Luke 2027–38 ESV – Sadducees Ask About the Resurrection – Bible Gateway

²⁷ There came to him some Sadducees, those who deny that there is a resurrection, ²⁸ and they asked him a question, saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, having a wife but no children, the man^[a] must take the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.²⁹ Now there were seven brothers. The first took a wife, and died without children. ³⁰ And the second ³¹ and the third took her, and likewise all seven left no children and died. ³² Afterward the woman also died. ³³ In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For the seven had her as wife.”

³⁴ And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, ³⁵ but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, ³⁶ for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons^[b] of the resurrection. ³⁷ But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. ³⁸ Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him.”

---

This passage presents an interesting interaction with Jesus. For one, we have a few examples of the Sadducees dialoguing directly with Jesus. In this instance, some Sadducees present him with what is essentially a Reductio ad absurdum. Their rejection of the resurrection of the dead leads them to challenge Jesus on this. According to the testimony of the New Testament, it seems that the Pharisees accepted this doctrine, and we also have evidence from Josephus, himself a Pharisee, in this belief.

It is generally understood that the Sadducees only accepted the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses. They would have discounted more explicit references to this doctrine in the rest of the Old Testament books.

John Bergsma makes an interesting comment regarding this:

Belief in the resurrection of the dead has always been a threat to the power of the wealthy elite who run society, as the Sadducees were. If there is a resurrection from the dead, then this life is not all that there is, and there may be something worth dying for. People who are willing to die for truth are hard to manipulate over long periods of time. People whose only hope is for this life are easier for the elite to control because making their lives miserable right now is usually enough to dissuade them from rebellion. So the elite of our age are similarly against the populace entertaining notions of eternal life and Final Judgment.[1]

When St. Paul preached on the resurrection of the dead to the Greeks in Athens, many mocked him over this. Only some were willing to hear more.

One of the aspects of Jesus’ reply to them that I find interesting is not only how he answered them. There are many cases where Jesus is asked questions in an adversarial manner. Where a question is more a form of trolling than a seeking of truth, in some of these cases, Jesus would counter them with a question of his own or would refuse to answer their question since it was done in bad faith. Still, Jesus does answer them, and perhaps his reply was meant for the Sadducees and other people there. The verse following what is in the Lectionary for this Sunday says:

³⁹ Then some of the scribes answered, “Teacher, you have spoken well.” (ESV-CE)[2]

The always insightful Peter Kreeft points out that “Today’s Gospel is about the resurrection and heaven, but it is also about interpreting Scripture.”[3] He goes on to write that “Jesus was a master at midrash, the Jewish tradition of spiritual interpretation of Scripture.”[4]

Midrash is not some private, original, subjective, “creative” interpretation. It is not an exegesis, or “reading into the text” of one’s own thoughts, but it is an attempt at exegesis, or “reading out of the text” what is there already; an “unpacking” of the gift of many-layered spiritual riches that lie there. Midrash is not scientific scholarship, or the historical-critical method of understanding a text by what we know of its history and the culture that produced it, although it does not contradict that method. Nor is midrash a reductionistic, debunking “deconstruction.” It is faithful, not skeptical; it assumes that God knew exactly what he was doing when he inspired each part of it, and it lingers lovingly over each word out of respect for the divine economy of words. It assumes that there is always more, not less, in the text than we see. It is neither a fundamentalistic literalism nor a “liberal” or “modernist” allegorizing-away of the literal meaning, but a kind of probing or deep-sea diving. It assumes that Scripture, like the sea, is vast and deep and rewarding on many levels. One of its methods is to interpret Scripture by Scripture, to shed light on one passage by using others. It also respects and uses the traditional wisdom of past saints and mystics.[5]

Many have commented on how Jesus replies to people. In this case, knowing that they only accepted a portion of the scriptures, he directed his reply restricting to what they already accepted. This a valuable lesson for us to learn. To generally listen to people and not just fire back from our Apologetics canon of common replies. Jesus points out to them that they had started with a false assumption in understanding the nature of marriage in this life. Also that even their more limited canon supported this doctrine:

The Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture for The Gospel of Luke provides this two-part answer:

First, he rebuts their argument by pointing out that life in the coming age is not the same as life now, as they are assuming. It does not involve marriage. The purpose of the levirate law, besides providing for the widow, was that “the name of the deceased” would continue through a descendant (Deut 25:6). However, in the resurrection of the dead, people are like angels in that they can no longer die, so there is no need for marriage to perpetuate one’s name. So, whereas the children of this age marry (Luke 17:27), those in “eternal life” (18:30) are characterized above all by their relationship with God: they are children of God. The further description that they are the ones who will rise is more literally translated “they are children of the resurrection” (NIV). Jesus’ words also imply that not all attain to this blessing, so people, including the Sadducees questioning him, should focus on doing what is necessary to be deemed worthy by God to receive it.

