Exegetical Paper on Luke 20, vv. 27-40

II. Resurrection is Necessary

The depiction of the resurrection age is marvelous, but the Sadducees are not likely to be silenced unless they are shown to be wrong from Scripture. The Sadducees are also strict in their interpretation, and they only hold the Pentateuch as authoritative. the verse he quoted. Following A. D. Macdonald's survey, there are two paradigms of explanation: (1) "Present relationship," which takes the following form:

Since God does not have a relationship with the dead but only with the living, and God is the God of the patriarchs, therefore the patriarchs are living.

(2) "Covenant/context," which can be exemplified the following argument (by F. Dreyfus):

God is the covenantal protector of the patriarchs; divine protection is incompatible with absolute and final death. Therefore, the death of the patriarchs is not absolute and final. 20

The attractiveness of (1) is that it takes a valid form of logic, but its weakness is that it needs to prove from the Pentateuch the statement "God is not the God of dead but of the living" (Mark The δέ is not contrastive, but serial or progressive (see Gregory K. Beale, Daniel Joseph Brendsel, and William A. Ross, An Interpretive Lexicon of New Testament Greek, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), "δέ," option 1, S or P). In the previous passage, Jesus was put to test concerning taxation to Caesar. At the end of verse 26, the challengers were silent. And now the Sadducees come into the scene and break the silence, so to speak, and we expect a more challenging question. 23 The verb is λέγοντες. The NA28 printed [αντι]λέγοντες because the editorial committee had "a great degree of difficulty" in determining which of the two readings should be printed (NA28,54*). I choose λέγοντες instead of αντιλέγοντες. All other text critical decisions that I made in this passage are the same as NA28. See "More text-critical details" section for further discussions. The participle is substantival, being appositional to τινες τῶν Σαδδουκαίων. The concern here is not the Sadducees as a political party, but as a religious sect that holds a particular view concerning the resurrection.

brother dies while he has a wife, and should this [brother] 27 be childless, then [as a result] 28 [the man] shall take 29 this woman 30 [as wife] and raise up offspring for his brother.

29 Then, there were 31 seven brothers, and the first took a wife and died childless. 30, 31 Then the second, and then the third, took 32 her [as wife], [and so on,] 33 but likewise [all] 34 the seven [brothers] left no children and died. 32 Afterwards, the woman also died. 27 The masc. sing. demonstrative οὗτος refers to the same person as τινος ἀδελφὸς, thus "this brother."

28 Imperative ἴνα + subjunctive structure. Normally a ἴνα clause is a subordinate clause, but then the protasis led by ἐάν would not have an apodosis, but ἴνα + subjunctive also has a (rarer) use as an imperative (BDF, §387.3). In our context, this sense is well perceived according to the legal requirement of Deut. 25:5. In addition, the word ἴνα still carries its resultative sense. If we pretend that the ἴνα clause is subordinative, then according to Burton (section 219, paragraph 1), the action of the main clause is regarded as the necessary condition of the ἴνα clause, and the action of the ἴνα clause is expected to follow from that of the main clause.

29 "λαμβάνω," BDAG, sense 3. "To take into one's possession," so it means take … as one's own (wife).

30 Literally "the woman." The article is anaphoric, pointing to the previous γυναῖκα, which was translated as "wife," thus it is clearer to refer her as "this woman." Both the ESV and the NET translate it as "the widow," which is correct in the sense that the woman's husband died, but it has an unnecessary connotation that the woman experienced widowhood before getting remarried to her ex-husband's brother. In the case presented by the Sadducees, the woman only became a widow after all the seven brothers died. Luke did not use the word χήρα as he did in other places of Luke (2:37; 4:25; 7:12; 18:3, 5; 20:47). In Deut. 25:5-10, both the LXX and the Hebrew do not use χήρα or ‫ַא‬ ‫ְל‬ ‫מ‬ ָ ‫נ‬ ָ ‫ה‬ to refer to the deceased brother's wife. In Gen. 38:6-11, after Tamar's husband Er died, Onan was to perform the duty of a brother-in-law, and Tamar was called a widow only after Onan died.

33 Then, in the [age of] resurrection, 35 whose wife does this woman become? 36 For 37 the seven had the same wife." 38 34 And Jesus said to them, "The sons 39 of this age marry and are given in marriage, 35 but those who are considered worthy 40 to attain to that age and to the resurrection out of dead [people] 41 neither marry nor are given in marriage. 36 For 42 they cannot even die anymore: 43 they are angel-like, and they are sons 44 of God since they are 45 sons of the resurrection [age]. 46 37 Now that 47 the dead are to be raised 48 -even Moses revealed this in the thornbush passage 49 , as he called 50 the Lord 'the God of Abraham and the 51 God of Isaac and the God 43 The γαρ here is not causal, but explanatory (Wallace 658;BBR,option 2,. The following clause is connected by a coordinating καὶ with the next clause, and these two clauses clarify how "cannot die" looks like.

