Luke 20:27
Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him,
Jump to: AlfordBarnesBengelBensonBICalvinCambridgeClarkeDarbyEllicottExpositor'sExp DctExp GrkGaebeleinGSBGillGrayGuzikHaydockHastingsHomileticsICCJFBKellyKingLangeMacLarenMHCMHCWMeyerParkerPNTPoolePulpitSermonSCOTTBVWSWESTSK
(27-39) Then came to him certain of the Sadducees.—See Notes on Matthew 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27.

Luke 20:27-40. Then came to him certain of the Sadducees — These verses are explained at large, on Matthew 22:23-33, and Mark 12:18-26. The children of this world — The inhabitants of earth; marry and are given in marriage — As being all subject to the law of mortality, so that the species is in need of being continually repaired. But they which obtain that world — The world which holy souls enter into at death; namely, paradise; and the resurrection from the dead — It must be observed, our Lord, agreeably to the Jewish style of that period, calls that only the resurrection which is a resurrection to glory. They are the children of God — In a more eminent sense when they rise again, having then received that public manifestation of their adoption, mentioned Romans 8:23; the redemption of their body. Now that the dead are raised, even Moses — As well as the other prophets; showed, when he calleth, &c. — That is, when he recites the words which God spoke of himself, I am the God of Abraham, &c. — It cannot properly be said, that God is the God of any who are totally perished. He is not a God of the dead, &c. — Or, as the clause may be properly rendered, There is not a God of the dead, but of the living — That is, the term God implies such a relation as cannot possibly subsist between him and the dead; who, in the Sadducees’ sense, are extinguished spirits, who could neither worship him nor receive good from him. For all live unto him — All who have him for their God, live to, and enjoy him. This sentence is not an argument for what went before; but the very proposition which was to be proved. And the consequence is apparently just. For, as all the faithful are the children of Abraham, and the divine promise, of being a God to him and his seed, is entailed upon them, it implies their continued existence and happiness in a future state, as much as Abraham’s. And as the body is an essential part of man, it implies both his resurrection and theirs; and so overthrows the entire scheme of the Sadducean doctrine. They durst not ask him any question — The Sadducees durst not. One of the scribes did presently after.

20:27-38 It is common for those who design to undermine any truth of God, to load it with difficulties. But we wrong ourselves, and wrong the truth of Christ, when we form our notions of the world of spirits by this world of sense. There are more worlds than one; a present visible world, and a future unseen world; and let every one compare this world and that world, and give the preference in his thoughts and cares to that which deserves them. Believers shall obtain the resurrection from the dead, that is the blessed resurrection. What shall be the happy state of the inhabitants of that world, we cannot express or conceive,See this explained in the Matthew 22:15-33 notes, and Mark 12:13-27 notes. 27-34. no resurrection—"nor angel nor spirit" (Ac 23:8); the materialists of the day.Ver. 27-38. See Poole on "Matthew 22:23", and following verses to Matthew 22:32, See Poole on "Mark 12:18", and following verses to Mark 12:27, where all the passages in this piece of history are fully opened. By

equal unto the angels, in Luke 20:36, we must not understand in all things, but in the thing mentioned:

1. The number of the elect shall be perfect, so there shall be no need of marrying, or giving in marriage, to multiply the number of men.

2. There shall be no more marriages amongst men than amongst angels; all live unto God, Luke 20:38. Though Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were dead at the speaking of those words, yet they were not so in God’s eye, who was determined to raise them up in the last day, and who with the same eye beholds things past, present, and to come. But see more in the notes before mentioned.

That is, "to Jesus", as the Persic version expresses it; and it was the same day, as Matthew says, on which the disciples of the Pharisees, and the Herodians, had been with him, putting the question about tribute to him: Matthew 22:16

which deny that there is any resurrection; that is, of the dead; that there ever was any instance of it, or ever will be: this was the distinguishing tenet of that sect; see Acts 23:8

and they asked him, the following question, after they had put a case to him.

{4} Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him,

(4) The resurrection of the flesh is affirmed against the Sadducees.

Luke 20:27-40. See on Matthew 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27.

