By Mike Sullivan on March 20, 2008
IN THE RESURRECTION WHOSE WIFE WILL SHE BE?
Matthew 22:23-33 / Luke 20:27-39
By Michael J. Sullivan
Some have tried (unsuccessfully) to refute Preterism, with an appeal to the debate over the resurrection between the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Jesus in Mt.22/Lk.20.It is assumed with no exegetical support, that Jesus sided with the “normative Judaism” of the Pharisees in theirview of a physical resurrection.It is also argued unsuccessfully from futurists that Preterists can’t say that we are currently in the resurrection or “age to come” because we marry and are given in marriage today.
In this article I will refute the above futuristic arguments and provide several affirmative observations and arguments of my own that need to be considered when looking at this crucial passage.
1)Is there going to be polyandry in the resurrection, age to come, or new creation if the Mosaic law continues?
The Sadducees posed a question to the Pharisees and then to Jesus – as to applicability of the Mosaic law (in this case the Leverite marriage law of Deut.25) in the resurrection and thus in the new creation.They were accustomed to have the Pharisees tell them that even the Torah taught a resurrection of the dead but they still needed to harmonize their views of the new creation and the resurrection with their understanding of the Torah abiding in the new creation.And I believe this is the challenge presented to the Pharisees and Jesus.The Sadducees “argument” worked very well with the Pharisees carnal views of the resurrection and the laws applicability at that time.Since most of the Pharisees understood the new heavens and earth in (Isa.65) the same way futurists do – climaxing with a biological resurrection and then being in a new creation wherein CHILDREN are being produced; the futurist is placed in the same dilemma the Pharisees were in.It wasn’t just the belief that the Pharisees had in a biological resurrection (that the Sadducees denied) that caused much heckling from the Sadducees, but it was also the inconsistency of the Pharisees application of the Mosaic law during this time that had the Pharisees over a barrel. The Sadducees wanted to know how the OC Levirate law would be applied in physical relationships in the resurrection in the New Jerusalem and New Creation.In other words if the Leverite law was still in effect (a man had to marry his brothers wife if he died without children) and after all parties were raised biologically, “whose wife would she be for they all had her?”Since there is child birth going on in the resurrection and new creation (Isa.65) then is this woman going to be sleeping with all 7 men or to whom will she be married in order to keep producing children in the resurrection?!?Sam Frost in my opinion has come the closest in pointing out the logical and exegetical trap that was posed to the Pharisees and Jesus by the Sadducees:
“It is possible that the Sadducees posed this question to the Pharisees before.This one was one of their favorites.The Pharisee would have two choices:endorse polygamy or the law has no application in the ‘age to come.”And “Here is the force of the question:Does Moses’ law apply in the resurrection?If so, how can it in this case?Since it cannot in this case, the resurrection is absurd, for it is better to serve the law, than to believe in something that counters the law.In Mark’s gospel, however, Jesus is no stranger to countering a false understanding of Moses’ law, and that is exactly one of the implications of his answer that Mark has in mind.”
The modification here is that the Pharisees view of a physical resurrection and the use of the law during that time forced them to believe in polyandry (a woman who has more than one husband) not polygamy (a man having more than one wife).The law did not forbid polygamy so there would not be a logical trap here for the Pharisees to fall into if they saw the Mosaic law continuing into the resurrection.
Therefore, the issue here is not polygamy and the law (even though that was debated among the Jews), but rather a situation under the law’s continuance into the time of the resurrection that would contradict the law – polyandry.This was a practice that ALL Jews and Pharisees rejected as not lawful under Torah.
This “argument” worked with the Pharisees so now it was time to try it on Jesus.Jesus and Paul taught that there would be two groups affected at the second coming – those who had physically died and would be raised out of Hades, and those who were alive and would be changed and gathered into the NC Kingdom.
For futurists to say my view isn’t true or consistent because I have been married all the while claiming I’m in “the resurrection” age – is hardly an argument.Jesus taught that in the resurrection those who had died and believed in Him (Jn.11:25) would be raised to never die and no doubt be like the angels.And the same principal would apply for those being physically alive transitioning from the OC age to the NC age post AD 70 – because after believing and being raised (Jn.11:26; Jn.8:51; Jn.10:27-28) – they too would “never die” and there would neither be male nor female under the NC (Gals.3:28).Upon belief in Christ is the futurist going to deny that in his “this age” he will “never die” or that they are no longer a biological male or female?
2)Producing children In “this age” and “the age about to come” – exposing futurist assumptions and contradictions!
Jesus said that the sons of “this age” married and were given in marriage (Lk.20:34) in the context of the question concerning the applicability of the OC Levirate marriage law that had to do with land inheritance rights under the Old Covenant.Think about it for a minute – in what “this age” would this OC Levirate marriage law apply in the immediate and historical context of the passage – the Christian NC “this age” or the OC “this age”?Were Jesus, the Pharisees, and Sadducees living in the “this age” in which this law was being practiced or were they living in the “this age” of the NC Christian Church age that hadn’t even begun yet?!?We love it when futurists want to discuss this text with us.
