TRV
“Jesus Debates the Sadducees on the Resurrection”· Matthew 22:23–33
Translation
See on the biblical-era map
In the KJVVerse 23,900 of 31,102 · 76.8%
LawLawHistoryHistPoetryPoetProphetsProphNew TestamentNT
Study This Verse
Copy as
Historical interpretation
Five Centuries of Reception
14 surviving comments on this verse. Each one is dated, so this reads as a timeline rather than a list.
Post-NiceneEarly Medieval
400500600700800
Select a marker to jump to its quote. Markers stagger vertically where authors wrote within a few decades of each other.
For of Judaism’s heretics I am silent - Dositheus the Samaritan, I mean, who was the first who had the hardihood to repudiate the prophets, on the ground that they had not spoken under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Of the Sadducees I am silent, who, springing from the root of this error, had the hardihood to adjoin to this heresy the denial likewise of the resurrection of the flesh.
It had been enough to have cut off this opinion of the Sadducees of sensual enjoyment, that where the function ceased, the empty pleasure of the body accompanying it ceased also; but He adds, But are as the Angels of God in heaven.
The same cavil that the Sadducees here offer respecting marriage is renewed by many who ask in what form the female sex shall rise again. But what the authority of Scripture leads us to think concerning the Angels, so must we suppose that it will be with women in the resurrection of our species.
It should be further considered, that this was said to Moses at a time when those holy Patriarchs had gone to their rest. They therefore of whom He was the God were in being; for they could have had nothing, if they had not been in being; for in the nature of things that, of which somewhat else is, must have itself a being; so they who have a God must themselves be alive, since God is eternal, and it is not possible that that which is dead should have that which is eternal. How then shall it be affirmed that those do not, and shall not hereafter, exist, of whom Eternity itself has said that He is?
The disciples of the Pharisees with the Herodians being thus confuted, the Sadducees next offer themselves, whereas the overthrow of those before them ought to have kept them back. But presumption is shameless, stubborn, and ready to attempt things impossible. So the Evangelist, wondering at their folly, expresses this, saying, The same day came to him the Sadducees.
(non occ.) For because death to the Jews, who did all things for the present life, seemed an unmixed evil, Moses ordered that the wife of one who died without sons should be given to his brother, that a son might be born to the dead man by his brother, and his name should not perish, which was some alleviation of death. And none other but a brother or relation was commanded to take the wife of the dead; otherwise the child born would not have been considered the son of the dead; and also because a stranger could have no concern in establishing the house of him that was dead, as a brother whose kindred obliged him thereto.
Which is an apt reply to their question. For their reason for judging that there would be no resurrection, was that they supposed that their condition when risen would be the same; this reason then He removes by showing that their condition would be altered.
And because they had put forward Moses in their question, He confutes them by Moses, adding, But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read.
How then is it said in another place, Whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. (Rom. 14:8.) This which is said here differs from that. The dead are the Lord's, those, that is, who are to live again, not those who have disappeared for ever, and shall not rise again.
And again, these too attack Him with a show of moderation, saying, "Master, Moses said, If a man die, not having children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased; and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother. Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife shall she be of the seven?"
See Him answering these like a teacher. For though out of craft they came unto Him, yet was their question rather one of ignorance. Therefore neither doth He say unto them, "Ye hypocrites."
Moreover, in order that He might not blame, saying, "Wherefore had seven one wife?" they add the authority of Moses; although, as I have said before, it was a fiction, in my judgment at least. For the third would not have taken her, when he saw the two bridegrooms dead; or if the third, yet not the fourth or the fifth; and if even these, much more the sixth or the seventh would not have come unto the woman, but have shrunk from her. For such is the nature of the Jews. For if now many have this feeling, much more then had they; when at least, even without this, they often avoided marrying in this way, and that when the law was constraining them. Thus, at any rate, Ruth, that Moabitish woman, was thrust off to him that was further off from her kindred; and Tamar too was thus compelled to obtain, by stealth, seed from her husband's kinsman.
And wherefore did they not feign two or three, but seven? In order the more abundantly to bring derision, as they thought, upon the resurrection. Wherefore they further say, "they all had her," as driving Him into some difficulty.
What then saith Christ? He replies unto both, as taking His stand not against the words, but the purpose, and on every occasion revealing the secrets of their hearts; and at one time exposing them, at another time leaving the refutation of them that question Him to their conscience. See, at any rate here, how He proves both points, as well that there will be a resurrection, as that it will not be such a resurrection as they suspect.
