Did Jesus Offer A Bad Argument For the Resurrection?

[mizpeh]

I found this on Jason Dulle's blog. Anyone want to take a shot at it?

"In Jesus’ debate with the Sadducees, He defended His resolve that the dead are raised by quoting from Exodus 3:6. Luke records Jesus as saying, “But even Moses revealed that the dead are raised in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live before him.” (Luke 20:37-8, NET Bible).

Jesus’ argument seems to be as follows:

(1) God can only be “the God of…X”, if X exists

(2) God identified Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob centuries after their death

(3) Therefore, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob still existed when God spoke to Moses

I don’t see how Jesus’ argument supports His resolve. At best, Jesus demonstrated that man is a dualistic being whose immaterial self lives on beyond death (something the Sadducees denied). But how does it follow that the dead will rise? It could be that they continue in their non-corporeal state for time everlasting. It seems to me that Jesus would have to supply another argument to demonstrate why it is necessary for these non-corporeal persons to return to a bodily existence. No such argument is given.

I confess some trepidation in even writing this, but I don’t find Jesus’ argument persuasive. And yet when you read the text, Jesus’ opponents found it extremely persuasive. They were not able to offer any rebuttal. Am I missing something here? I do not want to say Jesus’ argument missed the point, but I cannot deny the fact that his argument appears to fall short of its intended goal. Does anyone have any insight on this passage they would like to offer me?"
http://www.theosophical.blogspot.com/

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I found this on Jason Dulle's blog. Anyone want to take a shot at it?

"In Jesus’ debate with the Sadducees, He defended His resolve that the dead are raised by quoting from Exodus 3:6. Luke records Jesus as saying, “But even Moses revealed that the dead are raised in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live before him.” (Luke 20:37-8, NET Bible).

Jesus’ argument seems to be as follows:

(1) God can only be “the God of…X”, if X exists

(2) God identified Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob centuries after their death

(3) Therefore, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob still existed when God spoke to Moses

I don’t see how Jesus’ argument supports His resolve. At best, Jesus demonstrated that man is a dualistic being whose immaterial self lives on beyond death (something the Sadducees denied). But how does it follow that the dead will rise? It could be that they continue in their non-corporeal state for time everlasting. It seems to me that Jesus would have to supply another argument to demonstrate why it is necessary for these non-corporeal persons to return to a bodily existence. No such argument is given.

I confess some trepidation in even writing this, but I don’t find Jesus’ argument persuasive. And yet when you read the text, Jesus’ opponents found it extremely persuasive. They were not able to offer any rebuttal. Am I missing something here? I do not want to say Jesus’ argument missed the point, but I cannot deny the fact that his argument appears to fall short of its intended goal. Does anyone have any insight on this passage they would like to offer me?"
http://www.theosophical.blogspot.com/

The Sadducees did not believe in the "immaterial self" that you mention. Their view was that apart from God Himself, everything was material and naturalistic.

So, while yes, Jesus' argument didn't go to great lengths in proving the resurrection of the dead, it did use the only part of the Bible that the Sadducees recognized as valid, the Pentateuch, to disprove one of their doctrines.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The Sadducees did not believe in the "immaterial self" that you mention. Their view was that apart from God Himself, everything was material and naturalistic.

So, while yes, Jesus' argument didn't go to great lengths in proving the resurrection of the dead, it did use the only part of the Bible that the Sadducees recognized as valid, the Pentateuch, to disprove one of their doctrines.

Pelathais,

Thanks for you comments. I thought the question Jason posed was interesting and was thinking along the same lines as you are but then I went to the comment section of the his blog and the same point was brought up by another poster. Here is Jason's response to it:

"You are right. The Sadducees did not believe man survived death as an incorporeal spirit, or that his body would be resurrected. The problem is that Jesus specifically identified the purpose of His argument as proving the resurrection of the dead, not a continued personal, incorporeal existence after death. I don't see how Jesus’ argument, or proof-text demonstrates that.

Even if we looked at this only as an argument for an incorporeal existence after death, it still doesn’t seem persuasive. Granted, Jesus is God, and no one knows how to better interpret and apply Scripture than its ultimate author—so let Jesus be right and me be wrong. But I cannot help to scratch my head over this.


Imagine that this passage did not exist in the NT. Furthermore, imagine that you are a seminary professor. Imagine that one of your students wrote a paper on the post-death existence of man, cited the same OT passage Jesus cited, and employed the same line of reasoning Jesus employed to argue either for an incorporeal existence after death or the resurrection of the dead. What kind of comments would you make on that paper? I would tell him he was taking the verse out of context, stretching it too far, and that his conclusion did not follow his premises. But we’re not talking about a seminary student’s paper. We are talking about the incarnate God’s use of the OT and reason. One doesn’t critique God’s reasoning abilities or hermeneutics. And yet, the rational powers He gave me cannot make rational sense of His hermeneutic, or argument."

[mfblume]

Obviously Jesus implied these men "resurrected".

