "marriage".

 

Marrying and giving in marriage are ordinances which can only be *performed* on earth.

 

It is a matter of understanding what he actually said.

[Rivers]

The answer is really quite simply. We believe exactly what it says ==>> there is no "marrying" nor "giving in marriage" in the spirit world. For those familiar with English grammar, these are verbal forms. Note that he did not use the noun "marriage".

Marrying and giving in marriage are ordinances which can only be *performed* on earth.

It is a matter of understanding what he actually said.

But that explanation makes Jesus' answer have absolutely nothing to do with the question being asked.

[MormonMason]

But that explanation makes Jesus' answer have absolutely nothing to do with the question being asked.

I can confirm that in the Greek New Testament they also are verbal forms and not nouns.  It is not a matter of explanation but of grammar and sentence structure.

[cdowis]

Rivers,

 

Thank you for your attempt to correct me.  Now it is my turn ==>

 

"I have forgotten the Mormon explanation for Matt 22:30"

The JSV is one possible explanation.  Threads usually go beyond the initial question, giving a more detailed answer and discussion.  Otherwise it dies very quickly.

 

I realize you are relatively new, but please be cautious when correcting someone, specifically a member attempting to teach a contributor about forum protocol. Another post like this, and you will find that I am permanently unresponsive to your posts.

Edited October 2, 2013 by cdowis

[Rivers]

I was referring to the question asked by the Sadducees in the bible passage. Not the question of the OP. Sorry I wasn't clear enough about that. The Sadducees asked which of seven men would be married to a woman in the resurrection if they were all married to her at one point. I just don't understand why Jesus would be telling them that marriages can't be performed in heaven. That isn't answering the Sadducees' question.

[danielwoods]

I was referring to the question asked by the Sadducees in the bible passage. Not the question of the OP. Sorry I wasn't clear enough about that. The Sadducees asked which of seven men would be married to a woman in the resurrection if they were all married to her at one point. I just don't understand why Jesus would be telling them that marriages can't be performed in heaven. That isn't answering the Sadducees' question.

 

Maybe Jesus was answering their question. That no one is married in heaven because we will be like the angels. 

[MormonMason]

Maybe Jesus was answering their question. That no one is married in heaven because we will be like the angels. 

Nope.  There was a way to say that no one in heaven would be married and that is not said there.  In fact, the word marriage (noun) isn't used there in the Greek.  They are verbs not nouns.  Giving in marriage is active and is the act of giving over the bride to the groom in a marriage.  "Marrying" is the active and is the act of taking a wife.  If we took that alone, we would say that there will be no marriages actively taking place, as in marriage ceremonies.  It nowhere address marriage in general and certainly not the state of being married.  But, we don't have to rely just on that.

 

Jesus was addressing the question regarding a specific set of men and a woman described by the Sadducees.  In Matthew 22:25, they specifically state that "Now there were with us seven brothers" (ἦσαν δὲ παρ᾿ ἡμῖν ἑπτὰ ἀδελφοί) in their question.  Their question regarded the validity of the resurrection but they also asked the question using marriage to try to trip Jesus up.  Why would they do this? It is very likely that Jesus had a teaching regarding a continued state of marriage that they thought could be used to attack on the grounds of the resurrection.  Jesus was not falling for it, though, and addressed them specifically relative to their situation.  The verb forms provide the answer as to whom were being addressed.  The referent of both verbs is "they" and that specifically addresses the situation involving the seven brothers and the wife who "were with" the Sadducees.  The Greek παρ᾿ ἡμῖν indicates that the seven brothers were among the Sadducees, παρα indicating a place "beside [them]" indicating that they were using a real-life example of seven brothers and a woman who were known to them.  Jesus' reply applied to the seven in the example.

 

I attach a chart I just found online, showing the usages of Greek prepositions in the New Testament.  I hope you find it useful.  I would have used a better one than this one but the resolution was too high and the file I wanted to use about a megabyte in size.  This one is legible enough, though.