Jesus and John the Baptist taught an “at hand” kingdom, an “about to be” coming wrath and judgment, and thus an imminent harvest/resurrection would occur at the end of the OC “this age” in AD 70 (Mt.3:2, 7, 10-12; Mt.13:40).This of course being consistent with Jesus’ teaching that when the Temple or “power of the holy people” would be completely shattered and experience abominations and desolation in His generation, is when the prophecy of Daniel’s last things would be fulfilled (Mt.13:40-43/Dan.12:2; Mt.24:15, 34/Dan.9:27/Dan.12:7).
Then there is the issue of the Greek word mello being used to communicate the imminent nature of the coming resurrection or “age about to com” as developed by Jesus in:
“And whoever shall speak against the Son of Man may obtain forgiveness; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, neither in this nor in the coming (Greek mello – “about to be” or “on the point of”) age shall he obtain forgiveness.” (Matthew 12:32 WEY)
A better translation would read, “…nor in the age about to come.” Christ lived on earth and the Apostles wrote their epistles while living in the old covenant mosaic age which was in the process of “passing away” (Hebs. 8:13, 2 Cor. 3:11) while anticipating the arrival of the “age to come” which corresponds to the Christian new covenant or Messianic age. All Christ is saying here is that whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit in the old or new covenant age, he shall not obtain forgiveness. If the “age to come” is referring to the bliss of heaven and the afterlife, are Christians are in heaven going to be able to speak against the Holy Spirit in that age?Will Christians have the ability to blaspheme God in heaven? If that is the case, wouldn’t we be better off down here For “he who is born of God cannot sin, nor will he, for His seed remains in him.” (1 Jn. 3:9)?No, this is speaking of the Christian age where the everlasting gospel is still being preached and thus the speaking against the Holy Spirit is a possibility.Again, Jesus does not share completely in the views of the Pharisees or Creedalists regarding the “age to come.”After the resurrection in The New Heavens and Earth there would be physical death, sinners, work, and even evangelism (Isa.65-66).The resurrection in the “age to come” was an event that Jesus taught elsewhere was “about to” take place – and not an event 2000+ years away.Does the rest of Scripture support this?And what do futurist theologians say of the Greek word mello?My favorite quote on this subject can be found from the writings of R.C. Sproul and Kenneth Gentry.I will quote this so that the reader can see the arbitrary hermeneutics employed by these men in order to appease their fear of men.Also I will quote this section as it has to do with the resurrection and the revealing of the sons of God in (Rms.8) where mello is used and completely ignored by these men.Here is a section taken from my book, Gospel Eschatology:A Better Resurrection,
“Let me give the reader another example of how futurists violate their own hermeneutics when it comes to the “at hand” kingdom “end of the age” harvest/resurrection that John and Jesus preached was coming and would occur at the end of their “this age.”R.C. Sproul agrees with futurist Kenneth Gentry about the traid of imminent statements in Revelation refering to a soon coming of Christ in A.D. 70.They are as follows according to these men:
1)taxos word group – “shortly” or “quickly” (Rev.1:1; 2:16; 3:11; 22:6, 7, 12, 20).
2)engus word group – “near” or “at hand” (Rev.1:3; 22:10).
3)mello word group – “about to” or “on the point of” (Rev.1:19; 3:10).
Sproul summarizes Gentry’s case on these time frame references as clearly A.D.70 events and states:
“Gentry argues that commentators would render the term differently from the lexiographical consensus only if influenced by an interpretive controlling a priori.”
Our point of interest here is the third word group listed above – mello “about to” or “on the point of.”Sproul quoting Gentry says of this word,
“Certainly it is true that the verb mello can indicate simply ‘destined,’ or it can be emplyed in a weakened sense as a periphrasis for the futre tense,” Gentry says.“Nevertheless, when used with the aorist infinitive –as in Revelation 1:19—the words predominant usage and preferred meaning is:‘be on the point of, be about to.’The same is true when the word is used with the present infinitive, as in Rev.3:10.The basic meaning in both Thayer and Abbott-Smith is:‘to be about to.”
Well, just as Sproul and Gentry accuse other futurists as having a priori reasons for not taking the time texts throughout Revelations to be speaking to A.D.70 events, they likewise bring their creedal presuppositions to the book and pick and choose what texts they want to be A.D.70 events and which ones are allegedly 2000+ years removed.Nowhere does John say that “some or most of the things I am writing to you will shortly come to pass,” he states, “I am writing to you about things which must shortly come to pass” (Rev.1:1).It is only the judgment associated with the resurrection that apparently the time texts throughout the book does not address!And when the same Greek construction that renders mello to have the “predominant usage” and “basic meaning” of “be on the point of, be about to” in the book of Acts concerning the resurrectionpreached by Paul — we don’t find any comment from Gentry, Sproul, or any partial preterist futurist on these texts:
1)”because He has appointed a day on which He mello is about to judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17:31)
2)”I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there (Greek mello) – is about to be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust” (Acts.24:15)
You don’t think that they themselves have any “a priori” creedal biases on the resurrection that cause them to contradict their previous statements about mello or that cause them to flat out avoid these passages do you?!?This is a classic case of taking the eisegetical plank out of your eye first before seeking to take it out of other eschatological views!Clearly the “kind” of resurrection/harvest associated with the kingdom and judgment John the Baptist was preaching to be “at hand” in (Mt.3:3, 10-12) and Jesus discussed to take place in his “this age” (Mt.13:40) is what Paul under inspiration understood to be “on the point of being fulfilled” in his day!Clearly when we don’t approach the Scripture with futuristic (no matter what brand it is packaged in – even partial “preterism”) “a priori” presuppostions, Scripture interprets itself.Paul in Romans likewise taught an imminent “redemption of the body” and thus a “glory about to be revealed”
“For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory about to be revealed in us;” (Rms.8:18 YLT)
“Why, what we now suffer I count as nothing in comparison with the glory which is soon to be manifested in us.” (Rms.8:18 WEY)
Peter said the same thing about the glory “about to be” (Greek mello) revealed (1Pet.5:1YLT).
