TRV
- English
- King James KJV
- Complete Jewish CJB
- World English WEBM
- Berean Standard BSB
- American Standard ASV
- Geneva GNV
- Young's Literal YLT
- Douay-Rheims DRC
- International
- Shqip ALB
- العربية SVD
- বাংলা BN-IRV
- မြန်မာ Judson
- 简体文 CUV-S
- 繁體中文 CUV-T
- Čeština BKR
- Nederlands STVE
- Français LSG
- Deutsch SCH
- Ελληνικά Vamvas
- ગુજરાતી GU-IRV
- Hausa HCB
- עברית Hebrew
- हिन्दी HCV
- Magyar KAROLI
- Bahasa Indonesia INDO-TB
- Italiano Diodati
- 日本語 Kougo
- 한국어 Korean
- മലയാളം MAL
- मराठी MRCV
- Norsk DNB
- فارسی OPV
- Polski BG
- Português Almeida
- Română Cornilescu
- Русский Synodal
- Español RVG
- Kiswahili Neno
- Svenska SV1917
- Tagalog TAG-ADB
- தமிழ் TCV
- తెలుగు TSA
- ภาษาไทย THAI-KJV
- Українська Ohienko
- Tiếng Việt CADMAN
- Yorùbá YCB
“Jesus Debates the Sadducees on the Resurrection”· Matthew 22:23–33
Translation
King James Version
Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
Complete Jewish Bible
Now in the Resurrection -- of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all married her."
Berean Standard Bible
In the resurrection, then, whose wife will she be of the seven? For all of them were married to her.”
American Standard Version
In the resurrection therefore whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
World English Bible Messianic
In the resurrection therefore, whose wife will she be of the seven? For they all had her.”
Geneva Bible (1599)
Therefore in the resurrection, whose wife shall she be of the seuen? for all had her.
Young's Literal Translation
therefore in the rising again, of which of the seven shall she be wife--for all had her?'
See on the biblical-era map
In the KJVVerse 23,901 of 31,102 · 76.8%
LawLawHistoryHistPoetryPoetProphetsProphNew TestamentNT
Study This Verse
Copy as
Historical interpretation
Seven Centuries of Reception
14 surviving comments on this verse. Each one is dated, so this reads as a timeline rather than a list.
Ante-NicenePost-NiceneEarly MedievalMedieval
40050060070080090010001100
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.
(Verse 28) Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife will she be? For they all had her. They oppose the absurdity of the story in order to deny the truth of the resurrection.
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.
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...
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.
When the mouths of the Pharisees and the Herodians had been shut, again the Sadducees put Him to the test. Their heresy was this: they believed neither in a resurrection of the dead, nor in the existence of an immaterial spirit, nor in angels, and in general took a position opposite to that of the Pharisees. Here they contrive an impossible situation. For supposing that two brothers took her and then died, would not the third consider it an omen and refuse the marriage, learning from those who had preceded him? So the Sadducees invent a situation, intending to perplex Christ and so to refute the resurrection. They even draw Moses as an advocate into their invention. They speak of seven brothers so as to ridicule the mystery of the resurrection even more. "Whose wife shall she be?" they ask. One could answer, "O foul Sadducees, she shall be the wife of him who first married her, if we concede that there is marriage in the resurrection; for the others are surrogates and not true and lawful husbands" (Deut. 25:5-6).
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 22:28 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 22:28 presents a calculated challenge from the Sadducees to Jesus, employing a hypothetical scenario involving a woman who successively marries seven brothers. Their question, "Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her," was designed to expose what they perceived as a logical absurdity inherent in the concept of resurrection, thereby attempting to discredit Jesus' teachings and the very notion of an afterlife. This verse encapsulates their profound misunderstanding of God's power and the transformed nature of eternity, setting the stage for Jesus' authoritative and clarifying response.