They who ought to have believed did but wonder at His great wisdom, that their craft had found no means for ensnaring Him: whence it follows, When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left Him, and went their way, carrying away their unbelief and wonder together.
There were two sects among the Jews, the Pharisees and the Sadducees; the Pharisees pretended to the righteousness of traditions and observances, whence they were called by the people 'separate.' The Sadducees (the word is interpreted 'righteous') also passed themselves for what they were not; and whereas the first believed the resurrection of body and soul, and confessed both Angel and spirit, these, according to the Acts of the Apostles, denied them all, as it is here also said, Who say that there is no resurrection. (Acts 23:8.)
As they disbelieved the resurrection of the body, and supposed that the soul perished with the body, they accordingly invent a fable to display the fondness of the belief of a resurrection. Thus they put forward a base fiction to overthrow the verity of the resurrection, and conclude with asking, in the resurrection whose shall she be? Though it might be that such an instance might really occur in their nation.
They therefore err because they know not the Scriptures; and because they know not the power of God.
In these words the Latin language cannot follow the Greek idiom. For the Latin word 'nubere' is correctly said only of the woman. But we must take it so as to understand marry of men, to be given in marriage of women.
This that is added, But areas the Angels of God in heaven, is an assurance that our conversation in heaven shall be spiritual.
For none could say of a stone and a tree or inanimate things, that they shall not marry nor be given in marriage, but of such things only as having capacity for marriage, shall yet in a sort not marry.
In proof of the resurrection there were many plainer passages which He might have cited; among others that of Isaiah, The dead shall be raised; they that are in the tombs shall rise again: (Is. 26:19. juxta LXX.) and in another place, Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake. (Dan. 12:2.) It is enquired therefore why the Lord should have chosen this testimony which seems ambiguous, and not sufficiently belonging to the truth of the resurrection; and as if by this He had proved the point adds, He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. We have said above that the Sadducees confessed neither Angel, nor spirit, nor resurrection of the body, and taught also the death of the soul. But they also received only the five books of Moses, rejecting the Prophets. It would have been foolish therefore to have brought forward testimonies whose authority they did not admit. To prove the immortality of souls therefore, He brings forward an instance out of Moses, I am the God of Abraham, &c. and then straight subjoins, He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; so that having established that souls abide after death, (forasmuch as God could not be the God of those who had no existence any where,) there might fitly come in the resurrection of bodies which had together with their souls done good or evil.
I say nothing of the Jewish heretics who before the coming of Christ destroyed the law delivered to them: of Dositheus, the leader of the Samaritans who rejected the prophets: of the Sadducees who sprang from his root and denied even the resurrection of the flesh: of the Pharisees who separated themselves from the Jews on account of certain superfluous observances, and took their name from the fact of their dissent: of the Herodians who accepted Herod as the Christ.
(Vers. 24 seqq.) And they asked him, saying: Master, Moses said: If any man die, having a wife, and he have no children, that his brother should take her to wife, and raise up seed to his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, having taken a wife, died; and, not having issue, left his wife to his brother. In like manner the second and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Those who did not believe in the resurrection of the body and thought that the soul perished with the body rightly invent such a fable, which demonstrates their madness in asserting the resurrection of the dead. However, it is possible that this might actually happen in their nation at some point.
He could have used other far clearer examples to prove the truth of the resurrection. For example...[Isaiah 26:19, Daniel 12:2]...people ask why the Lord wanted to bring forth this testimony for himself: "I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." This passage seems ambiguous and not sufficiently to the point about the truth of the resurrection…Above we said that the Sadducees, who confessed neither angel nor spirit nor the resurrection of bodies, also preached the destruction of souls. They received only the five books of Moses and rejected the predictions of the prophets. It would have been foolish, then, to bring forth testimonies [from the prophets], whose authority the Sadducees did not follow. Further, in order to prove the eternity of souls from the writings of Moses, he offers the citation: "I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." [Exodus 3:6] Then he immediately adds: "He is the God not of the dead but of the living." Thus, when he proved that souls continue after death—for were they not subsisting at all, it could not be the case that God would be their God—the resurrection of bodies was introduced by way of logical inference...
(Quæst. Ev. i, 32.) Mystically; by these seven brethren are understood the wicked, who could not bring forth the fruit of righteousness in the earth through all the seven ages of the world, during which this earth has being, for afterwards this earth also shall pass away, through which all those seven passed away unfruitful.