Not only do partial preterists and futurists ignore mello in Rms.8, but R.C. Sproul tells us that the time statements in (Rms.13:11-12) can “reasonably” (hermeneutically) apply to previous passages in Romans:
“…you are treasuring up for yourselves wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who “will render to each one according to his deeds”… (Rom.2:4-6)
…in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.” (Rom.2:16)
Paul refers to “the day of wrath” and “the day when God will judge the secrets of men.”Presumably both references are to the same “day.”Traditionalists see them as references to the yet future last judgment.Preterists like Russell interpret these references as they do all other references to the day of the Lord:this is the dark day of judgment that befell Israel in the destruction of Jerusalem.
Though the above texts lack time-frame references, they may reasonably be linked to later references Paul makes in the same epistle:“And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed.The night is far spent, the day is at hand…” (Rom.13:11-12)
Therefore, according to the partial preterist position:1) mello is a time statement that needs to be taken literally (so why not here in Roms. 8, & Acts 17 & 24?) and 2) the time statements in (Rms.13:11-12) can “reasonably” be linked to earlier chapters such as once again (Rms.8).We appreciate the “reasonableness” on the one hand, but on the other, there is clearly some man fearing dishonest eisegesis taking place here folks!” (Mike Sullivan, Gospel Eschatology:A Better Resurrection).
Since it is not my intention in this article to go at depth into (Roms.8) as I have elsewhere, I shall summarize it’s teaching:
Romans 8 summarized
1)The redemption of the body (singular) is dealing with the Church – the Body of Christ.Mortal bodies (plural) are identified covenantally with what corporate body they are in – in Adam (body of sin, body of death, flesh) or the Body of Christ – the Church.Being “mortal” or “weak” and the like phrases, are referring to the weakness and futility of the law to purge the conscience of dead works and bring about salvation and justification.
2)This was a redemption and glory that was “about to be” revealed in them.
3)The “creation” and “creature” (Greek kitisis) is an intelligent creation – ie. people not squirrels and rocks.Paul preached to every creature under heaven (Cols.1:5-6; 23) and he wasn’t preaching to rocks, trees, and squirrels.We have a better creation/building (Greek kitisis) under the NC (Hebs.9:11).And Christ being the High Priest of these “good things” in regard to this new tabernacle creation was “about to” (Greek mello) occur to the audience of the Hebrew letter.
4)The present suffering in the text is a specific eschatological suffering preceded by the parousia consistent with what the prophets and Jesus taught.These are the eschatological “birth pains.” This is not dealing with me loosing my hair, people getting cancer, and squirrels getting hit by cars, etc.And in context with the previous chapters it is dealing with groaning under the weight and condemnation of the law.
The children of God being revealed and the resurrection are both themes of (Rms.8-11) and it was an “about to be” event folks just like the resurrection and “end of the age” according to Jesus’ teaching.
Under the OC children were born of flesh and blood and by the will of man and thusinheritance rights to the land of Israel were necessary for it’s covenant establishment and continuance.Jesus came preaching a NC kingdom in which one needed to be born from above (Jn.3; Jn.1:12-13).Being born from “above” was the geography of the NC kingdom and those that worshiped God wouldn’t be confined to a literal mountain but worship in “spirit and in truth” because the Kingdom was “not of this world” but rather “within you” (Jn.4:10-24; Lk.17:20-21; Jn.18:36).Inheritance rights and “raising up seed” with the firstborn male child may have been an issue under the OC Levirate marriage laws; but under the NC, Christ, His Bride (even Eunuchs), and His progeny – all fulfill the seed promises and thus produce children through the Gospel whom inherit a heavenly country (Gals.3, Isa.56:3-8/Acts 8:26f.; Rms.4; Rms.8-9; Hebs.12,).Like every covenantal promise in the OT Christ and the Church fulfill the “raising up seed” and resurrection promises within the New Creation (2Cor.1:20) – Praise God!
3) More Futurist Assumptions Upon This Text
Many simply assume that Jesus believed the same kind of resurrection that the Pharisees believed in.However, where is this in the text?!?All that can be said is that Jesus agrees with the Pharisees that the Sadducees erred in denying the power of God in rejecting theafterlife – “He is the God of the living.”That’s it folks.He set the Sadducees straight on the after life, and set the Pharisees straight on the NON-applicability of the OC law in the “resurrection” or “age to come.”As usual our Lord left both groups speechless and dismantled their “arguments.”
