In Jesus’ debate with the Sadducees, He defended His resolve that the dead are raised by quoting from Exodus 3:6. Luke records Jesus as saying, “But even Moses revealed that the dead are raised 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. Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live before him.” (Luke 20:37-8, NET Bible).
Jesus’ argument seems to be as follows:
(1) God can only be “the God of…X”, if X exists
(2) God identified Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob centuries after their death
(3) Therefore, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob still existed when God spoke to Moses
I don’t see how Jesus’ argument supports His resolve. At best, Jesus demonstrated that man is a dualistic being whose immaterial self lives on beyond death (something the Sadducees denied). But how does it follow that the dead will rise? It could be that they continue in their non-corporeal state for time everlasting. It seems to me that Jesus would have to supply another argument to demonstrate why it is necessary for these non-corporeal persons to return to a bodily existence. No such argument is given.
I confess some trepidation in even writing this, but I don’t find Jesus’ argument persuasive. And yet when you read the text, Jesus’ opponents found it extremely persuasive. They were not able to offer any rebuttal. Am I missing something here? I do not want to say Jesus’ argument missed the point, but I cannot deny the fact that his argument appears to fall short of its intended goal. Does anyone have any insight on this passage they would like to offer me?
Thinking to Believe 
October 23, 2007 at 9:49 am
Jeez…Jason, why not ask something harder? I mean, why bore us with all these easy questions? Lol. Just kidding!
I don’t know, I’ll to think about it for a while. Considering the context, perhaps Jesus was giving an argument which was a powerful defeater of the Sadduccee’s position while not answering the question the way we would ask it or want it answered. In other words, Jesus’s answer may have worked perfectly within their form of argumentation. I don’t know. Or perhaps we misunderstand the exact point Jesus was taking on, perhaps the Sadduccees did not believe in life after death at all, and so Jesus proved first that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (A, I, & J) still existed and assumed from there that it followed that they would be raised from the dead physically.
I’m not sure! I will investigate and get back with you. I don’t think this is a wrong-spirited question at all, we’re simply trying to understand the text of Scripture, and we’re coming from an attitude of trust. Good question.
LikeLike
October 23, 2007 at 11:11 am
Jason,
I don’t have much to add. It reminded me of how, in many small towns, a house will be called the “Smith House” even after the Smiths sold the house a century ago. So I agree that “the God of A/I/J” doesn’t seem significant.
It’s possible that the word usage was different for the Hebrews. But if it were, you would think that the Jews would have picked up on that long before Jesus.
I would note that the Roman Catholics use Scripture in a different way than Protestants. And the NT seems to use the OT in ways that you would never support if somebody modern called it a “proof text.” Like the NT’s view of Isaiah 7:14. Perhaps Jesus didn’t mean it as a smoking gun, but simply some evidence supporting his conclusion. Maybe Moses was revealing something about the afterlife, and Moses himself didn’t even know it.
Arthur
LikeLike
October 23, 2007 at 11:14 am
One more thing – maybe Jesus’s opponents found his words in 34-36 to be persuasive, not so much 37-38.
LikeLike
October 23, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Chad,
You are right. The Sadducees did not believe man survived death as an incorporeal spirit, or that his body would be resurrected. The problem is that Jesus specifically identified the purpose of His argument as proving the resurrection of the dead, not a continued personal, incorporeal existence after death. I don’t see how Jesus’ argument, or proof-text demonstrates that.
Even if we looked at this only as an argument for an incorporeal existence after death, it still doesn’t seem persuasive. Granted, Jesus is God, and no one knows how to better interpret and apply Scripture than its ultimate author—so let Jesus be right and me be wrong. But I cannot help to scratch my head over this.