Context
Literary Context
Matthew 22:28 is situated within a series of intense interrogations Jesus faces from various Jewish factions in Jerusalem during the final days leading up to His crucifixion. Immediately preceding this encounter, Jesus deftly silences the Herodians and Pharisees regarding the payment of taxes to Caesar (Matthew 22:15-22). Following this, the Sadducees, known for their denial of the resurrection, step forward with their seemingly unanswerable dilemma. Jesus' subsequent response in Matthew 22:29-32 not only refutes their premise but also powerfully affirms the reality of the resurrection and God's ongoing relationship with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This entire chapter, Matthew 22, showcases Jesus' divine wisdom and authority in the face of escalating opposition.
Historical & Cultural Context
The Sadducees were a prominent Jewish sect, primarily composed of aristocratic priests and wealthy elites, who held significant political and religious power during Jesus' time. Unlike the Pharisees, they rejected the oral law and adhered strictly to the written Torah (the first five books of Moses), denying the resurrection of the dead, the existence of angels, and the concept of an afterlife (as noted in Acts 23:8). Their challenge to Jesus was rooted in the Mosaic law of Levirate marriage, outlined in Deuteronomy 25:5-6, which mandated that if a man died childless, his brother was to marry the widow to raise up an heir for the deceased. The Sadducees constructed an extreme hypothetical case, involving seven brothers and one woman, to illustrate what they believed was an absurd consequence of resurrection, thereby attempting to invalidate Jesus' teaching and the very concept of eternal life, which they did not believe in.
Key Themes
This verse highlights several crucial themes. Firstly, it exposes the misunderstanding of the resurrection by those who project earthly, temporal conditions onto eternal, spiritual realities. The Sadducees' question reveals a failure to grasp the transformative power of God in the eschatological state. Secondly, it sets the stage for Jesus to teach about transformed relationships in eternity, specifically that earthly institutions like marriage, while sacred and significant in this life, do not continue in the same form in the resurrected state. This theme is explicitly addressed in Matthew 22:30. Thirdly, the encounter underscores the contrast between divine wisdom and limited human logic. The Sadducees attempted to trap Jesus within their narrow, earthly framework, but Jesus' response demonstrates that God's ways and power transcend human comprehension, revealing their error stemmed from "not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God" (Matthew 22:29).
Exposition and Analysis
Key Word Analysis
This term, literally meaning "a standing up again," refers to a rising from the dead, a restoration to life. The Sadducees' error stemmed from their limited understanding of this concept, perceiving it merely as a reanimation of earthly conditions rather than a transformed existence in God's power.
While primarily meaning "woman," in this context, it specifically denotes "wife." The Sadducees' question hinges on the continuity of this earthly covenant relationship into the afterlife, which Jesus directly addresses by clarifying the nature of relationships in the resurrected state.
This verb signifies "to hold," "to possess," or "to have." In the context of the Levirate marriage, it refers to the marital union and the sexual relationship that was intended to produce offspring. The Sadducees emphasize that "they all had her" to underscore the perceived complexity and absurdity of her marital status in a resurrected state, assuming earthly possession and relational dynamics would persist.
Verse Breakdown
"Therefore in the resurrection"
This opening phrase immediately establishes the Sadducees' theological battleground. The "therefore" (G3767, oûn) acts as a consequential particle, linking their elaborate hypothetical scenario to the core question about the afterlife. They are forcing the concept of resurrection into their earthly, legalistic framework.
"whose wife shall she be of the seven?"
This is the crux of their challenge. The interrogative "whose" (G5101, tís) highlights their concern about the legal and social implications of marriage in a resurrected state, assuming that earthly marital bonds would continue. They present a scenario with seven (G2033, heptá) brothers, maximizing the perceived absurdity to trap Jesus.
"for they all had her."
This concluding clause provides the Sadducees' justification for their question. The particle "for" (G1063, gár) introduces the reason, emphasizing that each of the seven brothers had entered into a marital relationship with the woman, making her, in their earthly understanding, the wife of all of them. This underscores their projection of temporal, physical realities onto an eternal, spiritual existence.