44 Both uses of υἱός are anarthrous nouns, which might be indefinite, qualitative, or definite (Wallace,243). Here they are both qualitative, as they predicate about the nature of the people of that age. The first use of υἱός describes those who have a close relationship (i.e. sonship) to God and are given His character (i.e. they are Godlike). See BDAG, sense 2cα. The NT usage of υἱοὶ θεοῦ and τέκνα θεοῦ do not have obvious distinction in meaning, is based on the OT uses of "sons of God." The OT meaning that best fits our passage is "c. Those who are related to Yahweh by covenant," especially the plural that is seen in Deut. 14:1. See D. W. B. Robinson and A. R. Millard, "Sons (Children) of God," New Bible Dictionary, 3 rd ed., edited by I. Howard Marshall, A. R. Millard, J. I. Packer, and Donald J. Wiseman (Westmont, IL: IVP, 1996), 1123. The second use of υἱός in this verse is the same as that in verse 34 (BDAG, sense 2cβ).

45 It is not easy to determine the use of the participle ὄντες. Theoretically, it could be independent, adjectival, or adverbial. First, it is unlikely to be independent because (1) both previous uses of εἴμι are indicative and independent, so there is no reason to use the participle to express another independent predication; (2) the idea that they are sons of the resurrection was already expressed in verse 35, so there is no need to repeat it as an independent idea. Second, it could be adjectival in the third attributive position (Wallace, 618. Thus, "they are God's sons, who are sons of the resurrection"), but it is still redundant. Third, it could be adverbial, and we need to determine its nuance. Here, "being sons of God" entails being like God (see the note on "sons" of this verse), and only the sons of God can attain the resurrection age. So, it is most likely that ὄντες is causal. It does not mean that being sons of resurrection is the cause that leads them to be sons of God and be like God, but a reason for the logical inference: "since they are sons of resurrection, they must be sons of God!" The NET makes the same decision here.

47 Here Jesus shifts the topic from marriage to the real topic: the resurrection of the dead. So ὅτι is epexegetical, translated as "that" (BBR, option 1 Ft-In. Option 2 is causal, and option 3 is result or purpose, which do not fit the context here). The particle δε also functions as Ft-In (BBR, option 4), translated as "now, that is." The ὅτι also introduces a fact "that the dead are raised," and this clause functions as the object of ἐμήνυσεν. I use a dash to keep this clause fronted and supply "this" to be the object of ἐμήνυσεν. See "μηνύω," BDAG, "w. an affirmative clause preceding."

48 Futuristic Present (Completely futuristic), with a sense of certainty. See Wallace 535-36. Even though the resurrection of the dead is a future event, Jesus is speaking of it with a sense of certainty, as if it were present. That explains perhaps why, in God's perspective, all the sons of God are living (verse 38).

49 Literally "near the bush," referring to Exodus 3. See "ἐπί," BDAG, sense 2a.

50 See "λέγω," BDAG, sense 4, with double accusative. "The God of Abraham, …, Jacob" is what the LORD calls himself in Exodus 3:6, 15, and 16, but here the subject of λέγει is Moses. It means that the LORD is identified as such in the passage that Moses wrote. It is a historical present (Wallace, 39 And some of the scribes replied 53 and said, "Teacher, you said [it] well." 40 So 54 no one would dare to ask him questions anymore.

b. More text-critical details

Verse 27: The readings λεγοντες and αντιλεγοντες are left for the reader to decide. The external evidence for λεγοντες is diverse and strong (with ℵ B D). The reading αντιλεγοντες has no Alexandrian support. Some scholars still prefer αντιλεγοντες because (1) the double negative ἀντιλέγοντες ... μή is a more difficult reading, and (2) λεγοντες might be an assimilation to Mt. 22:23 (Bruce M. Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 171.). However, the structure mentioned in (1) is not necessarily considered as difficult, for the verb ἀντιλέγω followed by μή (with infinitive) has the sense 'deny' (some fact) or 'speak out against a thing', and this construction existed as early as 5th century BC (see "ἀντιλέγω," BDAG, sense 1). In addition, ἀντιλέγοντες is used elsewhere in Luke (2:34; 21:15), and in this context it is plausible to have a harmonization with 21:15. Therefore, neither of the readings has an obvious advantage concerning internal evidence. That is why I prefer λεγοντες.

Verse 28, 1 st siglum: see the note of verse 34.