Imagine that this passage did not exist in the NT. Furthermore, imagine that you are a seminary professor. Imagine that one of your students wrote a paper on the post-death existence of man, cited the same OT passage Jesus cited, and employed the same line of reasoning Jesus employed to argue either for an incorporeal existence after death or the resurrection of the dead. What kind of comments would you make on that paper? I would tell him he was taking the verse out of context, stretching it too far, and that his conclusion did not follow his premises. But we’re not talking about a seminary student’s paper. We are talking about the incarnate God’s use of the OT and reason. One doesn’t critique God’s reasoning abilities or hermeneutics. And yet, the rational powers He gave me cannot make rational sense of His hermeneutic, or argument.
Jason
LikeLike
October 23, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Arthur,
I agree. It seems like God’s saying “I God Abraham, God Issac, God Jacob” (literal translation of Hebrew) was merely a way of identifying Himself to Moses. The point being that He was the same God who appeared to Moses’ ancestors. It doesn’t necessarily signify their continued existence. It said something about the identity of God, not the (continued) identify of A/I/J. But according to Jesus it meant more than what it appeared to mean on its face.
I find it unlikely that they only found the 1st part of Jesus’ response persuasive, but not the 2nd. They found it all persuasive. That’s why they said “Well said” and dared not ask Him any more questions. If they found His argument and exegesis suspect, they would have challenged Him on it. They didn’t, because they considered Jesus’ argument “rebuttal-proof.”
Jason
LikeLike
October 26, 2007 at 8:34 am
It is true that Jesus’ argument falls short as you have stated. But we must take into consideration (1) This is how the Gospel author quoted it for his literary purposes, which doesn’t mean Jesus said it exactly that way. (2) First Century Jews don’t seem to have been bound to Western rules of logic. (3) Similarily, fallicies of debate that we would consider to fall short today appear a lot in Scripture. How many times does Paul use ad hominem arguements to sway his readers?
LikeLike
October 26, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Brian,
First off, tell Jeff I said hello.
As for your response, let me say a few things.
I recognize that the authors did not always quote Jesus word for word. Indeed, such word-for-word reproductions were not nearly as important to ANE peoples. They were interested in the general sense. Of course, due to their superb memorization skills they were often able to record what was said nearly verbatim.
I also understand that the Gospel writers would alter Jesus’ words at times to fit their literary purposes. But that seems like an unlikely explanation for the phrase “as touching the resurrection.”
If these words were invented for literary purposes, we would not expect to find it in all three Synoptics (but we do). Indeed, it would be quite remarkable for three different authors to use this story in such a way that it required each of them to invent this phrase and put it in Jesus’ mouth. It is much more likely that this is what Jesus actually said.
As for logic, I disagree. There is no such thing as Western logic. Logic is logic. It’s part of our rational nature, not our culture. I will admit, however, that ANE people found certain arguments more persuasive than we do today, but that is not because they employed a different rationality or logic.
Ad hominems were just as falacious then as today, but they were just as effective back then as they are today. That’s why so many people used them then, and continue to use them now. Use of the ad hominem does not reflect a different understanding of logic. It represents people’s universal tendency to be swayed by poor reasoning and rhetoric.
As for Paul using ad hominems, please provide some examples. I don’t think using emotionally charged rhetoric is an instance of an ad hominem, so don’t include those. I am only interested in seeing instances in which Paul responded to a claim from the opposition by attacking their character rather than their assertion/argument.
The key here is “rather than.” While I am not an advocate for name-calling or speaking ill against one’s character, I don’t think the use of such rhetoric is an ad hominem proper unless it stands alone. So long as one also addresses their opponents’ arguments, their personal attacks may be justified. Consider Jesus. He called the Pharisees a lot of names, and assasinated their character. But He was right in His assessment! They were exactly the way Jesus described them. In today’s politically correct, nicey-nice world we often mistakenly think an ad hominem is saying something bad about someone. Sometimes such language is appropriate.
Jason
LikeLike
October 28, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Hi,
I want to start by saying how much I have enjoyed all of the question and answer essays I have read of yours.
