Matt 22:30

[MormonMason]

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. 

Nope again.  To indicate and express a continuing state one typically would use the Perfect.  Not the case here, DW.  I noticed that you didn't mention the parallel account of Mark.  The parallel passage at Mark has closer agreement with Matthew over against Luke.  Luke's account is a collection of second-hand and third-hand recollections of people who were interviewed by Luke to compose his work.

 

Luke's account of this event is second-hand at absolute best, and of lesser value accordingly, and has theological/eschatological problems of its own.  For instance, the implication of this passage is that some won't be worthy of resurrection.  This implication conflicts with passages throughout the New Testament that clearly state that all will be resurrected, including the wicked, or those unworthy of taking part in the age to come.

 

The passage in Luke is considerably expanded in wording as well as the phrase "children of this world" added, whereas Mark in the main agrees with Matthew on the shorter form of the passage.  In any case, and even if one accepts the entirety of the Lukan account as more authentic over against Mark and Matthew combined, it must be understood that there is a difference between "children of this world" (among whom would be the seven brothers of the Sadducees) and "children of the bridechamber."  Those who are "children of this world" essentially have little to no hope of experiencing being "heirs together of the grace of life," even in LDS thought.

 

And, it is justified to maintain that this applied to the brothers in the example because it was a direct addressing of their question and example in the question.  Again, Jesus nowhere said that this would be the case for everyone and nowhere stated that no one would be in the married state in the resurrection.  There are ways to say either of these in Greek and none such appear in any of the passages in question.

[cdowis]

For those uninformed, Jesus was not speaking in Greek.  While it is possible that the parsing in Greek may be identical to the Aramaic, then again it may be different.

 

Just a thought.

[MormonMason]

For those uninformed, Jesus was not speaking in Greek.  While it is possible that the parsing in Greek may be identical to the Aramaic, then again it may be different.

 

Just a thought.

That is true. Jesus spoke the language of Palestine, which was Aramaic at the time.  After all, (for users of the KJV) we have Jesus' words only in a translation (English) of a translation (Latin with some Greek and Hebrew compared) of a translation (Greek), and a translation of a translation with a twist of commentary rather than direct translation (for most else).  That said, the translators who gave us Jesus' Aramaic words in Greek tended to try to be as literal as possible and yet maintain proper style in many cases, which is why in the case of large swaths of Matthew and John, and parts of Luke and Mark, you can still see the Semitic undertones.

[danielwoods]

Nope again.  To indicate and express a continuing state one typically would use the Perfect.  Not the case here, DW.  I noticed that you didn't mention the parallel account of Mark.  The parallel passage at Mark has closer agreement with Matthew over against Luke.  Luke's account is a collection of second-hand and third-hand recollections of people who were interviewed by Luke to compose his work.

 

Luke's account of this event is second-hand at absolute best, and of lesser value accordingly, and has theological/eschatological problems of its own.  For instance, the implication of this passage is that some won't be worthy of resurrection.  This implication conflicts with passages throughout the New Testament that clearly state that all will be resurrected, including the wicked, or those unworthy of taking part in the age to come.

 

The passage in Luke is considerably expanded in wording as well as the phrase "children of this world" added, whereas Mark in the main agrees with Matthew on the shorter form of the passage.  In any case, and even if one accepts the entirety of the Lukan account as more authentic over against Mark and Matthew combined, it must be understood that there is a difference between "children of this world" (among whom would be the seven brothers of the Sadducees) and "children of the bridechamber."  Those who are "children of this world" essentially have little to no hope of experiencing being "heirs together of the grace of life," even in LDS thought.

 

And, it is justified to maintain that this applied to the brothers in the example because it was a direct addressing of their question and example in the question.  Again, Jesus nowhere said that this would be the case for everyone and nowhere stated that no one would be in the married state in the resurrection.  There are ways to say either of these in Greek and none such appear in any of the passages in question.

 

1) "The present tense can either be continuous/ongoing or undefined." In this case Matt 22:30 "no one is given in marriage" (present tense verb, while referencing a future event, it would have to be a continued state). The question wasn't about ceremonies, but about the state of the individuals. 

 

The perfect tense - "Action that has been completed in the past yet has results occurring in the present"

http://www.blueletterbible.org/help/greekverbs.cfm

 

2) If Luke doesn't agree with your theology, then attack him. There is no reason to doubt his writings as authentic and accurate. They don't disagree with the Matt. and Mark passages when taken at face value. 

[MormonMason]

 

1) "The present tense can either be continuous/ongoing or undefined." In this case Matt 22:30 "no one is given in marriage" (present tense verb, while referencing a future event, it would have to be a continued state). The question wasn't about ceremonies, but about the state of the individuals. 

 

The perfect tense - "Action that has been completed in the past yet has results occurring in the present"

http://www.blueletterbible.org/help/greekverbs.cfm

 

2) If Luke doesn't agree with your theology, then attack him. There is no reason to doubt his writings as authentic and accurate. They don't disagree with the Matt. and Mark passages when taken at face value. 

 

The verbs are indicative of ceremonies.  "marrying" and "giving in marriage" refer to events taking place in the taking of wives.  Also, had the translator of Jesus wanted to intend the finality of the state he would have used the Perfect.  Without the Perfect, it is either or, or in other words ambiguous.  There is also that pesky detail of active forms that do directly express future events, none of which are used here.  And, in point of fact, the Perfect is used in the New Testament to speak of future events on earth with a permanent result in heaven.  You obviously don't read Greek or you would know this rather than relying on grammatical points from the Blue Letter Bible, out of grammatical context.

 

And, Jesus nowhere says "no one" anywhere in that passage, in any of the parallel texts.  You keep adding that to the text, as do the translators of the NIV.  There also is no word for "everybody" there, either.

