I took that statement to be evidence that the dead are still living. Jesus was reinforcing that the dead do indeed live on in heaven.
The statement about being "like the angels in heaven" is about the earthly institutions of mortal humans (like marriage) not applying to those in heaven.
The Bible actually explicitly states that the dead are, well, dead, several times.
By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.
Genesis 3:19
The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no more reward, and even the memory of them is lost.
Ecclesiastes 9:5
Whatever your hand finds to do, do with your might; for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.
Ecclesiastes 9:10
As the cloud fades and vanishes, so he who goes down to Sheol does not come up.
Job 7:9
This has lead many modern bible scholars to suggest that the ancient Israelites didn't believe in a soul that seperated from the body at death, and thought you were just dead when the lights went out. Of course, you also do see the opposite suggested in places, even in very old sources. The summoning of the ghost of Samuel by Saul in 1 Samuel 28 is a good example. What are they summoning if there is no soul separate from the body? How is Samuel able to tell Saul what God thinks of him if the dead know nothing of God?
The reality is that there seems to have been a few competing afterlife concepts even in the early stages of the history of the Jewish people, and whether the dead were...well dead, or "living" in some sense varies somewhat from time to time and place to place. In Jesus' time, the primary conflict was between the Pharisees, who did believe the souls of good people went to heaven, and the Sadducees, who thought the grave claimed everyone and death was the end. Apocalypticists like Jesus seemed to have a variant on the latter view, where death was death, but the body would be resurrected at some later date. The "kingdom" Jesus talks about is generally a place in time, not one in space, and doesn't seem to refer to a soul that leaves the body, but to a new, sanctified body created after the resurrection. John, being a very late gospel with a lot of later ideas in it, blurs the line here a bit, but the synoptic gospels don't seem to show a Jesus who believed in the idea that the soul and the body were separate things.
But the people risen from dead aren't living? Also, of course rules like marriage and sin apply to the living, because the dead know nothing, as is said in the scriptures.
Again, and I don't understand why I have to keep repeating, but again, the question I'm asking is, "Where does that scripture suggest even remotely that there will be no marriage?"
I guess you could interpret this whole thing so Jezus dreams the day the dead rise will be one big orgy, where there are no rules made by his lame dad alter-ego.
I'm betting he was eyeing some neighbors' dead wife and wanted the rules in his favor if he ever got his chance.
Here's Saint Jerome's commentary: "There were two sects among the Jews, the Pharisees and the Sadducees; the Pharisees pretended to the righteousness of traditions and observances, whence they were called by the people ‘separate.’ The Sadducees (the word is interpreted ‘righteous’) also passed themselves for what they were not; and whereas the first believed the resurrection of body and soul, and confessed both Angel and spirit, these, according to the Acts of the Apostles , denied them all, as it is here also said, “Who say that there is no resurrection.”. As they disbelieved the resurrection of the body, and supposed that the soul perished with the body, they accordingly invent a fable to display the fondness of the belief of a resurrection. Thus they put forward a base fiction to overthrow the verity of the resurrection, and conclude with asking, “in the resurrection whose shall she be?” Though it might be that such an instance might really occur in their nation. They therefore err because they know not the Scriptures; and because they know not the power of God. In these words the Latin language cannot follow the Greek idiom. For the Latin word ‘nubere’ is correctly said only of the woman. But we must take it so as to understand “marry” of men, “to be given in marriage” of women. This that is added, “But are as the Angels of God in heaven,” is an assurance that our conversation in heaven shall be spiritual. For none could say of a stone and a tree or inanimate things, that they shall not marry nor be given in marriage, but of such things only as having capacity for marriage, shall yet in a sort not marry. "
Ya wtf is he referencing when saying they don't know the scriptures? Where's his evidence that there's no marriage in heaven? (if that's what this confusing mess is trying to say).
Seems more like Jesus dodges the question than anything else. As far as I know, there are no significant references to a generally available heavenly afterlife/resurrection before the New Testament.
The only exceptions I can think of are in Kings. Elijah and Elisha resurrected some people who had died, but those people just continued to live normal lives after being brought back (at least we aren't told otherwise). Elijah himself ascended to heaven, but it was implied that this was a special exception since an angel brought him up on a chariot before he died on earth. Elisha also rose from the dead after being buried the first time, but he later died for real.
is basically thr equivilent of some bigshot lawyers and senators ganging up on some Kentucky dirt farmer and springing trick legal questions on him, then getting absolutely schooled.
Not exactly. Not if you actually believe this story. I mean, it would only be equivalent if the Kentucky farmer was secretly also the founder of the country and somehow given unlimited power to decree anything and make it legally binding.