οἱ ἁντιλέγοντες] does not belong by an abnormal apposition to τῶν Σαδδουκαιῶν (thus usually, including Winer, p. 471 [E. T. 668]), but to τινές. These τινές, namely, so far as they were τινὲς τῶν Σαδδουκ., are more precisely characterized by οἱ ἀντιλέγ. κ.τ.λ.: People who there concerted together (participle with article, see Kühner, II. p. 131).

ἀνάστ. μὴ εἶναι] On μή and infinitive after ἀντιλέγ., comp. Xen. Anab. ii. 5. 29, and see in general Bernhardy, p. 364; Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 168.

Luke 20:28. καὶ οὗτος κ.τ.λ.] and indeed shall have died without children. See Matthiae, p. 1040.

Luke 20:29. οὖν] for the subsequent procedure took place in consequence of that law.

Luke 20:30 f. According to the rectified text (see the critical remarks): And the second and the third took her; in like manner, moreover, also (as those three who had taken her and died childless) the seven (collectively, comp. Luke 17:17) left behind no children, and died. Logically ἀπέθανον ought to precede, but the emphasis of οὐ κατέλ. τέκνα has occasioned the ὕστερον πρότερον. See Kühner, II. p. 629; Bornemann, Schol. p. 125.

Luke 20:34 f. οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου] Comp. on Luke 16:8. Yet here what is meant is not according to the ethical, but the physical idea: the men of the pre-Messianic periods of the world.

οἱ δὲ καταξιωθ. κ.τ.λ.] but they who (at the Parousia) shall he counted worthy (comp. 2 Thessalonians 1:5) to become partakers of the future age (the Messianic period), and of the resurrection from the dead. Herein is to be observed—(1) that here is likewise a πρότερον ὕστερον (comp. on Luke 20:31), for the resurrection discloses the participation in the αἰὼν ἐκεῖνος; but the context (see also τῆς ἀναστάσ. υἱοὶ ὄντες, Luke 20:36) shows that Jesus has in view only those who are to be raised, apart from those who are still living here at the Parousia, comp. Romans 8:11; (2) according to the connection (καταξιωθ., and see Luke 20:36), the resurrection here meant is defined as the first, the ἀνάστασις τῶν δικαίων (see on Luke 14:14).

The genitives τοῦ αἰῶν. ἐκ. etc. and τῆς ἀναστ. are governed by τυχεῖν. Comp. Aesch. Prom. 239: τοιούτου τυχεῖν οὑκ ἡζιώθην; Winer, p. 566 [E. T. 761]. Moreover, comp. the Rabbinical dignus futuro saeculo זוכה עולם הבא, in Schoettgen and Wetstein.

Luke 20:36. With Lachmann, following A B D L P, we must write οὐδέ[236] (Winer, p. 434 f. [E. T. 614]; Buttmann, p. 315 [E. T. 368]): for neither can they die any more. The immortality of those who have risen again, even if it does not exclude the difference of sex absolutely (comp. Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych, p. 459[237]), still excludes marriage among them, since propagation presupposes a mortal race; ἐνταῦθα μὲν γὰρ ἐπεὶ θάνατος, διὰ τοῦτο γάμος, Theophylact.

ἰσάγγ.… ὄντες] gives the reason of the οὐδὲ ἀποθανεῖν ἔτι δύνανται; their immortality depends upon their changed nature, which will be—(1) equality with the angels; and (2) sonship of God. The former in respect of their higher and no longer fleshly corporeality (in opposition to Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 316 f.; Delitzsch, and others; comp. on Matthew 22:30); the latter plainly not in the moral, but in the metaphysical sense; they, as risen again, have entered into the participation of divine life and divine glory (comp. on Matthew 5:9; Matthew 5:45), in respect of which the freedom from death is essential. See on υἱοὶ Θεοῦ, so far as it is used in Matthew and Luke (in Mark this designation does not occur) of the faithful only in respect of their condition after the Parousia, the apt remarks of Kaeuffer in the Sächs. Stud. 1843, p. 202 ff. But the expression cannot be borrowed from the Old Testament designation of the angels as sons of God (so Wittichen, Ideen Gottes als d. Vaters, p. 43), since the risen ones shall only be angel-like, not angels.