[danielwoods]

Nope.  There was a way to say that no one in heaven would be married and that is not said there.  In fact, the word marriage (noun) isn't used there in the Greek.  They are verbs not nouns.  Giving in marriage is active and is the act of giving over the bride to the groom in a marriage.  "Marrying" is the active and is the act of taking a wife.  If we took that alone, we would say that there will be no marriages actively taking place, as in marriage ceremonies.  It nowhere address marriage in general and certainly not the state of being married.  But, we don't have to rely just on that.

 

Jesus was addressing the question regarding a specific set of men and a woman described by the Sadducees.  In Matthew 22:25, they specifically state that "Now there were with us seven brothers" (ἦσαν δὲ παρ᾿ ἡμῖν ἑπτὰ ἀδελφοί) in their question.  Their question regarded the validity of the resurrection but they also asked the question using marriage to try to trip Jesus up.  Why would they do this? It is very likely that Jesus had a teaching regarding a continued state of marriage that they thought could be used to attack on the grounds of the resurrection.  Jesus was not falling for it, though, and addressed them specifically relative to their situation.  The verb forms provide the answer as to whom were being addressed.  The referent of both verbs is "they" and that specifically addresses the situation involving the seven brothers and the wife who "were with" the Sadducees.  The Greek παρ᾿ ἡμῖν indicates that the seven brothers were among the Sadducees, παρα indicating a place "beside [them]" indicating that they were using a real-life example of seven brothers and a woman who were known to them.  Jesus' reply applied to the seven in the example.

 

I attach a chart I just found online, showing the usages of Greek prepositions in the New Testament.  I hope you find it useful.  I would have used a better one than this one but the resolution was too high and the file I wanted to use about a megabyte in size.  This one is legible enough, though.

 

So, what is the answer given what you have stated? They asked a direct question, "Who will she be married to?" 

 

Jesus said, "at the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage."

 

Either, Jesus didn't answer the question or he did and you disagree with his answer. 

[MormonMason]

So, what is the answer given what you have stated? They asked a direct question, "Who will she be married to?" 

 

Jesus said, "at the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage."

 

Either, Jesus didn't answer the question or he did and you disagree with his answer. 

Nope.  Read the Greek text.  Jesus actually said of the seven brothers that THEY will neither marry (verb) nor be given in marriage (verb) in the resurrection.  Remember, the Sadducees asked a specific question regarding seven specific men who were with them in an effort to trip Jesus up.  He didn't fall for it.  He also could have said that no one (οὐδὲ ἑν or οὐδεὶς) will be married in the resurrection.  But, he didn't say that.  He simply addressed them with a pat answer that specifically addressed their trap and the situation of the seven brothers who were with them.  None of them would be "heirs together of the grace of life" so there would be no point in going further than to state the obvious for their situation.

[danielwoods]

Nope.  Read the Greek text.  Jesus actually said of the seven brothers that THEY will neither marry (verb) nor be given in marriage (verb) in the resurrection.  Remember, the Sadducees asked a specific question regarding seven specific men who were with them in an effort to trip Jesus up.  He didn't fall for it.  He also could have said that no one (οὐδὲ ἑν or οὐδεὶς) will be married in the resurrection.  But, he didn't say that.  He simply addressed them with a pat answer that specifically addressed their trap and the situation of the seven brothers who were with them.  None of them would be "heirs together of the grace of life" so there would be no point in going further than to state the obvious for their situation.

 

1) The greek text here does use the pronoun "they", however it doesn't have to be limited to the 7 brothers in this example. The reason we know this is based on parallel passages. For example, in Luke 20:34-35 Jesus states, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worth of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage...."

So, the limitation to just those 7 brothers is unjustified. 

 

2) The greek use of the verb is in the present tense indicating a continuing state, meaning that they would not continue in marriage, since it is in the negative. 

Edited October 3, 2013 by danielwoods