Most simply see Jesus regurgitating the argument of Rabbi Gamaliel in his debate with the Sadducees in defending a physical resurrection of the dead.Jesus’ teaching and the N.T. writers teaching, is allegedly “normative” Judaism – Jesus towing the theological line of the Pharisees views.Granted there are some similarities.The Talmud teaches,
“The Sadducees asked Rabbi Gamaliel, ‘Whence do you know that the holy one, blessed be he, will raise the dead?’ To which he replied, ‘From the law, the prophets, and the Hagiographia: from the law because it is written, And the Lord said to Moses, Behold, thou shalt lie down with thy fathers, and this people shall rise again (Deut 31:16): from the prophets because it is written, Thy dead men shall live, etc. (Isaiah 26:19); and from the Hagiographia because it is written, And the roof of thy mouth, etc. (Song of Songs 7:9).’ The Sadducees, however, would not accept these passages till he quoted the passage, ‘The land which the Lord sware unto your fathers to give it to them’ (Deut 11:21). He promised it to them, i.e. to the living, and not to the dead; but as they were now dead, it is evident that there will be a resurrection if the promise is to be fulfilled.” (Sanhedrin, 90 b)
A couple of observations.First, I kind of laugh when I hear reformed theologians such as Chuck Hill tell us that Jesus, Paul, and the N.T. taught “normative Judaism” concerning a general biological resurrection of corpses at the end of time.And yet a Dispensationalist such as John MacArthur seeks to rebuke both reformed theologians such as Mr. Hill and preterists in our views of the Messianic Kingdom – claiming any good Jew within “normative Judaism” knowing his scriptures, taught a nationalistic kingdom on earth and a physical fulfillment of the land promises.So what is “normative Judaism” to one group of futurists isn’t always the standard of the other.Thus the “normative Judaism” “argument” quickly becomes a “house divided” point among futurists.Jesus spent His entire earthly ministry rebuking the “normative” views of the religious leaders of His day which included BOTH the Pharisees and the Sadducees.If Pharisees such as Nicodemus (and no doubt Gamaliel before him) didn’t even understand what it meant to be “born again,” and were rebuked by Jesus in not knowing the Scriptures as to Zion’s giving birth (Isa.26; 49), surely they did not know the nature of God’s Spirit and wind blowing in the nature of Her resurrection and land promises (Ezk.37:9-10).
Secondly, as I have pointed out above, Jesus is not just rebuking the Sadducees views of the resurrection, but that of the Pharisees as well.The Mosaic law would not continue into the resurrection or “age to come.”All things would not continue as they had with the Fathers, and the old wineskins of the old covenant would not be able to contain the new wine of the New Covenant when it came to the issue of raising up seed in the Messianic kingdom or new creation.Gamaliel did not understand the OT passages he quoted from to the Sadducees properly, but his point that the promises were made to the Father’s who had died and that they would live (their souls not terminating like the Sadducees taught) to realize them with their descendants, proved that they would “live” to experience them in the resurrection.The Sadducees obviously had a hard time refuting the Abrahamic promise as taught in the Torah (only the first 5 books – they viewed as authoritative) and how the patriarchs would benefit from the promise made to them and not just their descendants.That’s about the only thing Jesus shares in common with the Pharisees in refuting the Sadducees.Although the Sadducees had a hard time with the Gamaliel argument, it did not “silence” them as Jesus’ argument did (Mt.22:34).For the Sadducees were able to show the contradictions of the Pharisees views of a biological resurrection, child birth in the new creation, a nationalistic kingdom, and the continuance of the Mosaic law.Jesus was the Great Master, and answered the dispute of both groups once and for all!Just as Gospel Eschatology brings healing to the “normative Judaistic” errors within the teachings of such men as Chuck Hill and John MacArthur J.
4)How about answering some of my questions now?
But now I have some challenging questions for my futurist friends since I have covered the (Mt.22/Lk.20) challenge.How is it that there is birth and death in the literal new heavens and earth paradise of (Isa.65)?Are you not speaking out of both sides of your mouth by claiming that after the resurrection and in the “paradise” of the new creation there won’t be marriage and the producing of children, and yet the text clearly teaches there will be child birth?Are these illegitimate relations going on in the New Creation producing these children Isaiah talks about?!?You claim there won’t be biological death in the new creation and yet Isaiah clearly says there will be.You claim there won’t be sinners there either or any unclean thing and yet Isaiah says there are sinners.To our Dispensationalist friends we need to remind them that they need to read Isaiah 65 “literally” and so answer our questions.
Some futurists claim that Isaiah’s prediction of the new creation has a lot of metaphors describing life in the Kingdom now for Christians – in the gospel age.They go back and forth trying to explain what is literal in the new creation when Christ comes to restore the planet earth and what is being experienced now for Christians in a spiritual way.Somehow the no tears and no death passages of (Isa.65-66/Rev.21/22) are supposed to be taken as experiencing joy and “eternal life” today, and then other times the no tears and no death passages are to be taken literally.It’s rather a hermeneutical and exegetical arbitrary mess!Then there are men like Kenneth Gentry who tell us that the passing of the old creation is the old covenant and the new creation of (Rev.21-22 – which is the promise of Isa.65-66) is to be understood spiritually as the new covenant creation for us today – post AD 70.But then out of the other side of Mr. Gentry’s mouth, somehow (2Pet.3 – which is likewise the promise of Isa.65-66) is to be realized in a physical materialistic way!?!This is no less of an hermeneutical and exegetical nightmare than Dispensational interpreters of this passage.
