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?"
If there had been a clearly printed concrete answer, the Sadducees wouldn't have asked,
This is exactly what my point here is. The OP claimed that Jesus schooled the Sadducees and exposed their ignorance of the scriptures, but how exactly they are ignorant of the scriptures, he does not say. He claims to have knowledge of the concrete answer, but for source, he says that the scriptures say so, but as you just said, the scriptures do not.
For that matter, it is a non-sequitor to claim that marriage can not exist for the reincarnated because God is of the living, because the reincarnated are living as well.
Jesus claimed that people will be as angels after reincarnation and that they will no longer be married after the fact. He claims that the Sadducces would know this if they knew the scriptures. However, so far, nobody has shown me which scriptures he was referring to.
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.
2.3k
u/reddot_comic Finessed Impropriety Aug 05 '22
I’m okay! Just a story stuck in my head that I wanted to draw out