Verse 30: The longer reading has strong external support, including Secondary Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine, and Caesarian witnesses. But I agree with the NET Notes that this longer reading may be a clarifying addition which is being assimilated to Mk. 12:21. If it is true, then we also observe that the assimilation does not preserve the exact wording: μη καταλιπων σπερμα seems to be rephrased as ατεκνος, which is unique of Luke (20:28, 29) in the parallel passages. Conversely, Mark 12:21 does not have a variant that suggests assimilation to Matthew or to Luke. Therefore, internal evidence suggests strongly that the longer reading is an insertion. The shorter reading has strong Alexandrian and Western support (ℵ B L 892 1241 co; D e).

Verse 31: see the note of verse 34

52 The dative αὐτῷ is probably Reference/Respect to God (Wallace,p. 144), as πάντες already includes all the living and the dead (from the perspective of the sons of this age), but in English I supply "of them" because it is not to misunderstood as an absolute/universal "all." The whole verse 38 might allude to 4 Mcc. 7:19;16:25 (LXX,see NA28). But they are not included into the single quotation marks ('') because they don't seem to belong to the thornbush passage, and the NA28 also did not italicize them.

53 Attendant circumstance participle. 54 The γαρ is probably not explanatory, but conclusive (BBR, option 3).

Verse 32: Once the longer variant in verse 30 is rejected based on its later assimilation, we may observe a particular subset of external witnesses for verse 30, verse 32, the 1st siglum of verse 34, and the 2nd and the 4th sigla of verse 37. All of them have (at least) two readings: a shorter one that is supported by ℵ B L D, and a longer one that is supported by later witnesses (e.g. A W Ψ Θ f13 33 and the majority of minuscules). In each case, the longer reading is likely an assimilation to its Matthew or Mark parallel. I decide to choose the shorter reading in all these cases, just as NA28 does.

Verse 33, 1st siglum: The textual issue here is more complicated than the situation in verse 32. The shorter reading εν τη ουν is supported by diverse witnesses, including ℵ* A D and most of the Byzantine text, whereas the longer reading η γυνη ουν εν τη is supported by B, some later Alexandrian witnesses (L 579 892 1241), and syhmg. Internal evidence usually favors the shorter reading, but not in this case because (1) the redundancy of η γυνη makes the longer reading more difficult;

(2) the shorter reading might be an assimilation to Matthew and Mark. So, the longer reading has much stronger internal evidence, and it has the support by B. Therefore, I decide to choose the longer reading, as NA28 does.

Verse 34, 1 st siglum: see the note in verse 32.

Verse 34, 2 nd siglum: At this one as well as the 1 st siglum in verse 28, verse 31, the 2 nd , 3 rd and 4 th sigla in verse 36, and the 1 st siglum in verse 37, there are peculiar readings from D (and some Old Latin versions) that are distinctive from most other manuscripts. External evidence suggests that these readings are not original, but they are still worth mentioning. The omission (v. 31), insertion (v. 34), and substitution (vv. 36, 37) are not assimilations to Matthew or Mark. Most of these changes can be seen as paraphrasing, an important characteristic of the Western witnesses, which are most prominently represented by D and Old Latin versions, and "most of the striking elements of the Western text occur in Luke and Acts" . However, in verse 34, the insertion γεννωνται και γεννωσιν (are begotten and beget) cannot be taken simply as paraphrasing. Furthermore, some Latin versions (c e ff i l q) have these two words but dropped the Latin-equivalent words of "γαμοῦσιν καὶ γαμίσκονται," and this becomes a difficult reading because the context focuses on marriage, not procreation. Marshall proposes a possibility that the original reading has the words γεννωνται and γεννωσιν, then most manuscripts have γεννωνται and γεννωσιν because of assimilation to Matthew and Mark, and later conflations lead to manuscripts that have all four words. This proposal is reasonable because it considers the shorter, more difficult reading as the original, and the similarity of the words seem to favor the explanation of the rise of other readings. The problem, however, is that all Greek witnesses have the words γαμοῦσιν and γαμίσκονται. To conclude, in all these verses (31,34,36,37) when D and Old Latin witnesses have peculiar readings, I do not consider them original.

Verse 36, 2 nd and 3 rd and 4 th sigla: see notes in verse 34.

Verse 37, 1 st siglum: see notes in verse 34.

Verse 37, 2 nd and 4 th sigla, see the note in verse 32. Note also that the LXX and the MT do not have those articles (Ex. 3:6, 15), but Acts 3:13 has them.

C. Form critical analysis

From the Hafemann's categories, Luke 20:27-40 can be roughly seen as 2Paradigms/Apopthegms, under the subcategory (a) Controversy Sayings/Narratives. However, it does not follow the fourfold outline:

-A question by the opponent (verses 27-33)

-A counter-question by Jesus (does not apply in this passage)

-An answer by the opponent (does not apply in this passage)

-A rejection of the reply and/or original question by Jesus (verses 34-38)

The passage itself is not particularly polemical compared to Matt. 22:29 and Mark 12:24, but it reveals that Jesus' authority is superior (cf. Luke 20:39-40).