Exegetical Paper on Luke 20, vv. 27-40

Kai Chung Tam (Levi) On Luke 20:27-40 12/3/2021 NT 211 (Dr. Crowe) Plagiarism Pledge: I understand and have not violated the Seminary’s position on plagiarism. Commentary Pledge: I understand and have not violated the instruction that I consult no more than two commentaries, and they were consulted after I did my own translation and grammatical analysis of the passage. Word count: 2998 words NT 211 Dr. Crowe Luke 20:27-40 Kai Chung Tam (Levi) In this paper, I will argue that the main point of Luke 20:27-40 is that the true people of God are guaranteed to be resurrected from death into eternal life. To establish this, I will follow Jesus’ two-part argument: he corrects the Sadducees’ misunderstanding of the resurrection and presents the right understanding (verses 34-36), and he shows from Scripture that resurrection from the dead is necessary (verses 37-38). I. Understanding the Resurrection By asking Jesus a trick question (verses 28-33), the Sadducees attempt to undermine Jesus’ authority at a fundamental level. The Sadducees were a Jewish sect that had significant power in politics and religious leadership in Jesus’ time, as the elders and high priests at that time were also associated with this group.1 Luke identifies the Sadducees as the people who say that there is no resurrection (verse 27). In our passage, the word ‘resurrection’ (ἀνάστασιν) has two uses: when it is anarthrous,2 it denotes the phenomenon of resurrection from the dead, and when it has an article, it denotes the future age in which the people of God are resurrected from the dead.3 Jesus has performed the miracle of resurrection and it was widely known (Luke 7:14,17), and he publicly teaches the reward or judgment after death (e.g. 6:23; 14:14), which is a presupposition for repentance and salvation (cf. 3:6-14). So, resurrection is a crucial element in Jesus’ ministry. The context of our passage is that the Temple leaders were seeking to destroy Jesus, but the authority of Jesus’ teaching has attracted crowds surrounding him in the Temple. Therefore, if the Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), Accordance 13, 519. Also cf. Acts 5:17. 1 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), Accordance 13, 244. This applies to verse 27. 2 3 “ἀνάστασιν,” BDAG, Accordance 13, sense 2b. This applies to verses 32-36. Also see Luke 14:14. 2 NT 211 Dr. Crowe Luke 20:27-40 Kai Chung Tam (Levi) Sadducees may disprove the teaching of resurrection, they would be able to catch a fatal error of Jesus and thus destroy his authority. So, the Sadducees cite a Mosaic law that says, if a man’s brother has a wife but he dies childless, then this man has the duty to marry her and raise up offspring for his brother.4 Then they describe a case of seven brothers and one woman: the first brother had a wife, but he died childless. Then, according to the law, the other brothers married the woman in turn, but they also died childless. Finally, the woman died. The Sadducees ask, in the resurrection age, whose wife is this woman? This is a trick because, on the one hand, the Sadducees expect this to be a paradox in the resurrectionist perspective. We are not told in the text what paradox they expect. I agree with I. Howard Marshall that the implied problem is the immorality of polyandry, if the woman should be married to all seven the same time.5 There could be other implied problems,6 but in any case, the paradox lies in the possible marital relationships for the seven brothers and one woman. On the other hand, the case poses no difficulty for the Sadducees themselves, because to them the resurrection age does not exist. So, they thought they got the upper hand when asking the question. It seems that Jesus did not answer the question directly. In the first part of Jesus’ response (verses 34-36), the structural main point is at verse 35: “those who are considered worthy to attain that age and the resurrection out of dead people neither marry nor are given in marriage” This is known as a levirate marriage. See Deut. 25:5. More precisely, the law only applies when the brothers “dwell together,” i.e., they live in the same family property; but this nuance does not affect the Sadducees’ argument. 4 I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, The New International Greek Testament Commentary 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), 737. 5 For example, John J. Kilgallen argues that the Sadducees’ question focuses on which of the seven men will be responsible to raise up offspring for the family (John J. Kilgallen, “The Sadducees and Resurrection from the Dead: Luke 20,27-40,” Biblica, 67, no. 4 (1986): 485. But Kilgallen’s argument is unconvincing, since the simplest answer is “the most original husband.”) 