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Pelathais,

Thanks for you comments. I thought the question Jason posed was interesting and was thinking along the same lines as you are but then I went to the comment section of the his blog and the same point was brought up by another poster. Here is Jason's response to it:

"You are right. The Sadducees did not believe man survived death as an incorporeal spirit, or that his body would be resurrected. The problem is that Jesus specifically identified the purpose of His argument as proving the resurrection of the dead, not a continued personal, incorporeal existence after death. I don't see how Jesus’ argument, or proof-text demonstrates that.

Even if we looked at this only as an argument for an incorporeal existence after death, it still doesn’t seem persuasive. Granted, Jesus is God, and no one knows how to better interpret and apply Scripture than its ultimate author—so let Jesus be right and me be wrong. But I cannot help to scratch my head over this.


Imagine that this passage did not exist in the NT. Furthermore, imagine that you are a seminary professor. Imagine that one of your students wrote a paper on the post-death existence of man, cited the same OT passage Jesus cited, and employed the same line of reasoning Jesus employed to argue either for an incorporeal existence after death or the resurrection of the dead. What kind of comments would you make on that paper? I would tell him he was taking the verse out of context, stretching it too far, and that his conclusion did not follow his premises. But we’re not talking about a seminary student’s paper. We are talking about the incarnate God’s use of the OT and reason. One doesn’t critique God’s reasoning abilities or hermeneutics. And yet, the rational powers He gave me cannot make rational sense of His hermeneutic, or argument."

This seems to represent a desire to impose Western rationalism upon the words of Jesus Christ. Jesus was not speaking to post-Enlightenment Europeans so His statements were not framed within some Kantian system of logical syllogisms.

In other words, Jason is taking Jesus' words out of their context and applying them wherever he wants. To be fair, many fundamentalist Christians do the exact same thing so perhaps Jason has that in mind. But to understand the words of Jesus we need to put them back into His immediate context. He was not framing a rhetorical dialog, but was pointing out what He perceived to be an inconsistency in the theology of the Sadducees.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

This seems to represent a desire to impose Western rationalism upon the words of Jesus Christ. Jesus was not speaking to post-Enlightenment Europeans so His statements were not framed within some Kantian system of logical syllogisms.

In other words, Jason is taking Jesus' words out of their context and applying them wherever he wants. To be fair, many fundamentalist Christians do the exact same thing so perhaps Jason has that in mind. But to understand the words of Jesus we need to put them back into His immediate context. He was not framing a rhetorical dialog, but was pointing out what He perceived to be an inconsistency in the theology of the Sadducees.

There must have been a lot of discussion between the Saducees and the Pharisees concerning the resurrection of the dead and the after life since it appears these two sects disagreed on this point. I wonder what their proof texts were? It's obvious from this text that the Saducees never considered the words of God at the burning bush to be proof of a resurrection or at least proof of an afterlife.

Is there something implicit in saying that since the dead are still alive but living in another reality that they will be eventually resurrected?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

There must have been a lot of discussion between the Saducees and the Pharisees concerning the resurrection of the dead and the after life since it appears these two sects disagreed on this point. I wonder what their proof texts were? It's obvious from this text that the Saducees never considered the words of God at the burning bush to be proof of a resurrection or at least proof of an afterlife.

The differences between the 2 groups really came down to a difference over what writings were canonical. The Sadducees only accepted the Pentateuch while the Pharisees accepted all of what we call the OT.

In the Pentateuch there really is no explicit teaching about the resurrection of the dead- pro or con. It's just not dealt with. Some Pharisees (and believe it or not, Jesus was of the Pharisaical school at least in practice) obviously felt that the tenses of the verbs (I AM the God of Abraham...) foreshadowed the later revelations about the resurrection. Any attempts to use anything outside of the Torah would have fallen on deaf ears. Jesus appears to recognize this because he doesn't make an appeal to anything outside of the Law to make His argument either.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Is there something implicit in saying that since the dead are still alive but living in another reality that they will be eventually resurrected?

That's a good question.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

In the Pentateuch there really is no explicit teaching about the resurrection of the dead- pro or con. It's just not dealt with. Some Pharisees (and believe it or not, Jesus was of the Pharisaical school at least in practice) obviously felt that the tenses of the verbs (I AM the God of Abraham...) foreshadowed the later revelations about the resurrection. Any attempts to use anything outside of the Torah would have fallen on deaf ears. Jesus appears to recognize this because he doesn't make an appeal to anything outside of the Law to make His argument either.

It would seem a waste to keep the law and only recieve the blessing in this life. I think there are a few references to an afterlife in the Pentateuch, at least I've been noticing them this year, starting with the tree of life, the translation of Enoch, and the patriarchs calling themselves pilgrims on the earth. But there isn't anything that is explicit in affirming eternal life.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

It would seem a waste to keep the law and only recieve the blessing in this life. I think there are a few references to an afterlife in the Pentateuch, at least I've been noticing them this year, starting with the tree of life, the translation of Enoch, and the patriarchs calling themselves pilgrims on the earth. But there isn't anything that is explicit in affirming eternal life.

I agree with you.