Vers. 18—27.—Sadducees confuted. Of all the subjects which awaken the specula- tive curiosity and inquiry of men, none approaches, in dignity and importance, the fatare life. The nobler spirits, in every civilized and cultured community, have either held as an article of faith, or have cherished with fondest hope, the prospect of immor- tality. Annihilation is a prospect which none but the degraded and sinful can consent te accept without shuddering horror. It has often been observed as very remarkable, though not inexplicable, that the Pentateuch contains no express, explicit statement regarding a future life. It appears that the revelation of immortality was progressive ; for expectations regarding a conscious existence of happiness after death are certainly found with growing frequency in the later books of the Old Testament. The psalmists and prophets rejoiced in the hope of a heavenly rest and an imperishable fellowship with the Dattice of spirits. At the time of our Lord’s ministry there was a division among the religious authorities of the Jewish people upon this all-important subject; the Pharisees holding to the doctrines of immortality and resurrection, and the Sadducees denying and apparently ridiculing both. Amongst the Sadducees were many of the most intellectual of the upper classes of society. ‘They also retained in their own lead- ing families the office of high priest. Both our Lord Christ and his apostle Paul took a very decided stand against the Sadducaic doctrine and party. During the last week of our Lord’s ministry, when the conflict with his enemies was reaching its height, many assaults were made from various quarters against Jesus and his claims and teaching. This passage records the attack of the rationalistio party upon the Divine Master, and his original and conclusive repulse of that attack.
L THE REASONING OF THE SADDUCEES AGAINST THE TEACHING OF OUR LORD UPON IMMORTALITY AND RESURRECTION. 1. It was indirect reasoning. Instead of attacking the doctrine, they simply attacked a supposed inference from it, viz. the continuance of
hysical human relations in another life. 2. It was frivolous reasoning. ‘They must ae found it hard to state with serious faces a case so absurd. It would have been shildish had they supposed the woman to have married twice; the supposition that she
162 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. [on. xm. 1—44.
should confront in the resurrection life the rival claims Jf seven husbands was ridiculous. This is not the temper in which great problems regarding human destiny should be discussed. 3. It was inconclusive; for no one of the alternative solutions of the difficulty proposed would have been incompatible with a future life.
I]. THE GENERAL REPLY OF THE LoRD JESUS TO THIS REASONING. 1. He refutes the argument, if it can be so called, which they had adduced. Marriage is an earthly institution, and is especially adapted to a mortal race, providing that generation shall succeed generation. Love is indeed imperishable, and shall be perfected in heaven; but ‘marriage shall no longer be necessary when men shall be equal to the angels, and shall sin and die no more. Therefore no reasoning founded upon the continuance of this physical relationship has place with reference to the life beyond the grave. 2. He bases the doctrine of the future life upon the power of God, which they strangely overlooked. It is the reasoning which was repeated by St. Paul, “ Why should it be thought a thing impossible with you that God should raise the dead?” The omnipotence which first called human nature into being is surely able to revive the spirit and perpetuate its consciousness and activity. This is an unanswerable argument still against all dogmatic denial of the future life, It does not in itself establish the doctrine, but it is conclusive against those who deny it. It removes the
resumption from the opponents to the upholders of immortality. 3. He refers to the Earitres for grounds for belief in a future life. Those who admitted their authority would find it hard to reconcile such admission with disbelief in the resurrection.
IIL. THE SPECIAL ARGUMENT BY WHICH THE LorD JESUS ESTABLISHES FAITH IN IMMOBTALITY AND A FUTURE LIFE. 1. Jesus refers to an authority which the Sadducees professed emphatically to revere—the Pentateuch. “The Law” was their especial pride, and they may have justified their scepticism by the absence of explicit teaching upon this great doctrine from the books of Moses. 2. Jesus quotes a familiar passage, in which he reads, or from which he deduces, a new and striking and convincing argument. It is upon record that God declared himself to Moses as “the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob.” Now, what did thisimply? That God had been their God, but that, they having ceased to exist, he was no longer? Or, that he was the God of their mouldering or dispersed dust, which, upon the theory of annihilation, was all that remained of them? Hither those who had been wont to read this passage must have passed it over without reflection, or they must have been satisfied with an interpretation crude and empty. Or else they must have drawn the inference which the great Master now drew: “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” Once he declares himself his people’s God, he remains such for ever; and they remain hia,—conscious recipients of his favour, and responsive partakers of his Divine and Fatherly love. He is a covenant God; his promises are never broken, and his declara- tions never fail. An immortal God involves the immortality of those whom he has created in his image, redeemed by his grace, renewed by his Spirit. If he is what he has revealed himself as being, if his people are what he has declared them to be, then death has no power over them; they are destined to “glory, honour, and immortality.” For “all live in him.”