6 3 NT 211 Dr. Crowe Luke 20:27-40 Kai Chung Tam (Levi) (my translation). Simply put, Jesus denies the Sadducees’ presupposition that marriage in this age will still be applicable in the resurrection age. This main point is present in the synoptic parallels (Matt. 22:30; Mark 12:25), but Luke’s account is more elaborative. The concern here is not just to deny the Sadducees’ presupposition about the resurrection, but also to present the right understanding of it. Three points help us understand the reality of the resurrection that the Sadducees miss. First, the result of resurrection does not merely bring one back to the state of being before death. Rather, it is a new and better reality of life without the threat of death. All the synoptics mention that those who are in the resurrection age are like angels. It does not mean that they are the same as angels in every way. Mark and Matthew use “ὡς ἄγγελοι,” a comparison that picks up the activities mentioned in the previous clause. That is, those who attain resurrection are like angels, as they do not marry and to be given in marriage. Luke uses a stronger expression, the adjective ἰσάγγελος, a combination of ἴσος and ἄγγελος (“equal” + “angel,” thus “angelequivalent” or “angel-like”).7 What is the force of comparing the resurrected people and the angels? We know from other parts of the Scriptures that Jesus would not mean resurrection into spiritual beings without a body,8 but the text emphasizes that they cannot die anymore (20:36a). This is the main reason that the resurrected would not marry or be given in marriage. In this new reality of life, the kind of marriage that is described in the Sadducees’ question is no longer necessary, for the main purpose of levirate marriage is described in Deuteronomy 25:6, that the name of the deceased brother may not be blotted out of Israel. We should not stretch too far to say that the passage implies that, in this age, the only purpose of marriage is procreation, and that 7 “ἰσάγγελος,” BDAG. 8 See Luke 24:39; 1 Cor. 15:44. 4 NT 211 Dr. Crowe Luke 20:27-40 Kai Chung Tam (Levi) the only purpose of procreation is to perpetuate one’s name against the reality of death. Nonetheless, it is safe to conclude from verses 34-36 that, in “that age,” people’s activities involve no death, no marriage, and no procreation. That age is better than Eden, for the pre-fall Adam was possible to die, but the resurrected even “cannot die anymore” (ἀποθανεῖν ἔτι δύνανται); moreover, mankind was created as lower than angels,9 but the glory of those who attain that age is comparable to them. This is opposite to the Sadducees, who conceive that the resurrection age, if exists, must be a continuation of this-age conditions.10 Second, only those whom God considers worthy can attain to that age. It is noteworthy that Jesus’ reply bears a long subject, “those who are considered worthy to attain that age and the resurrection out of dead people” (from verse 35, my translation). The Sadducees asked about the seven brothers and the wife, but Jesus immediately changed the subject. This is special in Luke’s account because, in the parallel passage, Matthew uses an implied subject (“they …”) and Mark presents a condition, “when they rise from the dead.” In Luke, the participle καταξιωθέντες (“being considered worthy”) is divine passive,11 reminding the reader that not everyone is worthy to attain to that age. This reminder is not necessary in refuting the Sadducees, as we see in the parallels, but is an important emphasis in Luke. It echoes one of the main themes in Luke: not all nominal people of God can inherit his Kingdom. Some of them who claim Abraham as their father are really “brood of vipers.”12 Even though this passage does not discuss what happen to 9 Psalm 8:5. 10 Marshall, Luke, 742. 11 “καταξιόω,” BDAG. 12 Luke 3:7 5 NT 211 Dr. Crowe Luke 20:27-40 Kai Chung Tam (Levi) those who are unworthy to attain to that age, it highlights that the resurrection age will not have a place for them. 13 Third, those who attain to that age are truly sons of God (υἱοί θεοῦ): they share in the likeness of God, and they have eternal communion with God. The rich meaning of the phrase can be seen from some textual clues: (1) Syntactically, the clauses “they are angel-like” and “they are sons of God” are structurally similar: καὶ Pred. Verb ἰσάγγελοι γάρ εἰσιν υἱοί εἰσιν θεοῦ Both predicates receive some emphasis, inviting us to compare “angel-like” and “sons of God.” “Sons of (some person)” is an idiom that can mean people who have close a relationship to that person, or people who are like that person, or both.14 (2) Luke’s use of a similar phrase in 6:3536 supports the meaning of likeness. In that passage, Jesus teaches his followers to love their enemies, then their “reward will be great,” and they “will be sons of the Most High,” and Jesus exhorts them, “be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.” That the sons of God have the likeness of God is clear here, and the future tense of the verbs and the mention of their great reward signal that this sonship of God will be ultimately fulfilled in the resurrection age. This concept is coherent with the current passage in Luke 20. (3) According to New Bible Dictionary, the NT’s use of the phrase υἱοί θεοῦ is based on the OT’s uses. When hen the OT uses the phrase to refer to human beings (Deut. 14:1), it means “those who are related to Yahweh by covenant.”15 John 5:29 mentions the resurrection to judgment (εἰς ἀνάστασιν κρίσεως), but the meaning of resurrection there is broader compared to our passage. 