As soon as the Pharisees were gone, came the Sadducees; perhaps with like intent, for there was a strife among them who should be the first to seize Him. Or if by argument they should not be able to overcome Him, they might at least by perseverance wear out His understanding.
For the Devil finding himself unable to crush utterly the religion of God, brought in the sect of the Sadducees denying the resurrection of the dead, thus breaking down all purpose of a righteous life, for who is there would endure a daily struggle against himself, unless he looked to the hope of the resurrection?
But the Sadducees thought they had now discovered a most convincing argument in favour of their error.
Wisely does He first convict them of folly, in that they did not read; and afterwards of ignorance, in that they did not know God. For of diligence in reading springs knowledge of God, but ignorance is the offspring of neglect.
Or, when He says, In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, He referred to what He had said, Ye know not the power of God; but when the proceeded, I am the God of Abraham, &c. to that Ye know not the Scriptures. And thus ought we to do; to cavillers first to set forth Scripture authority on any question, and then to show the grounds of reason; but to those who ask out of ignorance to show first the reason, and then the authority. For cavillers ought to be refuted, enquirers taught. To these then who put their question in ignorance, the first shows the reason, saying, In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage.
In this life that we may die, therefore are we born; and we marry to the end that that which death consumes, birth may replenish; therefore where the law of death is taken away, the cause of birth is taken away likewise.
It should be noted, that when He spoke of fasting, alms, and other spiritual virtues, He did not bring in the comparison of Angels, but only here where He speaks of the ceasing of marriage. For as all acts of the flesh are animal acts, but this of lust especially so; so all the virtues are angelic acts, but especially chastity, by which our nature is bound to the other virtues.
And see how the assault of the Jews against Christ becomes more faint. Their first challenge was in a threatening tone, By what authority doest thou these things, to oppose which firmness of spirit was needed. Their second was with guile, to meet which was needed wisdom. This last was with ignorant presumption which is easier to cope with than the others. For he that thinks he knows somewhat, when he knows nothing, is an easy conquest for one who has understanding. Thus the attacks of an enemy are vehement at first, but if one endure them with a courageous spirit, he will find them more feeble. And when the multitudes heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.
AD 532Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagiteas quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274Post-NiceneSourceCatena Aurea by Aquinas
(de Divin. Nom. i.) For then when we shall be incorruptible and immortal, by the visible presence of God Himself we shall be filled with most chaste contemplations, and shall share the gift of light to the understanding in our impassible and immaterial soul after the fashion of the exalted souls in heaven; on which account it is said that we shall be equal to the Angels.
Not the Sadducees but the multitudes were astonished. This is daily done in the Church; when by Divine inspiration the adversaries of the Church are overcome, the multitude of the faithful rejoice.
(Mor. xiv. 55.) But there are who observing that the spirit is loosed from the body, that the flesh is turned to corruption, that the corruption is reduced to dust, and that the dust again is resolved into the elements, so as to be unseen by human eyes, despair of the possibility of a resurrection, and while they look upon the dry bones, doubt that they can be clothed with flesh, and be quickened anew to life.
These things which are spoken concerning the conditions of the resurrection He spoke in answer to their enquiry, but of the resurrection itself He replies aptly against their unbelief.
Source: Quotations drawn from early Church Fathers and historical Christian theologians (AD 100–1500). Some quotes address the surrounding passage context rather than this verse alone.
Copy as
Continue studying Matthew 22:27 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.
Read & Compare
BibleGatewayThis verse in more than 200 translations and 70 languages.
Bible.comThe YouVersion reader — hundreds of translations, reading plans, and highlights.
ESV.orgCrossway's official English Standard Version reader.
NET BibleThe NET translation with 60,000+ translators' notes on every rendering decision.
STEP BibleTyndale House's free study tool — original text, vocabulary, and scholarly resources.
BibliaLogos Bible Software's free web reader.
USCCBThe New American Bible (Revised Edition) with the U.S. bishops' study notes.
Commentaries
BibleHub CommentariesDozens of classic commentaries on this verse, gathered on one page.
StudyLightMore than 100 commentary sets — the largest collection on the web.
BibleRefPlain-English commentary on what this verse means, verse by verse.
Enduring WordDavid Guzik's free commentary on this chapter, widely used by Bible teachers.
Bible Study ToolsVerse commentary alongside Greek and Hebrew study aids.