Thank you very much. That being said I think the main thing to keep in mind is that Jesus is talking to the Sadducees. Everyone knew that A, I, & J had died long ago a physical death, but Jesus speaks of them as not dead but living. Either Jesus is crazy or there is an afterlife. After all, when we die are we really dead? The Bible talks about the second death which is reserved for the unsaved. That is what we are saved from in the first place. If you have chosen salvation than you are not dead but alive even if physically you have expired. I think the argument plus the respect the people had for A, I, & J is what silenced the Sadducees.
LikeLike
October 29, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Hi Chuck,
I’m glad you’ve enjoyed my writings.
It’s not clear to me how the fact that Jesus speaks of A/I/J as alive proves anything. That’s what needed to be proved in the first place: whether they continued to live after their death. Jesus’ mere assertion that this was so is not compelling (from the perspective of those who were listening to Him).
Or did you mean to say “God” rather than “Jesus”, referring to God’s words in Exodus 3:6, of the which Jesus was quoting? Even then, the fact remains that what God said does not seem to entail the post-death conscious existence of A/I/J. That’s what I was getting at in my 10/23 2:35 p.m. post when I wrote: “It seems like God’s saying ‘I God Abraham, God Issac, God Jacob’ (literal translation of Hebrew) was merely a way of identifying Himself to Moses. The point being that He was the same God who appeared to Moses’ ancestors. It doesn’t necessarily signify their continued existence. It said something about the identity of God, not the (continued) identify of A/I/J. But according to Jesus it meant more than what it appeared to mean on its face.”
I agree that there is an afterlife. What I am asking is how an appeal to Exodus 3:6 proved Jesus’ point? First, it is not at all clear to me that God’s words indicate the (then) present existence of A/I/J. In the context it seems to be a way of God identifying who He is, not a statement about A/I/J. Secondly, even if it was absolutely clear that God’s statement indicated A/I/J were still alive at that point, it would not prove what Jesus was trying to prove: that the dead will rise bodily. It would only prove that man has a soul, and that soul continues to exist incorporeally post-death. It does not prove that that soul will be rejoined to the physical body (resurrection).
You mentioned the second death, but remember, that is a NT text, which neither Jesus nor His audience had access to (because it was not yet written).
Jason
LikeLike
November 2, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Everyone,
Could it be that in Jewish thought, if there was life after death, they presumed that it would entail a resurrection, so that any proof for one was proof for the other?
On this proposal, it would be as if Jesus was assuming a premise that was a given among His audience (If there is life beyond the grave, it will entail a physical resurrection). If His audience shared an uncontroversial understanding that proof for one was proof for the other, then Jesus did prove the resurrection of the dead by proving the continued existence of A/I/J after their physical death.
Of course, if correct, this explanation only tackles 1/2 the problem. The other problem still remains: how Exodus 3:6 proves that A/I/J continued to exist beyond their physical death.
Jason
LikeLike
January 15, 2008 at 8:32 am
If there is life after death, it implies a resurrection.
The Sadducees’ question begins from what they believe are 2 false premises and one true premise:
1. The body and the soul are separable.
2. There is no dissolution of the soul at death.
3. Covenants made in This World (Olam Hazah) are binding on the body and soul.
* Therefore, covenants in do not dissolve at the death of the body, so they must be in force in the World to Come (Olam Haba)(endnote i).
This is how they arrive at their hypothetical situation:
1. The bodies of the woman and 7 brothers will be separated from their souls.
2. The soul of the woman and the 7 brothers exist beyond death.
3. Covenants made by the woman and the 7 brothers in This World are binding on their souls.
* Therefore, the poor woman is in covenant with 7 men in the World to Come.
This is either humorous or pitiful, but it is designed to prove their point in reverse:
1. Covenants—marriage, in this case—do dissolve at death (their proof text is Moses’ provision for leverite marriage after a man dies childless).