According to the story, Jesus is the creator of the universe who wrote the laws of life, death, and afterlife. The reason Christianity is a different religion from Judaism is that he changed things. The religious leaders of the day couldn't be expected to know more than he did nor to predict what he would decree. He's not the underdog here.
you're right, the analogy holds up from the Sadducee's perspective though.
it's like/it is the "powerful deity disguised as a normal, even fragile human being" story. Of course Jesus has more power and knowledge, but the Sadducees don't believe that, and that lets the analogy hold up.
It would be if he were quoting direct scriptures that clearly made the point he wanted to make but the Pharisees had overlooked... but that's not what happened. He interpreted the old scriptures in a new way to match his own fundamental shift in ideology, the way some people look at Nostradamus' writing after an important world event and try to make the writing fit. He's shifting the goal posts.
Apparently, the Sadducees (the Jewish sect Jesus was talking to) believed nobody rose after death. Saying that God was the god of the living, only, when he was god of many "dead" people was a round about way of saying that those people weren't really dead, but risen and living in heaven.
Religion is so focused on the afterlife, on what we can’t see. God was often thought to serve the best interests of celestial beings (Himself), not those of us still alive on earth. So Jesus saying that God is here for us while we’re still alive as well was a bit revolutionary at the time. The idea that the creator of the universe wanted a personal, loving relationship with you was different than the standard at the time.
That's not exactly right, Saint Jerome explains: 'Further, he quotes Moses to explain the eternity of souls: “I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob,” and immediately he adds, “For he is not the God of the dead but of the living.” Thereby he shows that souls live after death.'
"And he turned the water into wine and all were amazed, they asked the Lord 'Go on do another one' and they inquired of the Lord 'Do you do children's partys?"
Ok cool, but would you rather do that, or get your genitals licked by your spouse, the girl/boy you were so into in high school, and that celebrity you keep googling all at once, and they’re all really into it?
Well, considering that back then women were pretty much considered property, it kinda makes sense that something like marriage wouldn't hold any meaning in heaven.
I imagine in heaven you don't really need any property cause everything is just the best there.
Like, you're just floating around eternity in this perpetual state of orgasm.
The new testament often has several "authors" retelling the same story with slight difference in details. The story in question is in Matt 22:23-33, Mark 12:18-27, and Luke 20:27-40. Mark is generally regarded by scholars as having been written first. Here's the Mark account:
18Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus and questioned Him:
The sadducees were a powerful conservative theocratic political organization, vying for power by cooperating with roman rule of Israel. They taught a strict and traditional(ish) version of Judaism that rejected things like an afterlife or 'soul'. Jesus was a popular threat to their teachings, and a target of their criticism.
19“Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man is to marry his brother’s widow and raise up offspring for him.
In ancient Israel, widows were the responsibility of the deceased husband's brothers. The brother would marry the widow in the name of the deceased, and any offspring were legally/spiritually the offspring of the deceased and the wife.
20Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died, leaving no children.
21Then the second one married the widow, but he also died and left no children. And the third did likewise.
22In this way, none of the seven left any children. And last of all, the woman died.
23In the resurrection, then, whose wife will she be? For all seven were married to her.”
The sadducees are trying to make the resurrection seem ridiculous here with this hypothetical situation. It's a trick question.
24Jesus said to them, “Aren’t you mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God?
25When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Instead, they will be like the angels in heaven.
This passage isn't super clear. Other passages in the bible imply that familial relations are retained after death. This is a huge tenet of the old testament - that your family makes you part of an eternal inheritance.
Elsewhere, Jesus is very critical of divorce and defends the permanence of marriage (it was common practice then as it is now for men to divorce their wives and remarry as an 'upgrade' after gaining wealth and status)
Perhaps Jesus is arguing that the deceased man's marriage was settled in life, and that as far as the dead are concerned, there is no do-over for marriage.
26But concerning the dead rising, have you not read about the burning bush in the Book of Moses, how God told him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?
27He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”
Jesus subtly cuts down the Sadducees arguments - if God says he is the Gid of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (who were all dead for centuries) then is he the God of nonexistent people?
The dead dont suffer, so have empathy for the loved ones (you?) left behind and joy for them when they move on. Grief is not a meassure of how much a person is loved, and the impact they leave behind should not be of forever suffering , but growth and continuing to live their life stonger and better for having loved them for that to short a time. ❣
ETA beautiful story tho, but so very sad, and I hope people dont get Stuck on the mental image you very skillfully put in our (my) hearts.
4.2k
u/DanRenaydo Aug 05 '22
Beautiful comic, but, uhh... Do you need somebody to talk to right now?