1) Jesus rebukes and corrects the false teaching of both the Sadducees and the Pharisees concerning the resurrection and the age to come.In similar fashion to the Pharisees Jesus uses the Torah to rebuke the Sadducees’ view of the afterlife and the age to come.He likewise corrects the Pharisees misunderstanding of the Mosaic law’s function in raising up children in the age to come.
2) Futurist’s such as Chuck Hill have to resort to the use of arbitrary traditions among “normative Judaism” to read into the text a physical resurrection of corpses at the end of time in this passage!So why doesn’t Mr. Hill believe in the “normative Judaistic” understandings of a nationalistic Messianic kingdom on earth in Jerusalem – that MacArthur and Dispensationalists teach? And Mr. Hill as well as all futurists on this text ignore:
3) That the “this age” of the passage is addressing the old covenant “this age” awaiting the Messianic or NC “age to come,” and not the NC age “this age” awaiting the “age to come” of the “perfect state” of the afterlife and purified planet earth.And,
4) Jesus and the N.T. writers taught that the coming resurrection in the age to come – was “about to” and “on the point” of coming, not an event some 2000+ years away.Scripture interprets Scripture and once again futurism is found wanting in the exegetical arena.
 Cohen, Boaz, Everyman’s TALMUD, pp.357ff., Dutton pub. 1949
 Frost, Samuel, Exegetical Essays On The Resurrection of the Dead, p.102 & p.104, The Truth Voice pub. 2004.
 Sproul,R.C. The Last Days According To Jesus When Did Jesus Say He Would Return?,p.188, Baker Books pub. 1998.
 Sproul, ibid, p.139-140 emphasis MJS
 Sproul, ibid., p.99, emphasis MJS
 Mathison, Keith, When Shall These Things Be?A Reformed Response To Hyper-Preterism, p.97-98, P&R pub. 2004.This section written by Charles E. Hill.
 MacArthur, John, The Second Coming Signs of Christ’s Return and the End of the Age, pp.71-81.MacArthur employing the same logic of Charles Hill, feels comfortable in interpreting OT kingdom passages in a earthly nationalistic way just as “normative Judaism” taught.
 See my other articles critiquing Gentry’s contradictions on (2Pet.3/Rev.21-22/Isa.65-66). If Peter can “expand” a literal interpretation to 2 Peter 3 and John gives a spiritual interpretation to Isa. 65-66, then I guess Gentry shouldn’t be a critic of how dispensationalists abuse OT quotes in the NT!
“Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. “Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” (Matt. 22:23–30.)
35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection.
We will all be resurrected and be given immortal bodies.) President Howard W. Hunter said that the words “He is not here, but is risen” (Luke 24:6) “contain all the hope, assurance, and belief necessary to sustain us in our challenging and sometimes grief-filled lives” (in Conference Report, Apr.
The parable of the wedding feast is a parable about universalism . Jesus teaches that the Kingdom of God is open to everyone, not only Jews. This parable is told using the familiar setting of a wedding feast, however there are a few surprising events included.
HAVING RELATIONSHIPS WITH SPOUSES, LOVED ONES IN HEAVEN
A. Yes to both. The reunion will take place, but not as husband and wife. We learn this in Jesus' explanation to the Sadducees: "When people rise from death, there will be no marriage.
Will we stay married in heaven? (Randy Alcorn) - YouTube
The Bible does not specifically teach this, however. We know two things for sure. God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16), and God is merciful and forgiving. Every divorce is a result of sin, either on the part of one spouse or both.
"Christian tradition has long held that Jesus was not married, even though no reliable historical evidence exists to support that claim," King said in a press release.
Will we know each other in heaven? Let's cut to the chase with a one-word answer: Yes! The two-word answer would be, “For sure!”
“He is not here; He has risen!” has to be one of the most hopeful statements in all of Scripture. We can know that whatever life brings, there is hope beyond the grave. The uncertainty, doubt, and worries of this life will never be able to shake the power of an empty tomb.
The statement is the equivalent of "Christ has risen" and is stating a present-perfect fact. It's stating an eternal truth that not only did he rise all those years ago, but he remains risen now. That is, not just "he has risen" but "he is risen" and risen is closer to being an adjective than a pure participle.
restored from death; ascended into glory. the risen Christ.
The testimony of Jesus is “the spirit of prophecy.” (Revelation 19:10). Therefore, no matter what anyone thinks, relatively few Christians are going to end up in heaven. Yes, many are now called, but few are going to be chosen. Few are going to spend eternity with God.
The 23rd chapter in the book of Matthew is a notorious chapter that is commonly referred to as The Seven Woes, and entails Jesus criticizing the teachers of the law and the Pharisees (basically the leaders of the Jewish faith). In this chapter we see Jesus with quite a different attitude than he portrays usually.
The man without the wedding garment represents the two groups who will be excluded from the eschatological feast: the ones who reject the invitation and the ones who accept it but who do not prove worthy.
- Dream Visitations. One of the most commonly described signs from the other side is a visitation from a departed loved one in the form of a dream. ...
- Familiar Sensations or Smells. ...
- Animal Messengers. ...
- Pennies and Dimes. ...
- Lost and Found Objects. ...
- Electrical Disturbances.