Original Language & Research
- BibleHub InterlinearThe verse word by word — original language, transliteration, and English.
- BibleHub LexiconEvery word's original-language definition and Strong's entry.
Blue Letter BibleDeep-study tools — Strong's numbers, concordance, and word studies.
CNTR CollationThe earliest Greek manuscripts of this verse, collated letter by letter.
Sermons, Hymns & Audio
TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.
Summary
Matthew 22:27 concludes the Sadducees' elaborate, hypothetical scenario presented to Jesus, serving as the final, seemingly unassailable premise in their attempt to discredit the concept of resurrection. This brief statement, "And last of all the woman died also," marks the end of the earthly lives of all seven brothers and their shared wife, setting the stage for their pivotal question regarding marital status in the afterlife, which Jesus masterfully refutes by revealing profound truths about the nature of resurrected existence and God's power.
Context
Literary Context
This verse is the culmination of a challenge posed by the Sadducees to Jesus, recorded in Matthew 22:23-33. Immediately preceding Matthew 22:27, the Sadducees detail a levirate marriage scenario where seven brothers sequentially marry the same woman, each dying childless (Matthew 22:25-26). The death of the woman in Matthew 22:27 completes their setup, leading directly to their "whose wife shall she be of the seven?" question in Matthew 22:28. Jesus' subsequent response, beginning in Matthew 22:29, directly addresses their flawed understanding of God's power and the nature of the resurrection, making this verse a critical narrative pivot.
Historical & Cultural Context
The Sadducees were a prominent Jewish sect during the Second Temple period, known for their strict adherence to the written Torah and their rejection of oral traditions, the resurrection of the dead, the existence of angels, and spirits (as noted in Acts 23:8). Their challenge to Jesus was rooted in their theological opposition to the resurrection, which they considered an absurdity. The "levirate marriage" law, central to their hypothetical, is found in Deuteronomy 25:5-10, which mandated that a brother marry his deceased, childless brother's widow to raise up offspring for the deceased. The Sadducees' elaborate story was designed to expose what they perceived as a logical inconsistency or even a moral dilemma if resurrection were true, believing that the concept of eternal life would lead to an untenable continuation of earthly institutions like marriage.
Key Themes
This verse, though brief, contributes to several key themes within Matthew 22 and the broader Gospels. Firstly, it underscores the universality of death, a stark reality for all mortals, which the Sadducees implicitly acknowledge even as they deny life beyond it. Secondly, it highlights the Sadducean misconception of the afterlife; they attempted to apply earthly, procreative institutions and limitations to a spiritual, eternal state, demonstrating their profound misunderstanding of God's power and the transformed nature of resurrected existence, a point Jesus directly corrects in Matthew 22:29-30. Finally, the verse serves to set the stage for divine revelation, as the Sadducees' flawed premise inadvertently provides Jesus with the perfect opportunity to articulate profound truths about the resurrection, the nature of angels, and the eternal covenant relationship with God, as seen in Matthew 22:31-32.
Exposition and Analysis
Key Word Analysis
This adverb means "more lately" or "eventually," indicating a sequence in time. In the context of the Sadducees' story, it emphasizes that the woman's death was the final event in the series of deaths, completing the earthly narrative before their question about the resurrection. It underscores the chronological end of the human life cycle within their presented scenario.
This term refers to a female, specifically a wife in this context. The Sadducees' use of "the woman" (with the definite article) highlights her as the central figure around whom the levirate marriage dilemma revolves, having been married to all seven brothers. Her individual identity, though central to the problem, is subsumed by her role in the Sadducees' theological trap.
Derived from "away from" and "to die," this verb signifies "to die off" or "to be slain." It denotes the physical cessation of life. In this verse, it confirms the finality of her earthly existence, mirroring the deaths of her seven husbands, and thus completing the Sadducees' setup for their question about the state of individuals in the resurrection.
Verse Breakdown
"And last of all"
This phrase establishes the chronological conclusion of the Sadducees' hypothetical narrative. It emphasizes that the woman's death was the final event in the sequence of deaths, creating the complete scenario upon which their challenge to Jesus' teaching on the resurrection would be based. It highlights the exhaustive nature of their example.
"the woman"
This refers to the central figure of the Sadducees' elaborate story, the widow who, according to the levirate marriage law, was married sequentially to seven brothers, each of whom died childless. Her identity is defined by her role in this complex, hypothetical family tree, which is designed to expose a perceived absurdity in the concept of resurrection.
