After being bested in their challenge to Yeshua’s/Jesus’s authority, the Sanhedrin delegation sends in the Pharisees and the Herodians, who have been plotting together since Mark 3:6 as to how to destroy Him. Then, the Sadducees, who have gone unmentioned up to this point, take a stab at tripping Him up. Exactly how does that work out for them?
If you can’t see the podcast link, click here.
13 And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to trap him in his talk. 14 And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone’s opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?” 15 But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” 16 And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar’s.” 17 Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him. 18 And Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection. And they asked him a question, saying, 19 “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife, but leaves no child, the man must take the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. 20 There were seven brothers; the first took a wife, and when he died left no offspring. 21 And the second took her, and died, leaving no offspring. And the third likewise. 22 And the seven left no offspring. Last of all the woman also died. 23 In the resurrection, when they rise again, whose wife will she be? For the seven had her as wife.” 24 Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God? 25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 26 And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? 27 He is not God of the dead, but of the living. You are quite wrong.”
Seems like a lot of material today but it really isn’t. Still, this is some really context rich stuff as we cover two controversy dialogues. We don’t know if this is the same day as the Parable of the Tenants or not. But this is a continuation so we are going to review again. And we will assume this is still the third day in Jerusalem. No reason not to.
Hi, I am Tyler Dawn Rosenquist and welcome to Character in Context, where I teach the historical and ancient sociological context of Scripture with an eye to developing the character of the Messiah. If you prefer written material, I have five years’ worth of blog at theancientbridge.com as well as my six books available on amazon—including a four-volume curriculum series dedicated to teaching Scriptural context in a way that even kids can understand it, called Context for Kids—and I have two video channels on YouTube with free Bible teachings for both adults and kids. You can find the link for those on my website. Past broadcasts of this program can be found at characterincontext.podbean.com and transcripts can be had for most broadcasts at theancientbridge.com. If you have kids, I also have a weekly broadcast where I teach them Bible context in a way that shows them why they can trust God and how He wants to have a relationship with them through the Messiah.
All Scripture this week comes courtesy of the ESV, the English Standard Version but you can follow along with whatever Bible you want. A list of my resources can be found attached to the transcript for Part two of this series at theancientbridge.com.
Here’s the review: Day 1, the entry into Jerusalem where Yeshua rides into town on a dedicated donkey’s colt, goes into the Temple, looks around and promptly leaves. These were both prophetic actions hearkening back to what was expected when a king would return from battle, would be paraded into the city, and would culminate the day with a visit to the Temple and sacrifices. Yeshua only looked around and inspected the place, which didn’t bode well. They spent the night in Bethany. Day 2, Yeshua is hungry and goes to a fig tree out of season, one with no edible fruit on it (just like the Temple the night before) and declared judgment that no one would ever eat of it again. Then they went to the Temple where Yeshua performed a prophetic act of judgment against the worldly and corrupt nature of what it had become, and stayed to teach people afterward. They left and spent the night in Bethany. Day 3, they got up and made their way to Jerusalem, passing that same fig tree, now withered so badly that the roots are even withered away. Yeshua looks toward the Temple and tells them that when they pray for the wickedness within the current Temple to end (the mountain tossed into the sea) that they do so with clean hearts full of forgiveness. Then they enter the Temple, where Yeshua’s authority and the source of His authority to disrupt the commerce within the Temple is challenged. He refuses to answer unless they admit to their official position on whether or not John the Baptist’s ministry was from God, and legitimate, or from men, and illegitimate. Realizing that however they answer will spell disaster for them, they tell Him that they just don’t know and are effectively silenced. Yeshua responds with a Parable aimed directly at these men, whom I believe were a delegation sent by the Sanhedrin, telling them that they have been judged and condemned and that their rulership over God’s people will be given to others, which we know historically to be Yeshua’s disciples who will assume leadership. They go off and plot as to how they can arrest Him, which leads us to this next controversy.
13 And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to trap him in his talk.
So, here we have the chief priests, scribes and elders colluding with the Pharisees and the Herodians, for the specific purpose of trapping Yeshua, so that he will say something, anything, to get Him in trouble with the people. They can’t afford not to at this point. They have to be desperate. In a society that relies on honor and shame to keep everyone in their place, they cannot allow Yeshua to come out on top. But the Pharisees and Herodians are enemies—they detest one another. We saw them plotting back in Mark 3:6 after the incident with Yeshua healing the man with the withered hand, in the synagogue on the Sabbath—after which the Pharisees withdrew and began plotting with the Herodians about how to destroy Him. Now, the word in last week’s parable about the landowner coming to destroy the wicked tenants, that’s the same word used to describe the plans of the Pharisees and Herodians against Yeshua—appolymi. I don’t think that’s coincidental. In aligning themselves with the judicial elites, these particular Pharisees and Herodians are also setting themselves up for destruction. Of course, Acts tells us that many Pharisees and regular priests will become believers so we have to make sure to remember that outsiders can repent and become insiders. And as we see from Judas, insiders can become outsiders.
14 And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone’s opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances, but truly teach the way of God.