Psalm 34:18 “The Lord is near to the brokenhearted and saves the crushed in spirit.” Psalm 73:26 “My flesh and my heart faileth: but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion forever.” Matthew 5:4 “Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.”
 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
If your spouse has died, and you have not remarried, then you are considered unmarried. It may seem odd and you may still consider yourself as married. However, in the eyes of the law, your marriage ended when your spouse died.
These days, there are still many marriages made in heaven. You see couples who are obviously well matched and happy in their marriages (not pretenders). God is still very much in the business of match making, only that many just do not seek his services.
God instituted the husband-wife relationship as an equal partnership with Adam and Eve (see Genesis 2:24). Marriage is central to God's plan for our happiness during this life and our eternal happiness in the life hereafter.
Whether a Christian who has divorced their mate on biblical grounds is free to remarry is a question of scripture. Their spiritual status has not changed in any way in the eyes of the Lord or the church. Jesus gives permission for someone to remarry when adultery has taken place.
Catholicism has taught that if a person's first marriage ended in divorce, God won't bless a second one. Many Protestant traditions hold that since there are biblically justifiable grounds for divorce, God can bless a second marriage.
Can Someone Who Has Committed Adultery Go to Heaven? - YouTube
|Saint Mary Magdalene|
|Born||Possibly Magdala, Roman Judea|
|Venerated in||Roman Catholic Church Eastern Catholic Churches Eastern Orthodox Churches Oriental Orthodox Churches Anglican Communion Lutheranism other Protestant churches Baháʼí Faith|
God had a wife, Asherah, whom the Book of Kings suggests was worshiped alongside Yahweh in his temple in Israel, according to an Oxford scholar. God had a wife, Asherah, whom the Book of Kings suggests was worshipped alongside Yahweh in his temple in Israel, according to an Oxford scholar.
Although the Biblical gospels contain metaphorical references to Christ, saying he is a bridegroom, they mean he is married to the church and there is no reference to a real wife.
“Good and contented souls” are instructed “to depart to the mercy of God.” They leave the body, “flowing as easily as a drop from a waterskin”; are wrapped by angels in a perfumed shroud, and are taken to the “seventh heaven,” where the record is kept.
The pets that we had to say goodbye to are alive in heaven right now in their spiritual bodies and we will see them again if we accept Jesus as our Savior. Your Pet Is Not Gone Forever.
The Bible neither favors nor forbids the process of cremation. Nevertheless, many Christians believe that their bodies would be ineligible for resurrection if they are cremated. This argument, though, is refuted by others on the basis of the fact that the body still decomposes over time after burial.
One is to greet another person with "Christ is risen!" and the response is "He is risen indeed!" with many variants in English and other languages (compare Matthew 27:64, Matthew 28:6–7, Mark 16:6, Luke 24:6, Luke 24:34).
to become alive again after having died.
The resurrection of Jesus (Biblical Greek: ἀνάστασις τοῦ Ἰησοῦ) is the Christian belief that God raised Jesus on the third day after his crucifixion, starting – or restoring – his exalted life as Christ and Lord. According to the New Testament writings he was firstborn from the dead, ushering in the Kingdom of God.
Originally Answered: Is “he is risen” grammatically correct? No. Rather, it is “He has risen”. The word “risen” is the past participle of “rise”.
B. The past tense of to rise is rose, and the past participle of to rise is risen.
The modern World English Bible translates the passage as: 5: The angel answered the women, “Don't be afraid, for I. know that you seek Jesus, who has been crucified. 6: He is not here, for he has risen, just like he said.
Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.
Easter Bible Verses for Children
Matthew 28:5-6: "The angel said to the women, 'Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen, just as he said.
What Is the Difference Between 'Called' and 'Chosen'? - YouTube
To be chosen not only meant to be favored, but it required responsible actions. This blessing came with a condition as recorded in Exodus 19:5, “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession.” Although the whole earth is mine.”
In the Bible days, God Almighty made a choice among all the people He created and set them apart to execute the important purposes of His providence. That they were chosen to this high destiny was not on account of their extraordinary merits, but because God wanted to illustrate His glory to all mankind through them.
In verse 23 Jesus points out, not in judgment but for their benefit, other relevant matters of the Law of Moses that they were not keeping; “judgment, mercy, and faith.” Judgment is that of making the right decision coupled with justice.
The parable of the wedding feast is a parable about universalism . Jesus teaches that the Kingdom of God is open to everyone, not only Jews. This parable is told using the familiar setting of a wedding feast, however there are a few surprising events included.
As such, the foot. washing functions as an extension of the disciples' baptism in that it signifies continual. cleansing from the sin acquired (after baptism) through life in a sinful world. This act then.
Jesus took your sin, and in exchange, gave you His righteousness. Your sin and guilt was credited to Christ's account, and His righteousness is credited to your account. Since God considered Christ as wearing your filthy garments, He now regards you as wearing Christ's pure vestments.
In the Gospel account, Jesus Christ, his mother and his disciples are invited to a wedding. When his mother notices that the wine has run out, Jesus delivers a sign of his divinity by turning water into wine at her request.
The Marriage. The Marriage Supper of the Lamb is the consummation of the union between Christ and the Church, Eph. 5: 27; Rev.
