The Sadducees were next to question Jesus (Luke 20:27). They were the Judaism’s scoffers or mockers of the 1st century. They didn’t believe in the resurrection or spirits (angels – see Acts 23:8). The chief priests were members of this sect, as well as the lay nobility, some of this latter group populated the Sanhedrin with the Pharisees and chief priests. Sadducees (i.e. the chief priests and Judaism’s nobility) used myth or hypothetical stories in their debates with the Pharisees to put them in silly situations that mocked at their theology and would later do the same with believers in Christ (cf. 2Peter 3:3-7).
The Sadducees held that the only scriptures that were necessary to observe were the Torah or the five books of Moses. They based the question they put to Jesus (Luke 20:28) on the Law, specifically, the levirate law of the widow who had no children (Deuteronomy 25:5; cf. Genesis 38:8). The law states that, if a man dies without giving any children to his wife, then his closest relative was to marry his widow and the firstborn of that relationship would be raised in the name of the brother who died childless.
The Sadducees in the character of the scoffer offered a myth or hypothetical story, which they carried to the extreme point of absurdity. Their story concerned seven brethren. One brother died leaving his wife childless. Each of his six remaining brothers married his widow, but all died, without leaving her any children. Finally, she died, too (Luke 20:29-33). Their question was, in the resurrection: ‘who would be her husband?’ The idea being none of the brothers had any more claim on her than another, since none were able to give her a child!
The context of the argument was to belittle the doctrine of the resurrection and cause those who believed in such a ludicrous teaching to feel foolish, in that a proper answer to their question was impossible. For example, would the brethren in the resurrection fight over the woman? If so, how long, for eternity? On the other hand would the woman choose her own mate among the seven, or perhaps she would share herself with all seven? Both ideas would have been repudiated in first century AD Judaism. In the context of Luke 20, the Sadducees attempted to make Jesus look foolish in front of his disciples and supporters among the crowd of pilgrims gathered within the Temple compound to hear him.
The problem is that scoffers usually have a vested interest in the proposition that the thing they mock must not be true. This was no less so in the first century AD. The Sadducees were the wealthy class of Jesus’ day. If the resurrection were true, then participation in an afterlife (i.e. resurrection) probably demanded certain obligations in this life. In other words, behavior today reaped a certain quality of life in the resurrection (if it were true). The problem was, they didn’t see God intervening in their lives, or the lives of anyone else for that matter (cf. 2Peter 3:3-6), that would prove they needed to be careful how they lived, specifically how they spent their wealth.
The Law demanded that they care for those less fortunate (Deuteronomy 15:7-11). While they, no doubt, would use their fortunes to care for their families,[1] they couldn’t (or wouldn’t) understand why they had to care for others (i.e. non family members) foolish enough to fall into poverty. Therefore, since God doesn’t seem to care how they used their wealth, why should they use it in any other way than they desire? In other words, they horded their wealth for themselves and those they cared for.
It was this attitude that precipitated their mockery of the resurrection, and their desire to produce myths that so repudiated such doctrines as to make the believers in them look foolish to all who looked on. This is what these Sadducees in Luke 20 had hoped to do to Jesus. However, Jesus knew what they were doing, and I’ll talk about that in my next study in Luke.
___________________________________________
[1] Josephus tells us that Annas often paid robbers a ransom for one of his relatives, because they would kidnap them in hope to be paid well. See: Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.2-3.
Smoodock's Blog 