Going to stop right there. Flattery is always a huge red flag in honor/shame cultures. It’s a real minefield unless the recipient is from a much higher caste and then it is expected and required. When flattery is given within the same peer group, then there are expectations that the compliments be returned somehow. In flattering Him, they are acknowledging that, in the eyes of the crowd, He has won enough of a reputation rating that it will serve them well to compliment Him, but this is no compliment—they are setting Him up for what they believe will be a no-win situation. They can only think of two possible answers to the question they are about to ask and each of those will get Him into some serious hot water—either with the crowd or with the Romans. Either way, His ministry is over as far as they are concerned. After all, they’ve spent a long time thinking about what they will say. But Yeshua doesn’t believe in no-win scenarios. He always wins, even when it looks as though He loses.
Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?”
There are actually two questions here. One, is it lawful to pay taxes to a heathen emperor oppressing our people. Two, should we pay them? First consideration here, what tax is being referred to? The Greek word kensos would be referring to the poll imposed on the Jews in 6 CE, as opposed to the taxes that farmers had to pay on their crop yields. This is actually the scenario briefly mentioned by Gamaliel in Acts 5:37 “After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered.” If you want to read more about him, you can find that information in Josephus’s Antiquities at the beginning of book 18 and we see that these taxes were no small issue for the Jews, who hated the Romans and hated having to pay tribute to Caesar. The Herodians, of course, supported the taxes because they were living high on the hog. The Pharisees hated the taxes but had a policy where they paid them in order to get along with the Romans, not wanting to rock the boat. They believed that they were only under Roman occupation because it was Yahweh’s will and so they say paying the poll tax as a part of that. So, these guys weren’t allies, they just knew how to set an effective trap because these taxes were killing your average, already financially destitute Jews. So, in other words, this wasn’t actually a request for knowledge. They wanted someone outraged—really, anyone would do in this case.
15 But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.”
Now, this is where it gets funny and you have to know some background on this. First-century Jews considered any carved likeness of a human or animal to be idolatrous, in keeping with the second commandment. It didn’t matter if you were worshipping it or not, they took no chances. The Temple itself was bedecked and carved with all sorts of natural images in order to simulate the Garden in Eden—Solomon’s Temple was the same. But no critters and no people. Period. In fact, this was such an outrage that when Pontius Pilate brought Roman standards into the city under the cover of night, it created an outrage:
Flavius Josephus, The Jewish War 2.169-174 “Pilate, being sent by Tiberius as prefect to Judaea, introduced into Jerusalem by night and under cover the effigies of Caesar which are called standards.
This proceeding, when day broke, aroused immense excitement among the Jews; those on the spot were in consternation, considering their laws to have been trampled underfoot, as those laws permit no image to be erected in the city; while the indignation of the townspeople stirred the countryfolk, who flocked together in crowds. Hastening after Pilate to Caesarea, the Jews implored him to remove the standards from Jerusalem and to uphold the laws of their ancestors. When Pilate refused, they fell prostrate around his palace and for five whole days and nights remained motionless in that position.
The great stadium, where Pilate addressed the Jewish multitude. On the ensuing day Pilate took his seat on his tribunal in the great stadium and summoning the multitude, with the apparent intention of answering them, gave the arranged signal to his armed soldiers to surround the Jews. Finding themselves in a ring of troops, three deep, the Jews were struck dumb at this unexpected sight. Pilate, after threatening to cut them down, if they refused to admit Caesar’s images, signaled to the soldiers to draw their swords. Thereupon the Jews, as by concerted action, flung themselves in a body on the ground, extended their necks, and exclaimed that they were ready rather to die than to transgress the law. Overcome with astonishment at such intense religious zeal, Pilate gave orders for the immediate removal of the standards from Jerusalem.”
This is no passing fancy. These Jews were willing to die rather than admit these banners with Roman Eagles and other images of Caesar on them. One thing you have to give them credit for—they knew their ancestors had blown it with the idolatry and they weren’t about to make the same mistake again. They were exceedingly legalistic in this area. They wouldn’t even allow the Romans to do it. And if this was their reaction down in the city—just imagine how they would have reacted had the images been brought onto the Temple Mount!
So, this is important background because Yeshua is calling them hypocrites. Why? Is it because they are asking a question under false pretenses? Yeah…but…it goes way deeper than that. “Get me a denarius,” He says, “so I can look at it.”