 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.  This is the first and great commandment.  And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.  On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
According to the Acts of the Apostles, the Sadducees denied the existence or influence of angels. In relation to salvation, only the Temple rituals were of benefit. They denied the resurrection of the dead. They did not believe in the immortality of the soul; there was no afterlife.
I begin with what Jesus taught were the two great commandments. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. “This is the first and great commandment. “And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”
Find prayers in the scripture and pray those on your own behalf. Praying will build your faith and help you to keep your eyes focused on the Lord, even in times of crisis. Meditation is powerful, especially for the Christian. Meditation is not some whimsical clearing of your mind.
Jesus replied, “'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. ' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.
The Sadducees did not believe in resurrection of the dead, but believed (contrary to the claim of Josephus) in the traditional Jewish concept of Sheol for those who had died.
The Pharisees' Judaism is what we practice today, as we can't make sacrifices at the Temple and instead we worship in synagogues. The Sadducees were the wealthy upper class, who were involved with the priesthood. They completely rejected oral law, and unlike the Pharisees, their lives revolved around the Temple.
Their lives and political authority were so intimately bound up with Temple worship that after Roman legions destroyed the Temple, the Sadducees ceased to exist as a group, and mention of them quickly disappeared from history.
That same day, on Tuesday, the twelfth of Nisan, the main day of examination ( to see link click Ix –The Examination of the Lamb ), the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus with a theological question in the Court of the Gentiles .. But at the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage and can no longer die for they will be like the angels in heaven.. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection (Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:35-36).. . . and these have no share in the world to come: Those who say, “There is no resurrection of the dead from the Torah and the Torah is not from heaven” (Tractate Sanhedrin 10:1-3).. In the spirit of the true rabbinic pilpul reasoning , He asked them:But about the resurrection of the dead – have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God showed that the dead rise when He said to him, “I AM the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Exodus 3:6-7; Matthew 22:31; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37).. The resurrection of the dead was taught in the Torah, and the Sadducees had erred.. In order for the resurrection to be a living truth giving us hope, we, too, must know the Scriptures and the power of God .. Rabbi Sha’ul wrote: And if the Spirit of the One who raised Yeshua from the dead is living in you, then the One who raised the Messiah Yeshua from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit living in you (Romans 8:11).. We will only know the fullness of the resurrection after we join Jesus in heaven, but we can – through faith, enlightened by the Holy Spirit – live with a growing expectation while we wait for the blessed hope – the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ (Titus2:13).. Let us pray with Paul: I want to know Christ – yes, to know the power of His resurrection and participation in His sufferings, becoming like Him in His death, and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection from the dead (Philippians 3:10-11).
23 That same day some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came up to him and questioned him: 24 “Teacher, Moses said, if a man dies, having no children, his brother is to marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother.. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like angels in heaven.. Well, today’s sermon discusses the fictitious scenario of a woman who had been married seven times to seven brothers.. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like angels in heaven.. Look again at what Jesus says in verse 30: For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like angels in heaven.. Remember, the Sadducees only held to the teachings of the first five books of the Bible, which they believe do not teach the reality that people will live after their physical deaths.. Through Jesus, we can be resurrected to new life!
By "afterlife". I mean the continuation of spiritual life in heaven after physical death.. And Yeshua is. saying, "You don't even get this one.. And He's not. the God of the dead.". Let me ask you this: Does Yahweh have a body?. To me the CBV. means that we don't get a body at death, the body talked about in Scripture is the. corporate Body of Christ.. Was Christ physically resurrected?. Yeshua was resurrected from both.
The Sadducees attempt to trick Jesus with a question about marriage status after the body is reborn. Will we still love our husbands and wives after death? (Matthew 22:23 - 22:33) - Bible Blender ›
Bible Text NIV The NET Bible New King James Version The Message King James Version Sources: NIV, The Message, The NET Bible, King James Version, NET Bible Notes, Faithlife Study Bible, The Apologetics Study Bible, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Commentary, The Bible Reader’s Companion, Matthew Henry’s Commentary, Holman Concise Bible Commentary, The Bible Exposition Commentary, The Teacher’s Bible Commentary, The Teacher’s Commentary, The Bible Guide, Word Studies in the New Testament, Holman Bible Handbook, Calvin Commentaries, Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines, The New Manner and Customs of the Bible, Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, The Lexham Bible Dictionary, Easton’s Bible Dictionary, Harper’s Bible Dictionary, Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, The Archaeological Encyclopedia, Biblical Archaeology Review, The New Bible Dictionary, The Lexham Analytical Lexicon, Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database. But about the resurrection of the dead – have you not read what God said to you, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?. 31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?. 22:31 Now as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, 22:32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?. 23 The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, 24 saying: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother.. 31 But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?. The grammar is clear: God says, ‘I am—not was—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob.’ The living God defines himself not as the God of dead men, but of the living.” Hearing this exchange the crowd was much impressed.. 23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, 24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.. 31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, 32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?. Sources: NIV, The Message, The NET Bible, King James Version, NET Bible Notes, Faithlife Study Bible, The Apologetics Study Bible, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Commentary, The Bible Reader’s Companion, Matthew Henry’s Commentary, Holman Concise Bible Commentary, The Bible Exposition Commentary, The Teacher’s Bible Commentary, The Teacher’s Commentary, The Bible Guide, Word Studies in the New Testament, Holman Bible Handbook, Calvin Commentaries, Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines, The New Manner and Customs of the Bible, Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, The Lexham Bible Dictionary, Easton’s Bible Dictionary, Harper’s Bible Dictionary, Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, The Archaeological Encyclopedia, Biblical Archaeology Review, The New Bible Dictionary, The Lexham Analytical Lexicon, Glossary of Morpho-Syntactic Database
31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 32 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'?. “As for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?. God comes to Moses and says, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Now notice what God does not say.. We have hope because of the word “to be.” There is life because God is the God of the living.. In other words, Jesus says two things: First, marriage is not something that will exist in the world to come.. After the Sadducees put their question to Jesus, he responds by saying that they do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God.. And really, what this pointed to was the need for a Savior; a Redeemer who would give life to those who were perishing and who had no ability to gain a place in the future world for themselves.. And when Jesus says, “You do not know the Scriptures,” he’s really talking about how these Sadducees had completely twisted the meaning of this passage and were missing out on the true significance of what it was saying.