Luke 20:37. Observe the special selected word ἐμήνυσεν, which denotes the announcement of something concealed (John 11:57; Acts 23:30; 1 Corinthians 10:28; Thuc. iv. 89; Herod. i. 23; Soph. O. R. 102; Plut. Tim. p. 27 B).

καὶ M.] i.e. even Moses, to whom ye are nevertheless appealing for a proof of the contrary, Luke 20:28.

ὡς λέγει κύριον κ.τ.λ.] “narrando sc. quod Deus dixerat,” Grotius.

Luke 20:38. πάντες γὰρ αὐτῷ ζῶσιν] for all (whose God He is) are living to Him. The emphasis lies on πάντες: no one is dead to Him. αὐτῷ is the dative of reference: in respect of Him, that is, in relation to Him who is their God, they are—even although dead in relation to men—living.[238] This state of living actually has place in the intermediate state of Paradise,[239] where they, although dead in reference to living men, continue to live to God, and therewith is established the future resurrection as the necessary completion of this state of living. The argumentation in Luke is accordingly, by the addition of Luke 20:38, not different from that in Matthew and Mark, and it takes no inappropriate turn (de Wette), whereby the thought must have suffered (Weizsäcker), but is the same grand application of the divine utterance as in Matthew and Mark (see on Matthew), only enriched by that short explanatory clause ἀλλὰ ζώντων, which was introduced into the tradition,[240] certainly at a later date, but without affecting the substance, except in the way of indicating the point of the argument. The ΑὐΤῷ, however, cannot without arbitrariness be taken, according to Acts 17:28, as though it were ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ (Ewald: “all men, so far as they have a true life, have it only in God”).

Luke 20:40. ΓΆΡ] (see the critical remarks) gives an explanation as to Luke 20:39. The tables had been turned; a few praised Him, for any further hostile putting of questions, such as might be expected instead of praise, was no more to be thought of. So completely He stood as victor there again (comp. on Luke 20:26). With the narrative of the greatest commandment, Mark 12:28-34, of which Luke is said to have retained only the beginning and the end (Luke 20:39-40), the evangelist has here nothing at all to do (in opposition to Holtzmann). There is nothing of a reminiscence of Mark 12:28 (Weiss) in Luke 20:39; there appears no sort of reason to attribute such poverty to Luke.

[236] Comp. the critical remarks on Luke 12:26. The Recepta οὔτε is to be regarded as a mechanical repetition from what has gone before. Bornemann defends οὔτε by the supposition that it corresponds with the following καί. But in that case ἰσάγγ. γάρ εἰσι must be placed in a parenthesis, which, indeed, Lachmann does, although it is nowise notified, not even by the twofold εἰσί, whereby the two predicates are emphatically kept apart.

[237] Who nevertheless assumes without proof (p. 102) that Adam’s body, before the creation of the woman, was externally without sex, and that this also is the case with the bodies of the risen.

[238] 4Ma 16:25 : αἱ διὰ τὸν Θεὸν ἀποθνήσκοντες ζῶσι τῷ Θεῷ, ὥσπερ Ἀβραὰμ, Ἰσαὰκ, καὶ Ἰακὼβ, καὶ πάντες οἱ πατριάρχαι, is so far parallel as in that place ζῶσι τῷ Θεῷ is likewise said of the state of existence in relation to God in Paradise. Moreover, 4Ma 7:19 belongs to this subject, as being a passage in harmony with the text before us. Comp. Grimm thereupon, p. 332.

[239] The ζῶσιν subsists not merely in the view of God, who considers them in reference to their future resurrection as living, as J. Müller, v. d. Sünde, II. p. 397, makes out.

