That day there came to him the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection; and asked him,

“The disciples of the Pharisees with the Herodians being thus confuted, the Sadducees next offer themselves, whereas the overthrow of those before them ought to have kept them back. But presumption is shameless, stubborn, and ready to attempt things impossible. So the Evangelist, wondering at their folly, expresses this, saying, The same day came to him the Sadducees.”

“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. (Acts 23:8.)”

“(Enchir. 88.) But that earthy matter of which the flesh of men is made perishes not before God; but into whatsoever dust or ashes reduced, into whatsoever gases or vapours dispersed, into whatsoever other bodies incorporated, though resolved into the elements, though become the food or part of the flesh of animals or men, yet is it in a moment of time restored to that human soul, which at the first quickened it that it became man, lived and grew.”

“(Mor. xiv. 55.) But there are who observing that the spirit is loosed from the body, that the flesh is turned to corruption, that the corruption is reduced to dust, and that the dust again is resolved into the elements, so as to be unseen by human eyes, despair of the possibility of a resurrection, and while they look upon the dry bones, doubt that they can be clothed with flesh, and be quickened anew to life.”

“In that day. Here the second interrogation is set down, and he does three things. First the interrogation is set down; second, the response; third, the effect. The second is at "But Jesus answering," etc.; the third at "And the crowds hearing him were astonished." Concerning the first, first is set down the disposition and condition of the questioners; second, the interrogation. He says therefore, "in that day." And why "in that day"? Not without reason, because when they saw those others confounded, these approached him not without presumption. But, according to Chrysostom, they had agreed among themselves that they would catch him in speech, and each wanted the honor of the victory: therefore, when those others had been confounded, these wished to come forward; Job 19:12: "his robbers came, and made themselves a way through me." For there were two sects: the Pharisees, that is, the divided, and the Sadducees, that is, the just. And these erred in their teachings, because they did not accept the prophets, nor did they believe in the resurrection. Likewise they believed that when the body died the whole man perished: and this is what is meant by "who say there is no resurrection." There follows the interrogation. And first he sets down the law; second, the case; third, the question. They say therefore, and they questioned him, saying: "Master, Moses said: If a man dies having no son," and so on, Deuteronomy 25:5f. What was the cause of this law? The people were carnal. Hence they sought nothing but temporal things. That law therefore made this promise. For it is manifest that man cannot endure in himself, and so it is a consolation to him that he should remain in his like, namely in a son; and nature desires this, that what cannot be preserved in itself should be preserved in its like. Hence it happened that someone might die without a son, and so Moses provided for this case by this law, that his brother should have his wife. Nor was some stranger appointed, who would have no concern for him; likewise he would not have as much care for the house and family as a brother would: and this is what is meant by "and should raise up seed to his brother," that is, should beget a son who might have that man's inheritance. The law having been set down, they set down the case: "There were with us seven brethren; and the first, having married a wife, died, and having no seed, left his wife to his brother," and so on. It could be that such a case actually happened, or that they themselves fabricated it. Yet according to Augustine, by the seven brothers wicked men are signified, who die in the seven ages without fruit. The Apostle, Romans 6:21: "What fruit have you (or did you have) in those things of which you are now ashamed?" That woman is worldly conversation; Psalm 101:27: "They shall perish, but you shall remain, and all of them shall grow old like a garment." Hence they ask: all died, and all had her: "whose wife shall she be at the resurrection?" since she could not belong to all? This opinion is not good, and it is contrary to the Pharisees, because they believed that the resurrection would be with respect to this life, so that each would have back his own wife and his own possessions, and so on. Hence they say, "whose wife shall she be?" Because she cannot be the wife of all. This opinion is refuted in Job 7:10: "he shall not return to his house any more." Hence he will not rise again to the same manner of living. There follows the response. And first he shows the error and its cause; second he intimates the truth. Hence he says, "Jesus answering said: You err," that is, you hold an erroneous opinion; Wisdom 2:21: "these things they thought, and were deceived: for their own malice blinded them." And what is the cause of the error? "Not knowing the Scriptures." Hence they did not meditate on the commandments of God; Psalm 118:100: "I have had understanding above ancients: because I have sought your commandments." Hence whoever meditates on the commandments of God can avoid errors; hence John 5:39: "Search the Scriptures." But these men did not search them, and therefore they erred, as some do who understand badly. Likewise, some, not knowing the power of God, wish to measure the power of God according to lower things; to the Romans 1:20: "the invisible things of God, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." "In the resurrection they shall neither marry, nor be given in marriage." He makes clear his proposition. And because he had said two things, namely that they did not