Luke 20:27 Some of the Sadducees, who say there is NO RESURRECTION , came to Jesus with a question.. Not Jesus.. Sadducees didn’t believe in a resurrection or afterlife.. But those who are CONSIDERED WORTHY of taking part in THAT AGE and IN THE RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD will NEITHER MARRY NOR BE GIVEN IN MARRIAGE , and they can no longer die; for they are LIKE THE ANGELS .. Jesus will ask one, but no one dared to ask Jesus anything more.
31But about the resurrection of the dead— have you not read what God said to you, 32‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?. The custom held that if brothers lived together, and a married brother died, the younger brother was to marry the widow, and carry on the elder brother’s name (see Deut.. But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”?. As Jesus points out, God is the God of the living: “But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?. 31But about the resurrection of the dead— have you not read what God said to you, 32‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?. The custom held that if brothers lived together, and a married brother died, the younger brother was to marry the widow, and carry on the elder brother’s name (see Deut.. But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”?. As Jesus points out, God is. the God of the living: “But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?
Mark 12:23 - BSB - In the resurrection, whose wife will she be? For all seven were married to her.' ›
New International Version (1984)At the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?". English Standard Version In the resurrection, when they rise again, whose wife will she be?. International Standard Version In the resurrection, whose wife will she be, since the seven had married her?. Amplified Bible In the resurrection, whose wife will she be?. Bishop's Bible (1568) In the resurrection therfore, when they shall rise agayne, whose wyfe shall she be of them?. New Century Version Since all seven brothers had married her, when people rise from the dead, whose wife will she be?". New English Translation In the resurrection, when they rise again, whose wife will she be?. New International Version At the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?". Tyndale New Testament (1525) In the resurreccio then when they shall ryse agayne: whose wyfe shall she be of them?. Darby Translation In the resurrection, when they shall rise again, of which of them shall she be wife, for the seven had her as wife?. Update Bible Version In the resurrection, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them?. Webster's Bible Translation In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them?. for seuene hadden hir to wijf.. in the resurrection, then, whenever they may rise, of which of them will she be wife—for the seven had her as wife?"
New International Version (1984)At the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?". English Standard Version In the resurrection, when they rise again, whose wife will she be?. International Standard Version In the resurrection, whose wife will she be, since the seven had married her?. Amplified Bible In the resurrection, whose wife will she be?. New Century Version Since all seven brothers had married her, when people rise from the dead, whose wife will she be?". New English Translation In the resurrection, when they rise again, whose wife will she be?. New International Version At the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?". Douay-Rheims Bible In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise again, whose wife shall she be of them?. Tyndale New Testament (1525) In the resurreccio then when they shall ryse agayne: whose wyfe shall she be of them?. Darby Translation In the resurrection, when they shall rise again, of which of them shall she be wife, for the seven had her as wife?. Update Bible Version In the resurrection, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them?. Webster's Bible Translation In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them?. for seuene hadden hir to wijf.. in the resurrection, then, whenever they may rise, of which of them will she be wife—for the seven had her as wife?"
The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him, saying: “Teacher, Moses said that if a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife and raise up offspring for his brother.. But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?. Matthew tells us, "The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection" (v. 23), came to Jesus and asked Him a question; seeking, like their enemies the Pharisees, to trap the Lord.. And because they didn't begin with an attitude of respect for God's word or God's power—or more to the point, because they chose to "disbelieve" these things at the very start—they were led astray in their thinking and were "mistaken".. The Lord said that they didn't properly "know" two things: the Scriptures, and the power of God.. It seems to me that Jesus is saying that, in that glorified state—so different from this earthly state that we can't even begin to imagine it—the heavenly love that a woman shares with one of her former husbands in glory wouldn't have to exclude her from sharing the same heavenly love with another of her former husbands in glory; any more than a mother's love for one child would exclude her from equally loving another child on earth, or than a man's earthly love for his brother would exclude him from also equally loving his sister.. And even though those three men had physically died centuries before Moses' time, they nevertheless still existed before God; because God said that He was—right then—the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.. "God is not the God of the dead," Jesus says, "but of the living.". For one thing, we should remember that there must needs be deep and dark things in a religion which comes from God, and that a child may put questions which the greatest philosopher cannot answer.—For another thing, we should remember, that there are countless truths in the Bible, which are clear, and unmistakable.