"died also"
This clause confirms the physical death of the woman, mirroring the deaths of her seven husbands. The word "also" (Greek: kai) signifies that her death was a parallel and equally final event in the earthly realm, completing the Sadducees' setup and leading directly to their question about her marital status in the resurrection. It underscores the universality of death within their premise.
Literary Devices
Matthew 22:27, though a simple declarative statement, functions as a crucial element within the Sadducees' hypothetical narrative, which is itself a form of rhetorical device designed to corner Jesus. The verse acts as the climax of their setup, bringing their elaborate, multi-layered scenario to its logical, earthly conclusion. There is a subtle irony in the Sadducees' use of this statement; by emphasizing the finality of death, they inadvertently provide Jesus with the perfect opportunity to articulate the transformative power of the resurrection, which transcends earthly limitations. The phrase "died also" serves as a parallelism to the repeated deaths of the brothers, reinforcing the inescapable reality of mortality within their earthly framework, thereby setting up the dramatic contrast with Jesus' teaching on eternal, transformed life.
Theological and Thematic Connections
Matthew 22:27, by completing the Sadducees' death-filled narrative, underscores the universal reality of human mortality, a truth that serves as the backdrop for the profound hope offered by the resurrection. The Sadducees' error lay in their inability to conceive of a transformed existence, attempting to impose earthly limitations and institutions onto the divine realm. Jesus' response to their challenge, prompted by this verse, reveals that God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, and that resurrection life transcends the procreative and social structures of this age, pointing to a spiritual reality where relationships are reconfigured in light of God's eternal purposes.
Reflection and Application
While a seemingly simple statement of fact within a larger narrative, Matthew 22:27 prompts us to consider the profound implications of our mortality and the nature of eternal life. The Sadducees' limited worldview, constrained by earthly logic, prevented them from grasping the expansive power of God and the transformed reality of the resurrection. For believers today, this serves as a powerful reminder not to confine God's wisdom or the spiritual realm to our finite understanding. We are called to live with an eternal perspective, acknowledging the certainty of death while clinging to the hope of resurrection that transcends earthly limitations and redefines human relationships in light of God's eternal purposes. It encourages us to trust in a God who is capable of far more than we can imagine, a God who brings life out of death and transforms our very being for an eternal, spiritual reality.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Why do the Sadducees present such a complex scenario involving seven brothers and one woman?
The Sadducees, who denied the resurrection of the dead, constructed this elaborate hypothetical scenario to create a seemingly unresolvable dilemma for Jesus. Their intention was to expose what they perceived as an absurdity in the concept of resurrection, specifically how earthly institutions like levirate marriage (mandated in Deuteronomy 25:5-10) would function in an afterlife. By having the woman marry seven brothers sequentially, all dying childless, they aimed to force Jesus into a corner regarding "whose wife she would be" in the resurrection, thereby discrediting his teaching and the very idea of a resurrected life.
What is the significance of the woman dying "last of all"?
The phrase "last of all" signifies the chronological culmination of the Sadducees' hypothetical narrative. It means that the woman's death was the final event in the series of deaths within their story, completing the earthly sequence for all eight individuals involved (the seven brothers and the woman). This final death sets the stage for their direct question about the woman's marital status in the resurrection, as all earthly ties have now been severed by death, making the "resurrection problem" acute for them.
Christ-Centered Fulfillment
Matthew 22:27, by concluding the Sadducees' death-centric narrative, inadvertently sets the stage for Jesus to reveal profound truths about the resurrection, which is ultimately fulfilled in His own person and work. The Sadducees' flawed premise, rooted in their inability to comprehend a transformed existence, highlights the very reason for Christ's coming: to conquer death and open the way to eternal life. Jesus' response in Matthew 22:29-32 declares that God is the God of the living, not the dead, a truth powerfully demonstrated by Christ's own resurrection from the grave (Matthew 28:1-10). His victory over death (1 Corinthians 15:54-57) transforms the very nature of human existence, demonstrating that in Him, believers are not merely resurrected to a continuation of earthly life but to a new, spiritual reality where the limitations of this age, including marriage, are transcended (Romans 6:4). The woman's death in the Sadducees' story, while intended to expose a problem, ultimately foreshadows the need for a Savior who would conquer death itself and usher in a new creation where life is eternal and relationships are perfected in God's presence (Revelation 21:4).