Literary Devices
The Sadducees' question in Matthew 22:28 employs several literary devices. The most prominent is the Hypothetical Scenario, a meticulously constructed narrative designed to create a seemingly unresolvable dilemma. This elaborate story, involving a woman marrying seven brothers, is not presented as a real event but as a thought experiment intended to expose what they believed to be the logical flaws of the resurrection doctrine. Coupled with this is the Rhetorical Question, "Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven?" This question is not posed out of genuine curiosity but as a challenge, a loaded inquiry designed to trap Jesus and expose His teachings as illogical or absurd. Finally, there is an element of Irony in the Sadducees' approach. In their attempt to highlight the supposed absurdity of the resurrection, they inadvertently expose their own limited understanding of God's power and the nature of eternal life. Their human logic, confined to earthly parameters, is revealed as inadequate when confronted with divine truth.
Theological and Thematic Connections
Matthew 22:28, while a question posed by skeptics, serves as a pivotal point for Jesus to reveal profound truths about the nature of the resurrection and the transformed reality of eternity. It underscores that God's power and His design for the afterlife transcend human earthly constructs and limitations. The Sadducees' error lay in their attempt to impose temporal, physical realities onto an eternal, spiritual state, failing to grasp that the resurrected existence is not merely a continuation of earthly life but a glorification and transformation of it. This passage affirms that while marriage is a sacred and beautiful institution ordained by God for this life, its purpose and form are fulfilled and transcended in the eternal realm, where our relationship with God and with one another will be perfected in a new, spiritual dimension. The ultimate union in eternity is with God Himself, and all other relationships are subsumed into that glorious reality.
Reflection and Application
Matthew 22:28 and Jesus' subsequent teaching offer vital insights for believers today, encouraging a robust and hopeful perspective on eternity. It challenges us to expand our understanding of God's power beyond the confines of our earthly experiences and logic. We are reminded that while our relationships in this life, particularly marriage, are precious, God-ordained, and formative, they are ultimately temporal expressions of a deeper, eternal reality. Our ultimate hope and joy are found not in the perpetuation of earthly forms but in the transformed, glorified existence in God's presence, where relationships will be perfected and our union with Christ will be complete. This passage invites us to live with an eternal perspective, valuing earthly blessings while holding them loosely in light of the infinitely greater realities awaiting us in Christ. It calls us to trust God's wisdom, which far surpasses our own, and to seek a deeper knowledge of His Word and His boundless power.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Does this passage mean that marriage is not important or that married couples will not recognize each other in heaven?
No, this passage does not diminish the importance of marriage in this life. Marriage is a sacred covenant established by God for human flourishing, procreation, companionship, and as a picture of Christ's relationship with the Church (Ephesians 5:31-32). Jesus' statement in Matthew 22:30 that "in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage" indicates a transformation of relational dynamics, not an annihilation of identity or recognition. Our relationships will be perfected and glorified in Christ, transcending the earthly institution of marriage. While the specific legal and procreative aspects of marriage will cease, the love and bond shared between individuals will likely be elevated and perfected in a way we cannot fully comprehend now, within the greater context of our union with God and one another in the heavenly realm.
Christ-Centered Fulfillment
Matthew 22:28, though a question from skeptics, ultimately points to Christ as the fulfillment of all hope regarding the resurrection and eternal life. The Sadducees' error stemmed from their ignorance of God's power and the Scriptures, both of which are perfectly embodied and revealed in Jesus. He is not merely a teacher of resurrection but the very "resurrection and the life" (John 11:25). His own victorious resurrection from the dead (Matthew 28:1-10) serves as the guarantee and firstfruits of our future resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:20-22). Through Him, the transformed nature of eternal existence, where earthly limitations give way to divine realities, is made possible. Furthermore, the ultimate marriage in eternity is not between earthly spouses but between Christ, the divine Bridegroom, and His Church, His beloved bride, a spiritual union that transcends all earthly covenants (Revelation 19:7-9). Thus, Jesus not only answers the Sadducees' challenge but also reorients our understanding of eternity around His person, His power, and His ultimate redemptive work.