and

Second, Jesus shows that the resurrection of the dead is indeed taught by the law of Moses, thus arguing on the basis of the authority the Sadducees accepted. At the burning bush, the Lord revealed himself to Moses as the God of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exod 3:6, 15–16). Though they died centuries before Moses, to God they are living. He is not God of the dead, which means that belief in the resurrection is actually necessary for having a proper understanding of God.[6]

In a parallel passage in Matthew 22:29:

But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.[7]

I know partly how many times I have been wrong because I neither understood Scripture nor especially underestimated the power of God. Acting as if a situation was hopeless because it was not resolving quickly in the way I wanted.

It is amazing how we can close ourselves off from scripture and the power of God.

As a result of Jesus’ skill in fending off three questions (Luke 20:2, 21–22, 28–33), his opponents no longer dared to ask him anything. From now on they will simply seek how “to put him to death” (22:2).[8]

From St. Bede regarding this passage:

And since they had been defeated in argument, they ask Him no further questions, but seize Him, and deliver Him up to the Roman power. From which we may learn, that the poison of envy may indeed be subdued, but it is a hard thing to keep it at rest.[9]

Sources

• The Word of the Lord: Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings for Year C – John Bergsma
• Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Year C
• The Gospel of Luke, Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, Rev. Pablo T. Gadenz
• Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers, Volume 3: St. Luke – Verbum
• Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

---

1. The Word of the Lord: Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings for Year C, John Bergsma, 32nd Sunday in Ordinary Time.  ↩
2. English Standard Version Catholic Edition (Lk 20:39). (2019). Augustine Institute.  ↩
3. Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Year C, Thirty-Second Sunday in Ordinary Time.  ↩
4. ibid  ↩
5. ibid  ↩
6. The Gospel of Luke, Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, Rev. Pablo T. Gadenz  ↩
7. English Standard Version Catholic Edition (Mt 22:29). (2019). Augustine Institute.  ↩
8. The Gospel of Luke, Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, Rev. Pablo T. Gadenz  ↩
9. Bede, Venerable, Presbyter and Monk of Yarrow, A.D. 700. Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected out of the Works of the Fathers: St. Luke (J. H. Newman, Ed.; Vol. 3, p. 668). John Henry Parker.  ↩

Luke 19:1–10 ESV – Bible Gateway

---

John Bergsma gives us the context to this Gospel story, which is another one unique to Luke:

This week we come to the end of the “travel narrative” (Luke 9–19), as Jesus is now in Jericho and next week will be in Jerusalem itself. It has been a long journey, but we have learned much by following the rabbi from Nazareth.[1]

In verse 3, a lot is going on here. We have already seen the odium in how the Israelites saw Tax Collectors, and for the most part, this view was rightly considered. Still, even our biases that are grounded in the reality of experience must be reexamined when we move the general to the person. It must have been astonishing for all those following Jesus how often Tax Collectors and Samaritans were brought up and how their actions were shown in a positive light. Here we find that Zacchaeus was a Tax Collector and a “Chief” one. There is also another interesting aspect that Brant Pitre draws out.

Now Zacchaeus is a Greek name, Zakchaios. It’s from the Hebrew Zakkai, which ironically, Zakkai in Hebrew means clean or innocent.[2]

And also that:

Number one: notice where this encounter takes place. It takes place near the city of Jericho, which was a border town in Judea, and being on the border, was probably also a toll center. In other words, it would have been a place where taxes would be collected on people coming into the country or bringing in goods and products from other lands.[2]

We find that Zacchaeus is seeking Jesus and is willing to go to some lengths to satisfy what must have been more than just curiosity. He is short in stature and climbs a small tree, the Sycamore.

(St. Augustine) Say what you like, but for our part, let us climb the sycamore tree and see Jesus. The reason you cannot see Jesus is that you are ashamed to climb the sycamore tree. Let Zacchaeus grasp the sycamore tree, and let the humble person climb the cross. That is little enough, merely to climb it. We must not be ashamed of the cross of Christ, but we must fix it on our forehead, where the seat of shame is. Above where all our blushes show is the place we must firmly fix that for which we should never blush.”[3]

There seems to be some aspect of him humbling himself by doing this. However, in this moment of time, Zacchaeus’ motives were likely mixed, as Peter Kreeft points out:

Why did he want to see Jesus? Probably, he had mixed motives. One was just curiosity, and perhaps also the thought that he could somehow profit from this prophet. But another motive was moving him to repent, to give up his life of crime, to become this man’s disciple, to turn back to the way of righteousness that was the essence of the Jewish tradition, beginning with Abraham, centering on the Law given to Moses, carried along by many divinely sent and inspired prophets.[4]

I also like what Kreeft and other commenters have pointed out about this meeting:

The meeting between Jesus and Zacchaeus was not by chance. It was planned—on both sides.[4]

Jesus does an astounding thing here. He not only calls Zacchaeus by name but invites himself to stay at his house. I do have to wonder what is going through the tax collector’s mind at this point. Jesus not only knows who he is but is willing to enter into a relationship with him. He is moved to accept this invitation, and he does so joyfully. Brant Pitre amplifies what this means: “… eating with someone in antiquity (as today) was a sign of communion. Not in the sense of Eucharistic communion, but in the sense of a relationship.” [2]

“He chooses a chief tax collector: who can despair when such a man obtains grace?” (St Ambrose, Expositio Evangelii sec. Lucam, in loc.).

There seems to be such a drastic change in Zacchaeus as he openly repents his past actions and wants to make restitution for them. These moments of conversion are not just a change of feeling in the circumstances. They build up over time. It is often the case that we do not even know ourselves and what is happening inside us. That grace is already strengthening us and pulling us to this moment in time and after that.

Jesus not only sees him as who he is but who he can be through grace. This act of human kindness broke through to him, especially considering how fellow Israelites would have treated him. We find out also that Zacchaeus, in his act of restitution, knew the scriptures well:

“If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. He shall make restitution…” (Exodus 22:1–2)

There is more than just restitution going on here.

… in Jewish tradition, almsgiving is actually known as tzedakah—righteousness. Fascinating. So to give to the poor was so quintessentially considered a righteous act, that the very act of almsgiving itself is called tzedakah, righteousness. So what is Zacchaeus doing? He is opening his hand to the poor. He’s going to give half of his goods to the poor, and thereby he’s engaging in an act of tzedakah, righteousness.[2]

Jesus’ response to both Zacchaeus and those who disapproved of Jesus’ action was to say: “Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham.”

Brant Pitre dives into another level of Jesus’ words:

I think it’s almost a kind of double entendre, a kind of play on words—multiple meanings. Because when Jesus says “salvation has come to this house today,” it’s interesting that He says that in the context of He, Himself coming to Zacchaeus’ house. “Zacchaeus”—what does he say earlier? “I must stay at your house today.” So does Luke mean that salvation has come to Zacchaeus’ house because Zacchaeus has repented or because Jesus has come to his house? And the answer is both. The reason he has repented is precisely because Jesus has come into his home and obviously into his heart as well.[2]

I also wonder what the Roman authorities must have thought about their tax collectors leaving their job, and that one of them even became an Apostle of Jesus. How much was this a disruption for them, or were they quickly able to replace them with those willing to take their place because they saw this as an opportunity toward riches?

Bishop Barron provides a good summary of this Gospel text:

Notice in the story of Zacchaeus how quickly God responds to any sign of faith. Zacchaeus’ climbing the sycamore tree shows he had more than a passing interest in seeing Jesus. He had a deep hunger of the spirit. His principal virtue was his willingness to go to great extremes.

This is what we do when we know that something of tremendous moment is at stake. When our health is endangered, we move, we act; when our job is threatened, we go to almost any extreme to keep it.

When Jesus spotted him he said, “Zacchaeus, hurry and come down; for I must stay at your house today.” God responds to us readily when we show the least interest in him. He doesn’t play hard to get; he is not coy with us. When we seek him, he responds, because loving us is his entire game.

Finally, notice how Jesus tells Zacchaeus to hurry. It’s a good spiritual principle: don’t wait, don’t hesitate. Seize the moment of conversion when it comes.[5]

Sources

• The Word of the Lord: Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings for Year C – John Bergsma
• Catholic Productions, Commentaries by Brant Pitre
• Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Year C
• The Word on Fire Bible (Volume 1)꞉ The Gospels
• Photo by Ben White on Unsplash

---

1. The Word of the Lord: Reflections on the Sunday Mass Readings for Year C, John Bergsma, 31st Sunday in Ordinary Time  ↩
2. Catholic Productions, Brant Pitre, The Thirty-first Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C  ↩
3. Augustine, Sermon 174.3; trans. in A. Just, Jr., Luke, 290  ↩
4. Peter Kreeft, Food for the Soul: Reflections on the Mass Readings Year C, Thirty-First Sunday in Ordinary Time  ↩
5. The Word on Fire Bible (Volume 1)꞉ The Gospels  ↩