13 14 See “υἱός,” BDAG, sense 2cα. D. W. B. Robinson and A. R. Millard, “Sons (Children) of God,” New Bible Dictionary. 3rd ed., (Westmont, IL: IVP, 1996), 1122. 15 6 NT 211 Dr. Crowe Luke 20:27-40 Kai Chung Tam (Levi) It is beneficial to attend to the context of this verse. In Deuteronomy 14:1-2 (ESV), it says “You are the sons of the LORD your God. You shall not cut yourselves or make any baldness on your foreheads for the dead. For you are a people holy to the LORD your God, and the LORD has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.” After that, there are statutes about clean and unclean food (14:3-21). The relationship between holiness and distinguishing the clean from the unclean also remind us of Leviticus 19-21, especially 20:26, “You shall be holy to me, for I the LORD am holy and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine.” From (1) to (3), it is evident that the true sons of God must be like God, who has made a covenant with them, and Luke also had this in mind when he mentions “sons of God.” (4) Now, we can return to the juxtaposition of “angel-like” and “sons of God.” These two predicates are not equally weighted. From the study of poetic parallels, we see that the parallel structure can be progressive, communicating the idea that “if being angel-like is good, then being sons of God is even better.” Though it is not syntactically decisive, the semantics supports this idea. (5) Moreover, the participle clause at the end of verse 36 can be seen as logical grounds,16 conveying the idea that since they are worthy to enter the resurrection age, they are recognized as true sons of God. God’s covenant people can be called sons of God, just as Deut. 14:1, but the resurrection is the eschatological fulfillment of that title: it vindicates those who are worthy of it and causes them to be angel-like, not able to die, to live eternally with God. That is, Causal participle. It could also be alternatively understood as Result: being true sons of God results in resurrection. But this is unlikely, because “sons of God” will then be understood as faithful people who are not yet like angels, and καὶ also needs to be understood disjunctively, which does not do justice to the syntactical structure. Nonetheless, even in the alternative interpretation, the resurrected age still surpasses Eden. 16 7 NT 211 Dr. Crowe Luke 20:27-40 Kai Chung Tam (Levi) Altogether, Jesus elaborates on the state of the resurrected, telling the Sadducees that resurrection is not a return to mortal life, but the entrance into eternal life. But immortality is not sufficient to describe the surpassing reality of eternal life. As Marshall puts it, “the immortality rests on a higher basis.”17 Kilgallen adds that, in the resurrection life, “one is recognized as a child of God; … a child of a Father who lives forever will live forever.” That is, if a son is to be like God, it entails that he must live in that likeness of God, because God lives. This reasoning, though not easy to show textually, is sound and is revealed in God’s covenantal promise, as we will see in the second part of Jesus’ response. 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.18 Perhaps that is why Jesus did not bring up other parts of the OT to prove his point, even though there are clear instances that show God’s power of resurrection (Ezek. 37:7-10), the hope and the promise for resurrection of the righteous (Ps. 49:15; 71:20; Hab. 2:4), and the eschatological resurrection age (Isaiah 26:19; Daniel 12:2). Jesus meets the Sadducees on their own ground and cites Exodus 3:6 (or 3:15, 16), which is not obviously related to the resurrection of the dead.19 In the synoptic parallels, Jesus said that the Sadducees are wrong because they do not understand Scripture nor the power of God. Scholars have tried to understand Jesus’ logic to show that resurrection is necessary from 17 Marshall, Luke, 742. 18 Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 520. 19 Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 520. 8 NT 211 Dr. Crowe Luke 20:27-40 Kai Chung Tam (Levi) 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 12:27; Matt. 22:32; Luke 20:38), or otherwise it begs the question. (2) is a good approach to fill the gap. I agree with Macdonald that Jesus is “defending resurrection on the grounds of covenant faithfulness,”21 and he shows that this idea is compatible with Hebrews 11:17-19, but he did not show it directly from the Pentateuch. To show why the Sadducees were silenced, notice that Jesus quotes God’s name – the name of the Lord shall not be used in vain (Ex. 20:7). The stake of quoting this name is that, either people recognize that he is quoting God’s name in vain, that is, blaspheming God, or he is doing it rightfully, like a prophet. When God identifies himself as “God of Abraham” (Gen. 26:24), for example, he is reminding his people his covenantal faithfulness, and he will fulfill what he promised Abraham. The Sadducees know that this promise is not completely fulfilled yet: (1) the promised land was 20 Macdonald, “Resurrection in Mark 12,” 440. 