 

No one is attacking Luke.  However, it has to be realized that Luke's text is a collection of accounts from many sources.  That makes it second-hand at best.  And, that passage does present problems on other fronts as it is written.  It is no attack to bring that up and call into question possible reliability issues.  Luke's text is problematic.  It expands beyond what is preserved in Mark and Matthew, and its underlying premise about worthiness of resurrection is also present, which conflicts with the entire rest of the New Testament.

 

Matthew is clear that seven brothers were known to the Sadducees, and were offered by the Sadducees as pretext for their question.  Jesus simply stated what he did regarding "them."  In each case, the outcome is directed to "they" in the passages.  This also is the case in Mark, although Mark omits the specificity as to who were the brothers and their association.

 

But, even in Luke's second-hand-at-best account, the phrase "children of this world" is used.  Christians are not and were not regarded as "children of this world."  Believers of Christ were "children of the bridechamber," in contrast to "children of this world," and Christian spouses were believed to be "heirs together of the grace of life."  Neither is the woman without the man and vice versa in the Lord.  The "children of this world" in the Luke account were the woman and the seven in the example given by the Sadducees, as well as the Sadducees themselves.  The passage was addressed to them and not even there applicable to the whole of mankind.

 

Again, nowhere does Jesus use the Greek phrases or words for "everyone" or "no one" in any parallel accounts regarding marriage, which would have been done had such a thing been addressed at all.  That meaning has to be inserted outside of the Greek text to make it useful in addressing the LDS concept of marriage.

Edited October 3, 2013 by MormonMason

[danielwoods]

The verbs are indicative of ceremonies.  "marrying" and "giving in marriage" refer to events taking place in the taking of wives.

The sadducees question wasn't, "are we going to be able to have marriage ceremonies in the resurrection? Rather, it was, "whose wife will she be?" It wasn't a question of ceremonies but of state of being. Jesus' answer reflected that. The context is also a clue. Jesus next statement was that they would be like the angels in Heaven. A reference to their state of being. 

 

Also, had the translator of Jesus wanted to intend the finality of the state he would have used the Perfect.  Without the Perfect, it is either or, or in other words ambiguous.  There is also that pesky detail of active forms that do directly express future events, none of which are used here.  And, in point of fact, the Perfect is used in the New Testament to speak of future events on earth with a permanent result in heaven.  You obviously don't read Greek or you would know this rather than relying on grammatical points from the Blue Letter Bible, out of grammatical context.

Feel free to reference any material that supports your view. I don't accept your authority, anymore than I'd expect you to accept mine. I am sure that there are more authorities and translations that support the view that there is no eternal marriage after death. The idea that the writer should have used the Perfect tense to convey what Jesus says is false, if you have an authoritative reference that states that, I'd would love to read it. 

 

And, Jesus nowhere says "no one" anywhere in that passage, in any of the parallel texts.  You keep adding that to the text, as do the translators of the NIV.  There also is no word for "everybody" there, either.

 

No one is attacking Luke.  However, it has to be realized that Luke's text is a collection of accounts from many sources.  That makes it second-hand at best.  And, that passage does present problems on other fronts as it is written.  It is no attack to bring that up and call into question possible reliability issues.  Luke's text is problematic.  It expands beyond what is preserved in Mark and Matthew, and its underlying premise about worthiness of resurrection is also present, which conflicts with the entire rest of the New Testament.

You claim there are reliability issues with Luke. What evidence do you have for this? You say he expands beyond what Mark and Matthew preserved. So? That doesn't present a problem. Unless you have some evidence to support your claim, Luke stands as a reliable source. 

Luke's mention of worthiness to partake in the resurrection doesn't conflict with the rest of the NT (salvation has always been conditional), but that probably is another topic.

 

Matthew is clear that seven brothers were known to the Sadducees, and were offered by the Sadducees as pretext for their question.  Jesus simply stated what he did regarding "them."  In each case, the outcome is directed to "they" in the passages.  This also is the case in Mark, although Mark omits the specificity as to who were the brothers and their association.

 

But, even in Luke's second-hand-at-best account, the phrase "children of this world" is used.  Christians are not and were not regarded as "children of this world."  Believers of Christ were "children of the bridechamber," in contrast to "children of this world," and Christian spouses were believed to be "heirs together of the grace of life."  Neither is the woman without the man and vice versa in the Lord.  The "children of this world" in the Luke account were the woman and the seven in the example given by the Sadducees, as well as the Sadducees themselves.  The passage was addressed to them and not even there applicable to the whole of mankind.

 

Again, nowhere does Jesus use the Greek phrases or words for "everyone" or "no one" in any parallel accounts regarding marriage, which would have been done had such a thing been addressed at all.  That meaning has to be inserted outside of the Greek text to make it useful in addressing the LDS concept of marriage.

"The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come(Z) and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels."

 

Sure seems to me that those (or everyone!) who will participate in the resurrection won't be married. Notice that in both passages the references to being like the angels.

[danielwoods]

It is worth noting from a LDS point of view, what Jesus didn't ask. When they asked him "Whose wife will she be..." What Jesus didn't ask was, "Who was she sealed to?" From an LDS point of view Jesus missed a perfect time to mention the necessity of marriage (sealing) for exaltation. 

[cdowis]

It is worth noting from a LDS point of view, what Jesus didn't ask. When they asked him "Whose wife will she be..." What Jesus didn't ask was, "Who was she sealed to?" From an LDS point of view Jesus missed a perfect time to mention the necessity of marriage (sealing) for exaltation. 

 

He did not want to cast pearls before swine.  They were attempting to trap him.

[danielwoods]

He did not want to cast pearls before swine.  They were attempting to trap him.

If it were the case of not wanting to cast pearls before swine, why answer them at all?

Edited October 5, 2013 by danielwoods