know the Scriptures, nor the power of God, he first declares that they were ignorant of the power of God; second, that they were ignorant of the Scriptures. And since he mentioned the Scriptures first, why is this declared second? Chrysostom answers, because when someone disputes with one who errs out of malice, he ought first to allege authority; but when disputing with one who errs out of ignorance, he ought first to set forth reason, and afterward authority. Thus the Lord does. First he sets forth reason; hence he says, "in the resurrection they shall neither marry, nor be given in marriage." The first, according to the letter, is true. "Neither shall they marry," etc., because then it will not be necessary as it is now. Jerome: "marry" is taken one way according to the Latin, another way according to the Greek, because properly, according to the Latin, "to marry" belongs to women: hence it is said to be a neuter passive; but according to the Greek, men "marry," that is, take wives, women "are married," they do not "marry." Therefore he says, "they shall not marry" — men; nor "be given in marriage" — women. For since marriage exists for the procreation of offspring, so that man, who cannot be preserved in himself, may be preserved in his like, therefore, since the resurrection will be unto immortality, then marriages will not be necessary. Therefore these men erred, and were ignorant of the power of God. "But they are as the angels in heaven." That state is the state of reward, and the end of this life. Job 14:14: "Do you think that man that is dead will live again? All the days in which I am now in warfare, I expect until my change come"; and that change was the reward. That life will be one of intellects made resplendent. But why will they be like the angels? Because they will be free from passions; because now man has his intellect bound to the senses, and in this the angels exceed him, but then it will be purified, and therefore they will be like the angels: 2 Kings 14:17: "for as an angel of the Lord, so is also my lord the king, that he is not moved with blessing nor with cursing." Hence those who have their soul lifted up above the passions are like the angels. But the passions which make men most beastlike are the passions of venery, which are exercised through marriage; therefore then they shall neither marry nor be given in marriage. Likewise some have said that not all shall rise again, but only men. But Augustine destroys this, saying that sex will rise again; for sex is not preserved in man alone. He takes away this opinion when he says, "neither shall they marry, nor be given in marriage." From this it is given to be understood that both sexes shall rise, but neither shall marry nor be given in marriage. "But concerning the resurrection of the dead," and so on. After he has shown that they were ignorant of the power of God, here he shows that they were ignorant of the Scriptures. Hence: "Have you not read that which was spoken by the Lord, saying to you: I am the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob?" This is written in Exodus 3:6. But Jerome asks: since there are other authorities more expressly concerning the resurrection, as is found in Isaiah 6 and Ezekiel 33 and Daniel 12, why did he set down this one, which is ambiguous? He answers that they did not accept the prophets, but only the five books of Moses. And how does this serve the purpose? He says, "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." God is said to be the God of certain persons in the sense that they worship him. These men therefore worship him. But to worship God does not belong to the dead, but to the living. Therefore Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob live; but not according to the body: therefore according to the soul. But of what avail is this to the resurrection? It is of avail, because these men said that the soul does not exist; but he shows that the soul remains: and if the soul remains, then the resurrection follows too, because the soul is naturally inclined toward the body. But what does it mean when he says that he is not the God of the dead? This is true with respect to the body. Yet he is also the God of the dead, because they live according to the spirit; Romans 14:8: "whether we live, or whether we die, we are the Lord's." Likewise this is against the heretics who condemn the fathers of the Old Testament, because here he says that they live according to the soul. Likewise he speaks in the singular, because among the other nations each people had its own god. "Hear, O Israel: the Lord your God is one," Deuteronomy 6:4. There follows the effect, because they marveled: "and the crowds hearing it were astonished at his teaching." Psalm 118:129: "your testimonies, O Lord, are wonderful," and so on.”

“Now there were with us seven brethren,.... That is, there was in the city, town or neighbourhood, where these Sadducees dwelt, probably at Jerusalem, a family, in which were seven sons, all brethren by the father's side; for brethren by the mother's side were not counted brethren, nor obliged by this law (a); whether this was a reigned case which is here and in the following verses put, or whether it was real fact, which is possible, it matters not: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: the eldest of these seven brethren married a wife, and after some time died, having no children, son or daughter, by his wife; and therefore, according to the above law, leaves her to his next brother to marry her, and raise up seed unto him; which, according to the Jewish canons (b), could not be done before ninety days, or three months after the decease of his brother; for so long they were to wait and see, whether she was with child by his brother or not; for if she was, it was not necessary, yea, it was unlawful for him to marry her. (a) Maimon. Hilch. Yebum, c. 1. sect. 7. (b) T. Bab. Erubin, fol. 47. 1. Maimon. ib. c. 1. sect. 19.”