[240] The syllogism of the passage is correctly and clearly expressed in substance by Beza: “Quorum Deus est Deus, illi vivunt, ver. 38; Abrahami, Isaaci et Jacobi Deus est Deus, ver. 37; ergo illi vivunt, et quum nondum revixerint corpore, necesse est, ut suo tempore sint corporibus excitatis revicturi.” On the penetrating and fruitful exegesis of Jesus which leaves untouched the historical meaning, but is able to develope its ideal contents (comp. Matthew 5:17), see the apt remarks in Weizsäcker, p. 359 f.

Luke 20:27-39. The resurrection question. Sadducees speak (Matthew 22:23-33, Mark 12:18-27).—οἱ ἀντιλέγοντες in strict grammar ought to refer to τινες, but doubtless it is meant to refer to the whole party. It is a case of a nominative in loose apposition with a genitive—“outside the construction of the sentence—interposed as a pendent word, so to speak,” Winer, G. N. T., p. 668.—μὴ εἶναι: literally denying that there is not a resurrection, the meaning being really the reverse. After verbs of denying the Greeks repeat the negation. The reading λέγοντες, though well attested, looks like a grammatical correction.

27-40. Discomfiture of the Sadducees.

. certain of the Sadducees] Matthew 3:7. On the Sadducees see the Excursus on Jewish Sects. They were undeterred by the discomfiture of the Pharisees and Herodians, and perhaps their plot had been so arranged as coincidently to humiliate our Lord, if they could, by a difficult question, and so to shake His credit with the people. Some have supposed that the memorable incident of the Woman taken in Adultery (John 8:1-11) also took place on this day; in which case there would have been three temptations of Christ, one political, one doctrinal, and one speculative. But that incident rose spontaneously, whereas these had been pre-arranged.

which deny that there is any resurrection] Jos. Antt. xviii. 1, § 4; B. J. ii. 8, § 14. They refused to see any proof of it in the Books of Moses; and to the Prophets and the other books (the Ketubhim or Hagiographa) they only attached a subordinate importance. Their question was inspired less by deadly hatred than by supercilious scorn. Wealthy and powerful, they only professed to despise Jesus, up to this time, as a ‘Prophet of Nazareth,’ though now they became His main murderers. They are not so much as mentioned by St John, and very slightly by St Mark and St Luke, nor did Christ utter against them the same denunciations as against the Pharisees, who were His daily opponents. All the leading families of high priests at this period were Sadducees, and—except where it comes into direct collision with religion—Epicurean worldliness is more tolerant than interested fanaticism.

[27. Ἀντιλέγοντες, who deny) The truth is the most ancient: error is a new and upstart contradiction raised against it; although from time to time those in error esteem their own opinion to be even the more ancient.—V. g.]

Verses 27-40. - The scornful question of the Sadducees bearing on the doctrine of the resurrection, and the Lord's reply. Verses 27, 28. - Then came to him certain of the Saddducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him, saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. This is the only occasion related in the Gospels where our Lord comes in direct conflict with the Sadducees. They were a small but very wealthy and powerful sect. The high priests at this period and their families seem to have belonged generally to this party. They acknowledged as Divine the books of Moses, but refused to see in them any proof of the resurrection, or indeed of life after death. To the prophets and the other books they only attached subordinate importance. Supercilious worldliness, and a quiet indifference to all spiritual things, characterized them at this period. They come, comparatively speaking, little in contact with Jesus during his earthly ministry. While the Pharisee hated the Galilaean Master, the Sadducee professed to look on him rather with contempt. The question here seems to have been put with supercilious scorn. SS. Matthew and Mark preface the Lord's answer with a few words of grave rebuke, exposing the questioners' utter ignorance of the deep things involved in their query. Luke 20:27Asked

See on Mark 12:18.

Luke 20:27 Interlinear
Luke 20:27 Parallel Texts

Luke 20:27 NIV
Luke 20:27 NLT
Luke 20:27 ESV
Luke 20:27 NASB
Luke 20:27 KJV

Luke 20:27 Bible Apps
Luke 20:27 Parallel
Luke 20:27 Biblia Paralela
Luke 20:27 Chinese Bible
Luke 20:27 French Bible
Luke 20:27 German Bible

Bible Hub

Luke 20:26
Top of Page
Top of Page