Matthew 22:31

Mat 22:31-32. But as touching the resurrection of the dead — Or the future state, (see on Mat 22:23,) have ye not read that which was spoken by God — Namely, in the books of Moses, for which the Sadducees had a peculiar value; but which Christ here shows they did not understand; but were as ignorant of them as they were of the power of God. They had drawn their objection to a future state from the writings of Moses; and from those writings Christ demonstrates the certainty of a future state! I am the God of Abraham, &c. — The argument runs thus: God is not the God of the dead, but of the living: (for that expression, Thy God, implies both benefit from God to man: and duty from man to God:) but he is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: therefore Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are not dead, but living. Therefore the soul does not die with the body. So indeed the Sadducees supposed, and it was on this ground that they denied the resurrection and a future state. It cannot be objected to this interpretation, that it lays too much stress on the words, I am, which are not in the Hebrew. For our Lord’s application of the citation in the present tense, (ουκ εστιν ο θεος θεος νεκρων, God is not the God of the dead,) plainly implies that no other tense of the verb can be supplied. Accordingly the words are so rendered by the LXX., Εγω ειμι ο Θεος του πατρος σου, Θεος Αβρααμ, &c., I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, &c.; Exo 3:6. In a similar way Dr. Campbell states the argument: “When God appeared to Moses in the bush, (which was long after the death of the patriarchs,) he said unto him, I am the God of Abraham, &c.; now God is not the God of the dead, of those who, being destitute of life, and consequently of sensibility, can neither know nor honour him: he is the God of those only who love and adore him, and are by consequence alive. These patriarchs, therefore, though dead in respect to us, who enjoy their presence here no longer, are alive in respect of God, whom they still serve and worship.” Others, however, choose to explain the argument thus: To be the God of any person is to be his exceeding great reward, Gen 15:1. Wherefore, as the patriarchs died without having obtained the promises, Heb 11:39, they must exist in another state to enjoy them, that the veracity of God may remain sure. Besides, the apostle tells us that God is not ashamed to be called their God, because he has prepared for them a city, Heb 11:16, which implies, that he would have reckoned it infinitely beneath him to own his relation, as God, to any one for whom he had not provided a state of permanent happiness. The argument, taken either way, is conclusive; for which cause we may suppose that both the senses of it were intended, to render it full of demonstration.

With what satisfaction should we read this vindication of so important an article of our faith and hope! How easily did our Lord unravel and expose the boasted argument of the Sadducees, and cover with just confusion all the pride of those bold wits, who valued themselves so much on that imaginary penetration, which laid men almost on a level with brutes. Indeed, objections against the resurrection and a future state, much more plausible than this of theirs, may be answered in that one saying of our Lord’s: Ye know not the Scriptures nor the power of God. Were the Scripture doctrine on this subject considered on the one hand, and the omnipotence of the Creator on the other, it could not seem incredible to any that God should preserve the soul in immortality, or raise the dead. Act 26:8.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

22:31-32 Since God spoke of being the God of Abraham in the present tense, this proves that Abraham still lives and thus that there is a resurrection.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mat 22:31.[965] ὙΜῖΝ, unto you) To you He says, not to us. They were not written for Christ.[966] To you the descendants of Abraham.

[965] περί δὲ τῆς ἀναστάσεως) Jesus not merely refuted the objection of those in error, but also demonstrates the truth to them.—V. g.

[966] Nor were they written even for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who had lived before that the Vision was vouchsafed to Moses, which was subsequently committed to writing.—V. g.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat_22:31 f. But with reference to the resurrection, set over against the foregoing ἐν γὰρ τῇ ἀναστ.; the sequence of the address is indicated by the prepositions. περὶ τῆς ἀναστ. should be taken along with οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε.

ὑμῖν] imparts the vivacity of individuality to the words of Jesus. The quotation is from Exo_3:6. His opponents had cited a passage from the law; with a passage from the law Jesus confutes them, and thus combats them with their own weapons. It is wrong to refer to this in support of the view that the Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch as authoritative scripture (Tertullian, Origen, Jerome, Luther, Paulus, Olshausen, Süskind in the Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 665). Yet these aristocrats regarded the law, and the mere letter of the law too, as possessing supreme authority.

οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ θεὸς, κ.τ.λ.] This is the major proposition of a syllogism, in terms of which we are warranted in recognising in the passage here quoted a scriptural testimony in favour of the resurrection. The Sadducees had failed to draw the inference thus shown to be deducible from the words; hence Mat_22:29 : μὴ εἰδότες τὰς γραφάς, a fact which Jesus has now confirmed by the illustration before us. The point of the argument does not turn upon the present εἰμί (Chrysostom, and those who follow him), but is to this effect: seeing that God calls Himself the God of the patriarchs, and as He cannot sustain such a relation toward the dead, i.e. those who are absolutely dead, who have ceased to exist (οὐκ ὄντων καὶ καθάπαξ ἀφανισθέντων, Chrysostom), but only toward the living, it follows that the deceased patriarchs must be living,living, that is, in Sheol, and living as ἀναστῆναι μέλλοντες (Euthymius Zigabenus). Comp. Heb_11:16. The similar inference in Menasse f. Isr. de Resurr. i. 10. 6, appears to have been deduced from the passage before us. Comp. Schoettgen, p. 180.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 22:31 . hus far of the mode, now of the fact of resurrection. οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε , have ye not read? Many times, but not with Christ’s eyes. We find what we bring. τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑμῖν , that said to you ; to Moses first, but a word in season for the Sadducaic state of mind.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Verse 31. Have ye not read] This quotation is taken from Ex 3:6; Ex 3:16; and as the five books of Moses were the only part of Scripture which the Sadducees acknowledged as Divine, our Lord, by confuting them from those books, proved the second part of his assertion, "Ye are ignorant of those very scriptures which ye profess to hold sacred."

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(31) That which was spoken unto you by God.—In St. Mark and St. Luke we find the addition “at the bush,” the words probably being a reference to the section of the Law containing Exodus 3, and known by that title. There are, it need scarcely be said, many passages scattered here and there through the Old Testament (such, e.g., as Job_19:25-26; Psa_16:10-11; Dan_12:2) in which the hope of immortality, and even of a resurrection, is expressed with greater clearness; but our Lord meets the Sadducees on their own ground, and quotes from the Law which they recognised as of supreme authority. The principle implied in the reasoning is, that the union of the divine Name with that of a man, as in “I am the God of Abraham,” involved a relation existing, not in the past only, but when the words were uttered. They meant something more than “I am the God whom Abraham worshipped in the past.” But if the relation was a permanent one, then it followed that those whose names were thus joined with the name of God were living and not dead.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But when the Pharisees had heard,.... Either with their own ears, they being some of them present: or rather from the relation of others, from the Scribes, who expressed their approbation of Christ's answer to the Sadducees; for the Pharisees, with the Herodians, in a body, had left him, and were gone to their respective places of abode; or to them that sent them, being baffled and confounded by him: but now hearing

that he had put the Sadducees to silence, or stopped their mouths, having nothing to reply, which itself, was not disagreeable; for they were as opposite as could be to them in the doctrine of the resurrection, and in other things, and were their sworn and avowed enemies: and yet it sadly gravelled them, that Christ should be too hard for, and get the victory over all sects among them. Wherefore, considering that should he go on with success in this manner, his credit with the people would increase yet more and more; and therefore, though they had been so shamefully defeated in two late attempts, yehey were gathered together in great hurry upon this occasion. The Ethiopic version reads it, "they were gathered to him", that is, to Christ; and so reads the copy that Beza gave to the university of Cambridge: but the other reading, as it is general, so more suitable to the place: they gathered together at some certain house, where they consulted what to do, what methods to take, to put a stop to his growing interest with the people, and how they might bring him into disgrace with them; and they seemed to have fixed on this method, that one among them, who was the ablest doctor, and best skilled in the law, should put a question to him relating to the law, which was then agitated among them, the solution of which was very difficult; and they the rather chose to take this course by setting a single person upon him, that should he succeed, the victory would be the greater, and the whole sect would share in the honour of it; and should he be silenced, the public disgrace and confusion would only fall on himself, and not the whole body, as in the former instances. This being agreed to, they went unto him.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

Ver. 31. Have ye not read] In Moses, whose writings only they received, rejecting the rest. And the superstitious Jews at this day are said in their liturgy to read two lessons, one out of the law, which is read by some chief person, another out of the prophets, which is read by some boy or mean companion. For savouring somewhat of these old Sadducces, they will in no sort do honour, neither attribute they that authority to any part of the Bible that they do to their law, which they do usually carry about their synagogue at the end of the service in procession, with many ornaments of crowns and sceptres; the children kissing it as it passeth by them.