21 Macdonald, “Resurrection in Mark 12,” 453. 9 NT 211 Dr. Crowe Luke 20:27-40 Kai Chung Tam (Levi) not controlled by Israel. (2) The problem of sin is not solved. The levirate marriage case they mentioned was not only a sad case, but the fact that people died without offspring shows that Israel had failed to keep the Mosaic covenant because of sin (cf. Deut. 7:14). (3) The promised offspring, in whom all nations are blessed, is still not seen. Therefore, the Israelites are supposed to wait for God’s visitation and his remembrance of the Abrahamic covenant, just as Elizabeth (Luke 1:25), Mary (1:55), Simeon (2:32), and other true people of God. Simeon died a peaceful death in faith because he has seen the salvation, Jesus, that God had prepared (2:30). He understands that death in this age is not the last word. To conclude, Jesus’ argument is not purely propositional, but it involves God’s covenantal promise. By calling on God’s name, by a prophet-like authority (Deut. 18:18) he ensures that the resurrection from the dead is God’s covenantal promise. He is making a prophetic statement, “that the dead is to be raised,” as a continuation of God’s covenantal revelation. That is why the Sadducees are silenced: they could not deny God’s faithfulness and salvation, especially when God’s name was invoked. Resurrection is not a theoretical discussion, but it carries the weight of God himself. Contribution of the Passage What does this passage teach us about Christ and salvation? Jesus had foretold his suffering and resurrection, but the Temple leaders had not started their murdering plan. They wanted to catch Jesus “in the day,” that is, in lawful ways. This passage is the turning point. Jesus had proven his heavenly authority. He did not just destruct the proud, but he also builds up the humble (Luke 1:52): On the one hand, the seven brothers and one woman all died, but if they 10 NT 211 Dr. Crowe Luke 20:27-40 Kai Chung Tam (Levi) obeyed the law in faith, then they would be sons of God. On the other hand, the unrepentant enemies turned to the “authority of darkness” (22:53 Greek), becoming their own destruction. Appendix on the Greek text of Luke 20:27-40 A. Color Coding (attached at the end; 3 pages) B. Translation and text-critical discussions a. Translation and notes 27 Now22 some Sadducees, the people who say23 that there is no resurrection, came24 and asked him a question, 28 saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote [a law]25 to us: if26 some man’s 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. 22 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. 23 The aorist participle Προσελθόντες is dependent on the indicative verb ἐπηρώτησαν. It is the attendant circumstance participle because (1) it does not make sense as adverbial; (2) it fits Wallace’s “90% rule” – “all five of the following features occur in at least 90% of the instances of attendant circumstance” – The tense of the participle is usually aorist. The tense of the main verb is usually aorist. The mood of the main verb is usually imperative or indicative. The participle will precede the main verb — both in word order and time of event (though usually there is a very close proximity). Attendant circumstance participles occur frequently in narrative literature, infrequently elsewhere” (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond, 641-42). 24 The verb γράφω does not merely refer to the general action of writing, but it implies authority (See BDAG sense 2b). A possible (but clumsy) translation is “Moses put down in writing.” Here I supply “a law” as the object of the writing because the following material comes from the Mosaic Law (cf. Deut. 25:5). 25 The structure ἐάν + subjunctive is the protasis of a third conditional. The καὶ is conjunctive, adding another constraint into the protasis. Namely, the law applies only in the case when some man’s brother died, and this brother who died has a wife, and is childless. 26 11 NT 211 Dr. Crowe Luke 20:27-40 Kai Chung Tam (Levi) brother dies while he has a wife, and should this [brother]27 be childless, then [as a result]28 [the man] shall take29 this woman30 [as wife] and raise up offspring for his brother. 29 Then, there were31 seven brothers, and the first took a wife and died childless. 30, 31 Then the second, and then the third, took32 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.” 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. 28 29 “λαμβάνω,” BDAG, sense 3. “To take into one’s possession,” so it means take … as one’s own (wife). 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 ‫ ַאְלָמָנה‬to 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. 