2. Covenants are made with the soul.
* Therefore, the soul must dissolve at death in order to be free of the covenant (and so avoid such ridiculous situations).
Enter Jesus to set the Sadducees aright.
Correction 1: The children of This World are not like the children of the World to Come.
The marriage covenant, dissolved by physical death in This World, remains dissolved in the World to Come.
Correction 2: You don’t know the scriptures or the power of God.
Using his own Mosaic proof text, Jesus reminds them that Moses calls God “the God of A/I/J.” In the passage about the bush–Ex 1-6:1 (endnote ii), which ought to be thought of as a whole in the way those present would have thought of it–God appears to Moses because he “remembers his covenant” with A/I/J to give them the land (endnote iii).
This “proves” 2 things and implies the 3rd:
1. God’s covenant with A/I/J has not dissolved. (It didn’t depend on their ability to act in their physical bodies in the first place, unlike marriage. This covenant is stronger than death.)
2. Therefore, A/I/J have not dissolved.
3. Therefore, God must raise them up since he promised them and their descendants the land—physical land requiring a body of some sort—and they have not received that promise yet. Let it never be said that God would break his promise & that promise did not end at death.
Some of those who were with him thought it was a good argument, but that could mean the Pharisees with him, not the Sadducees, who even though they were silenced probably would have faulted Jesus for using himself as an authority that God is the God of the living, that there is no marriage in the World to Come, that there are angels, and that the children of the World to Come are like angels. That seems to be the central conflict about Jesus then and now: Does one believe him and thereby accept his authority or disbelieve him and thereby reject his authority? He forces everyone to choose a side, which is his purpose in—or the result of—his recorded encounters.
Have I gone awry?
Regards,
Heather
Endnotes
i I’m not pretending to know Hebrew, but I do know Olam Hazah and Olam Haba are rabbinical terms that are in frequent use now and were also then. Unfortunately, I don’t have the 1 A.D. subtext of Olam Haba, but it has a well-defined and well-disputed meaning to all of them. I capitalize both terms throughout to keep that in the forefront of my own mind.
ii Could the exact end of the passage about the bush have changed since then? Yes, but it’s doubtful that it would have changed by much.
iii Nowhere in the passage about the bush does Moses actually call God anything that is recorded unless he’s referring to Ex 4:28 and assuming that Moses told Aaron exactly what he was supposed to say according to Ex 3:15 to the children of Israel. If Jesus meant Ex 3:6, then he’s saying Moses called God a name there—almost as if Moses made it up rather than wrote what he heard. Weird! That’s why I’d rather take it as a reference to the whole passage. Ex 3:6 doesn’t cut it for me. Moses isn’t speaking there. Yes, “Moses” can mean Torah, and that makes sense, but there again, I think the single verse doesn’t encompass all Moses-as-Torah writes in that passage and its references to A/I/J, which are many.
LikeLike
January 15, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Hi Heather,
Most religions believe in a life after death, but only Judaism and Christianity believe in a resurrection. If life after death logically implied a resurrection, why do so few hold to it? I don’t see how it implies it at all.
The fact that God remembers his covenant with A/I/J to give them and their descendents the land of Canaan does not indicate that their spirits were still alive when God appeared to Moses, yet alone that they will be raised from the dead. Your idea that they have to be raised from the dead in order for God’s promise to be fulfilled was neither the point of the original passage, nor Jesus’ quotation of it. While hypothetically speaking your idea may be true, that idea is not to be found in these passages, and thus it cannot help to resolve the question I posed, namely, how is Jesus’ argument based on Exodus 6 (as opposed to your argument) an argument for the resurrection of the dead?
As for your third endnote, it is common for the NT to say “Moses says” or “David says” when in the context it was YHWH speaking, and vice-versa. I think the reason for this is that in the first instance they are referring to the human who authored the book in which those words were recorded, and in the second instance they are referring to the ultimate Author of the words spoken by the human authors.
Jason
LikeLike