Spoken unto you by God] It is God that speak. eth in the holy Scriptures; it is the express mind of God that is there set forth unto us. See my True Treasure, p. 10, &c.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mark hath the same, Mar 12:26,27; so hath Luke, Luk 20:37,38; only Mark and Luke mention the time when God spake these words—in the bush, that is, when God appeared to Moses in the burning bush, Exo 3:6; and Luke addeth, for all live unto him. Mark also saith, Touching the dead that they rise, have ye not read in the book of Moses? Our Saviour, in the foregoing words, had, by the by, asserted the doctrine of angels; here he asserts both the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and also of the resurrection of the body: and though Cardinal Perron, and Maldonate the Jesuit, boldly assert that the resurrection of the body cannot be proved from hence without taking in the tradition of the church; yet, notwithstanding their confidence, those who have a greater reverence for our Saviour’s words, think that not only the immortality of the soul, but the resurrection of the body also, is irrefragably proved by this argument of our Saviour’s; to make out which, these things are to be observed:

1. God doth not say I have been, but I am: he speaketh of the time present, when he spake to Moses, and of the time to come.

2. He doth not say, I am the Lord of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but the God of: now wherever God styles himself the God of any people or person, it always signifieth, God as a Benefactor, and one that doth and will do good to such a people or person. It is a federal expression, as where he saith to Abraham, Gen 17:7, I will be a God to thee and thy seed, that is, of thee and of thy seed.

3. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, doth not signify part of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but their entire persons, which consist of bodies as well as souls.

4. God is not the God of the dead, he doth not show kindness to them if they be dead, and shall rise no more.

5. In this life, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob received no such signal kindness from God, but others might receive as great kindness as any of them did. Hence now our Lord proveth, as the immortality of their souls, so the resurrection also of their bodies, that God might show himself the God of whole Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Gerard saith: The argument of this text is made clear by Heb 11:16, Wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he hath prepared for them a city. This is that which made God to be truly called their God, because he hath prepared for them a city, which city they could never possess without a resurrection. It is yet further added by some, That God’s promise to Abraham of the land of Canaan was in these terms, Gen 13:15, To thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever; not only to thy seed, but to thee: so to Isaac, Gen 26:3; to Jacob, Gen 35:12; Exo 6:4,8; Deu 11:21.

The promises seemed not to be fulfilled in giving their posterity the earthly Canaan, which Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob lived not to enjoy; but to extend to the rest prepared for the people of God, the city mentioned by the apostle, Heb 11:16, which God had prepared for them, to justify himself to be their God. Now this could not be prepared for their souls merely, which were but a part of them, and hardly capable of perfect happiness without a reunion with the body, there being in it such an innate desire. Nor was it reasonable that the bodies of these saints, having been sharers with their souls in their labours, should have no share in their reward from that covenant; therefore of God with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, our Saviour firmly proveth their resurrection. Luke addeth, for all live unto him. Not live unto him only as their end, but in the same sense as Paul saith of Christ, Rom 6:10, in that he liveth, he liveth unto God; that is, with God. So saith Luke, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, though dead at present, live with God; and they, and all the children of Abraham, shall live to God, that is, with God, to all eternity. Matthew addeth,

when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine. Poor people, they had been used to hear discourses from the Pharisees, about the traditions of the elders, rites and ceremonies, washing hands before meat, and the necessity of washing pots and cups; and the Sadducees, declaiming against the doctrines of angels and spirits, and the resurrection; they were astonished to hear one instructing them in things concerning their souls, the resurrection and life eternal, and confuting their great teachers from books of Scripture owned by themselves; for the Sadducees, though they had no great regard to the prophets, yet they owned and paid a great deference to the books of Moses.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

As touching (peri) the resurrection of the dead. Christ, in the second place, shows how these disputants were, ignorant of Scripture. They may have known the letter, they certainly knew nothing of the spirit of the Word of God, its depth and fulness. The key to the interpretation of the Scripture is faith. It is not enough to be acquainted with the literal signification; this is always inadequate, and denotes not the chief matter intended. To know the Scripture, in the sense of Christ, is to have a clear apprehension of its spiritual aspect, to feel and own the moral and mystical bearing of facts and statements, and to recognize that herein lies the real significance of the inspired record. The want of this discernment vitiated the Sadducees" treatment and reception of Holy Writ, and involved them in lamentable error. Christ proceeds to demonstrate how the very Pentateuch (reverenced unquestionably by their party), which they deemed to be entirely silent on the subject of the life of the soul, spoke plainly on this matter to all who had faith to understand and appreciate the words of Divine wisdom. That which was spoken unto you by God. To our minds Jesus might have adduced stronger arguments from other books of Scripture, e.g. Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; but the Sadducees had drawn their objection from the Pentateuch, therefore from that section of the Bible he refutes them. To the books of Moses was always made the ultimate appeal in confirmation of doctrine; in the supreme authority of these writings all sects agreed. The utterances of the prophets were explained away as allegorical, poetical, and rhetorical; the plain, historical statements of the Law could not at that time be thus treated. Christ endorses unreservedly the Divine inspiration of the Pentateuch; he intimates that it was the voice of God to all time, and providentially directed to disperse such errors as those now produced.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Have ye not read - The Sadducees had a peculiar value for the books of Moses. Out of these therefore our Lord argues with them.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Proof for the resurrection:

v. 31. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

v. 32. I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

v. 33. And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at His doctrine.