30 This indicative statement and the subsequent ones (verses 30-32) are presented as factual. At first it seems to be a hypothetical story, presented for argument’s sake. However, it does not seem to be merely a theoretical discussion, but the Sadducees were probably using facts to press Jesus for an explanation from the resurrectionist perspective. The οὖν (BBR, option 2) is usually used in historical narrative, so the case presented is something that happened after the law had been issued; otherwise, the law would not be applicable to this case. In the Matthew parallel, the Sadducees even mentioned that those seven brothers were “among us” (παρ’ ἡμῖν Matt. 22:25). Another possible interpretation is that it was a made-up story to ridicule the idea of resurrection. 31 The verb ἔλαβεν is singular, so the previous καὶ is not connecting two words, but two clauses that share the same main verb. 32 33 The phrase “and so on,” is added in the translation, and it is necessary because the text implies that the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th did the same. We know this from the parallel texts, but the Lukan text itself also communicates it effectively: when the adverb ὡσαύτως is used, the verb λαμβάνω is implied for all seven brothers. The second καὶ in this verse is adverbial and is usually translated as “even” or “also,” to add emphasis. In our context, the emphasis can be expressed by the word “all.” 34 12 NT 211 Dr. Crowe Luke 20:27-40 Kai Chung Tam (Levi) 33 Then, in the [age of] resurrection,35 whose wife does this woman become?36 For37 the seven had the same wife.”38 34 And Jesus said to them, “The sons39 of this age marry and are given in marriage, 35 but those who are considered worthy40 to attain to that age and to the resurrection out of dead [people]41 neither marry nor are given in marriage. 36 For42 they cannot even die The preposition ἐν is locative (BBR, option 1), and the noun ἀνάστασις refers to the future (age of) resurrection, linked with Judgment Day (BDAG, 2b; also verses 34 and 36). The context is clear that the Sadducees were not only referring to a general phenomenon of resurrection, but a reality where the seven brothers and the widow are. The preposition ἐν could also be temporal (BBR, option 5), as in Luke 14:14 and 18:30 where future tense verbs are used, but time is not the focus in the present passage. 35 The verb γίνεται is gnomic present, asking about a general fact in the resurrection age. This use also applies to the present indicative verbs in verses 34-36 and 37a. 36 This γαρ is causal (Wallace 662; BBR, option 1 G). The previous question (rightly) presupposes that the woman can be wife of no more than one man, but since all seven had her as wife, it becomes a paradox in the resurrection age, if it exists. So, this γαρ clause explains how the question implies a contradiction in the resurrectionist perspective. It is not clear whether this clause is the end of the direct discourse of the Sadducees, or it is an editorial explanation. The meaning is the same in any case. 37 The word γυνη can mean a (married) woman and/or wife. We translate the word as “wife” when there is a sense of possession. In verse 33, this sense is indicated either by a genitive of possession (τίνος) or by the verb ἔχω. 38 The idiomatic usage of υἱός + genitive noun denotes one whose identity is defined in terms of a close relationship with a thing (BDAG, sense 2cβ). This usage is seen in English. 39 40 This is the divine passive. The implied subject is God or Christ. See “καταξιόω,” BDAG. 41 The phrase τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν is attributive; ἐκ denotes separation from a group; νεκρῶν is substantival. Causal γαρ. There is no more marriage because there is no more death. The resurrection does not bring people back to this-worldly life, but to eternal life. The levirate union was for raising up offspring despite of death. Jesus is not saying this is the only purpose of marriage, but the emphasis is clear. 42 13 NT 211 Dr. Crowe Luke 20:27-40 Kai Chung Tam (Levi) anymore:43 they are angel-like, and they are sons44 of God since they are45 sons of the resurrection [age].46 37 Now that47 the dead are to be raised48 – even Moses revealed this in the thornbush passage49, as he called50 the Lord ‘the God of Abraham and the51 God of Isaac and the God The γαρ here is not causal, but explanatory (Wallace 658; BBR, option 2, Ft-In). The following clause is connected by a coordinating καὶ with the next clause, and these two clauses clarify how “cannot die” looks like. 43 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, 3rd 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). 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. 45 This is a specific use of ἀναστάσεως that refers to the same sense of the word in verses 33 and 35. The expression τῆς ἀναστάσεως υἱοὶ is Hebraistic, “children of the resurrection,” meaning those who have a share in the age of resurrection. See BDAG ἀνάστασις 2b. 46 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.” 47 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). 48 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, 526-27). 51 The article is not in Greek. It is inserted here to fit the grammar of English. 14 NT 211 Dr. Crowe Luke 20:27-40 Kai Chung Tam (Levi) of Jacob.’ 38 But God is not of dead [people] but of living [people], for to Him all [of them] live.”52 39 And some of the scribes replied53 and said, “Teacher, you said [it] well.” 40 So54 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, 1st 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 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. 52 53 Attendant circumstance participle. 54 The γαρ is probably not explanatory, but conclusive (BBR, option 3). 15 NT 211 Dr. Crowe Luke 20:27-40 Kai Chung Tam (Levi) 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, 1st siglum: see the note in verse 32. Verse 34, 2nd siglum: At this one as well as the 1st siglum in verse 28, verse 31, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th sigla in verse 36, and the 1st 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” (Metzger and Ehrman 307-9). 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, 2nd and 3rd and 4th sigla: see notes in verse 34. Verse 37, 1st siglum: see notes in verse 34. 16 NT 211 Dr. Crowe Luke 20:27-40 Kai Chung Tam (Levi) Verse 37, 2nd and 4th 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. 17 NT 211 Dr. Crowe Luke 20:27-40 Kai Chung Tam (Levi) C. Form critical analysis From the Hafemann’s categories, Luke 20:27-40 can be roughly seen as (2) Paradigms/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). 18 NT 211 Dr. Crowe Luke 20:27-40 Kai Chung Tam (Levi) D. Discourse Analysis of Luke 20:27-40 Gn Gn C? *Sp *E S S Q *Sp *∴ * G Gn Ft * *Adv Ft P G *In * * G S *A *Sp *In * Ft *In G S Ft *In *R *∴ 27 Now some Sadducees, the people who say that there is no resurrection, came and asked him a question, 28a saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote [a law] to us: 28b if some man’s brother dies while he has a wife, and should this [brother] be childless, 28c then [as a result] [the man] shall take this woman [as wife] and raise up offspring for his brother. 29a Then, there were seven brothers, 29b and the first took a wife and died childless. 30,31a Then the second, and then the third, took her [as wife], [and so on,] 31b but likewise [all] the seven [brothers] left no children and died. 32 Afterwards, the woman also died. 33a Then, in the resurrection, which one of them does the woman become wife of? 33b For the seven had the same wife.” 34a And Jesus said to them, 34b “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, 35 but those who are considered worthy to attain that age and the resurrection out of dead [people] neither marry nor are given in marriage. 36a For they cannot even die anymore: 36b they are angel-like, 36c and they are sons of God 36d since they are sons of the resurrection [age]. 37a Now that the dead are to be raised – 37b even Moses revealed this in the thornbush passage, 37c as he called the Lord ‘the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.’ 38a But God is not of dead [people] but of living [people], 38b for to Him all [of them] live.” 39 And some of the scribes replied and said, “Teacher, you said [it] well.” 40 So no one would dare to ask him questions anymore. 19 NT 211 Dr. Crowe Luke 20:27-40 Kai Chung Tam (Levi) Bibliography 1. Grammar and Syntax Reference Works Beale, Gregory K., Daniel Joseph Brendsel, and William A. Ross [BBR]. An Interpretive Lexicon of New Testament Greek. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014. Blass, F., A. Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996. Accordance 13. 2. Lexicon Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Edited by Frederick W. Danker. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Accordance 13. 3. Commentaries Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke. The New International Greek Testament Commentary 3. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978. 4. Background Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. Accordance 13. Robinson, D. W. B. and A. R. Millard. “Sons (Children) of God.” New Bible Dictionary. 3rd ed. Edited by I. Howard Marshall, A. R. Millard, J. I. Packer, and Donald J. Wiseman. Westmont, IL: IVP, 1996. 1122-23. 5. From WTS Library Databases Kilgallen, John J. “The Sadducees and Resurrection from the Dead: Luke 20,27-40.” Biblica. 67, no. 4 (1986): 478-495. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42611054. Macdonald, A. D. “Resurrection in Mark 12: Refining the Covenant Hypothesis.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament. 41, no. 4 (2019): 433-457. DOI: 10.1177/0142064X19832193 20 NT 211 Dr. Crowe Luke 20:27-40 Kai Chung Tam (Levi) 6. Textual Criticism Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: BibliaDruck, 1994. Metzger, Bruce M., and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 4th ed. New York: Oxford, 2005. [NA28] Novum Testamentum Graece: Based on the work of Eberhard and Erwin Nestle. 28th ed. [NET Notes] New English Translation Notes. 2nd ed. Accordance 13. 21