A bit of Bible explanation, which is as irrefutable as it is surprising. Christ’s manner implies a censure of their reading the books of Moses without understanding: Ye are ignorant of the very books which ye profess to hold sacred, in which the Lord speaks directly to you. It was on Mount Horeb that the Lord said these words to Moses, Exo 3:6-16. If the patriarchs were dead, body and soul, if they were annihilated and no longer in existence, how could God call Himself their God, He, who is the God of the living only? The resurrected dead, according to their souls, live with God in heaven; they are truly alive, and on the last day their souls will be reunited with the body to live in the abode of the angels forever, and in much the same manner. No wonder the people, the many that crowded around the disputing parties, were very much surprised at this bit of clear doctrine. "Behold, who would have thought that in these short, simple, common words so much would be contained, and would yield such a fine, rich sermon, yea, a great and mighty book, which could be derived there from. Which words they had known well, and yet had not believed that in the entire books of Moses a single word concerning the resurrection of the dead was to be found; for which reason they adhered to Moses only, and repudiated the prophets, though these took all their sermons on the chief articles of Christ’s faith from Moses."

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

31. As touching the resurrection of the dead. The Sadducees doubted some of the prophetic books, but accepted Moses; hence, the Lord appeals to Moses to show that he taught future existence, or the resurrection, which is the sense in which the latter phrase is used.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

General Information:

In Mat 22:32, Jesus quotes from Exodus to prove that people live again after they die.

have you not read what ... Jacob'?

Jesus asks this question to remind the religious leaders of what they know from scripture. AT: "I know you have read it, but you do not seem to understand what ... Jacob.'" (See: Rhetorical Question)

what was spoken to you by God

This can be stated in active form. AT: "what God spoke to you" (See: Active or Passive)

God, saying, 'I am ... Jacob'?

You can translate this direct quotation as an indirect quotation. AT: "God, who said to Moses that he is the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." (See: Direct and Indirect Quotations)

of the dead, but of the living

These nominal adjectives can be stated as adjectives. AT: "of dead people, but he is the God of living people" (See: Nominal Adjectives)

translationWords

resurrection

God

Abraham

Isaac

Jacob

amazed

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

31-33.] Our Lord does not cite the strong testimonies of the Prophets, as Isa 26:19: Eze 37:1-14: Dan 12:2, but says, as in Luke (20:37), ‘even Moses has shewn,’ &c., leaving those other witnesses to be supplied. The books of Moses were the great and ultimate appeal for all doctrine: and thus the assertion of the Resurrection comes from the very source whence their difficulty had been constructed. On the passage itself, and our Lord’s interpretation of it, much has been written. Certain it is that our Lord brings out in this answer a depth of meaning in the words, which without it we could not discover. Meyer, in reply to Strauss and Hase, finely says, “Our Lord here testifies of the conscious intent of God in speaking the words. God uttered them, He tells us, to Moses, in the consciousness of the still enduring existence of his peculiar relation to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”

The groundwork of His argument seems to me to be this:—the words ‘I am thy God’ imply a covenant; there is another side to them: “Thou art Mine” follows upon “I am thine.” When God therefore declares that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, He declares their continuance, as the other parties in this covenant. It is an assertion which could not be made of an annihilated being of the past. And notice also (with Bengel), that Abraham’s (&c.) body, having had upon it the seal of the covenant, is included in this. Stier (after Lavater) remarks that this is a weighty testimony against the so-called ‘sleep of the soul’ in the intermediate state. Compare πάντες γὰρ αὐτῷ ζῶσιν Luk 20:38, and ζῶσι τῷ θεῷ 4 Macc. 7:19; [16:25,] spoken of the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Thus the burden of the Law, ‘I am the Lord thy God,’ contains in it the seed of immortality and the hope of the resurrection.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

31, 32. But concerning the resurrection of the dead, Have ye not read that which was said to you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of dead (persons), but of living.] The inference seems to be that when the words were spoken the patriarchs were still living, and that their resurrection was a natural and probable corollary. Cf. the similar inference from Num 18:28 with reference to Aaron, quoted above from Sanh 90b. Mk. has: “But concerning the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, at the Bush how God spake to him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob? He is not God of dead persons, but of living: ye greatly err.” The quotation is from Exo 3:6.

(M)

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.