16 And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar’s.”
Oh man, total burn. “Whose likeness is this?” What’s a likeness? That Greek word is icon. It’s the imprint of the face of Tiberius Caesar. Out of the money bag of one of his questioners. On the Temple Mount. I wonder if they even realized, as they answered His question, that He had just totally discredited them. “Why is there an image on the Temple Mount, guys? Why did you have this in your money bag if you are so concerned about holiness? Come on, the people who just sent you over on this mission were asking me about my authority to disrupt commerce on the Temple Mount and to teach people not to carry anything through the courts and lookie, lookie what you were carrying—by your own standards, a graven image.” *mic drop*
What about this inscription? Coins recovered from this time period, with the faces of the Caesars on them, also contain the inscription, “TI CAESAR DIVI AVG F AVGVSTVS”, Tiberius Caesar son of the divine Augustus. The reverse tells of his title as “PONTIFEX MAXIM” or head Priest of the Roman religion. That’s right, not only did they bring coins with the head of Tiberius up onto the Temple Mount, those coins also claimed that Augustus Caesar was divine and that Tiberius was his son, aka. the son of god. And before you say, “well, that’s why they needed money-changers on the Temple Mount” I will tell you that they could have done it somewhere else had they wanted to. This is a super awkward moment. Yeshua had no coins, so they had to give Him one. Right now, it is very apparent to anyone in the audience paying attention that they don’t object to using the coins. And Yeshua is about to tell them the price tag for using Caesar’s coinage. https://coins.www.collectors-society.com/wcm/CoinView.aspx?sc=321746
17 Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him.
They “marvelled at Him.” In other words, another group is silenced—this is the second group to be silenced, after the Sanhedrin delegation we discussed last week. But this is more than just a clever quip. Yeshua is talking about the price of doing business with Caesar. Of being under his thumb. Caesar has the power, he mints the coins in his own image (literally), he provides law and order (such as it is) and is only in charge in the first place because of the wickedness of the last two generations of Hasmonean priest-kings. The Jews begged Rome to get involved back in the mess with the Seleucid Greeks and then the Romans stepped in again to invade when things got out of hand in the early first century BCE. Their ancestors created their own occupation and chose their own occupiers. As in former days, when they would go to the Egyptians looking for help against the Assyrians and Babylonians and whoever, they didn’t trust God and it ended up a horrible mess.
It’s as though Yeshua is saying, “You really want this idolatrous coin? You want to hang on to more of them? Give them back. If we really hate idolatrous images as much as we say we do—then refuse to use his coins—unless, of course, we only hate the images on banners and busts and in statuary, but when it concerns money, you tolerate the image well enough.” And, I mean, this is the Pharisees too—not just the Herodians, who—well, of course they love the Roman coinage and no one expects any different of them.
And you might be thinking. “Well, Luke says that the Pharisees love money and this is about taxes and all that” but really, it all goes so much deeper. This isn’t about the coin, it’s about the claim on the coin. Tiberius Kesar “a son of a god” is suggesting that the Caesars are also owed worship—and remember how I told you about all the Latin loan words in Mark and how we believe that Mark wrote for a Roman audience? They were living in the midst of all the Imperial Cult demands—to worship not only Roma, Rome personified as a goddess, but also the Emperors themselves, sometimes the living ones and often the dead ones. During the life of Yeshua, Julius and Augustus were already being worshiped and there were Temples dedicated to them in all the provinces. People made sacrifices, poured out libations. The coins often had the goddess Roma and an Imperial Temple embossed on the opposite side from the imprint of the head of whatever Caesar minted the coin. This coin wasn’t simply saying that they were owed tribute, which is what the tax in question was here, it was a claim to their worship as devotees, something that Jews understood clearly but Roman Gentiles had to forgo at risk of life and limb.
18 And Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection. And they asked him a question, saying,
This is actually the first mention of Sadducees in this Gospel. Nothing is said about the Sadducees being sent, so perhaps they thought this would be a good idea—I mean, if they succeeded where everyone else failed it would be quite the coup! I want to spend a few minutes talking about the specific beliefs of the Sadducees, from Josephus. I want to say really quick here that the only overt reference in the entire Old testament/Tanach to the resurrection is found in Daniel 12:2-3, “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.” It can be argued from different places, but this is the only place that it is outright laid out. Of course, the Sadducees didn’t see this as authoritative. Should this bother us? Not really. Yeshua validates the world to come and eternal life, and the Pharisees were already teaching it as doctrine.
Josephus Wars 2.164-166 But the Sadducees are those that compose the second order, and take away fate entirely, and suppose that God is not concerned in our doing or not doing what is evil; and they say, that to act what is good, or what is evil, is at men’s own choice, and that the one or the other belongs so to every one, that they may act as they please. They also take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in Hades. Moreover, the Pharisees are friendly to one another, and are for the exercise of concord, and regard for the public; but the behavior of the Sadducees one towards another is in some degree wild, and their conversation with those that are of their own party is as barbarous as if they were strangers to them. And this is what I had to say concerning the philosophic sects among the Jews.
Ant 13.297-8 but of these matters we shall speak hereafter. What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the laws of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers. And concerning these things it is that great disputes and differences have arisen among them, while the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich, and have not the populace obsequious to them, but the Pharisees have the multitude on their side. But about these two sects, and that of the Essenes, I have treated accurately in the second book of Jewish affairs.
Ant 18.16- 17 But the doctrine of the Sadducees is this: That souls die with the bodies; nor do they regard the observation of any thing besides what the law enjoins them; for they think it an instance of virtue to dispute with those teachers of philosophy whom they frequent: but this doctrine is received but by a few, yet by those still of the greatest dignity. But they are able to do almost nothing of themselves; for when they become magistrates, as they are unwillingly and by force sometimes obliged to be, they addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees, because the multitude would not otherwise bear them.
And the later rabbis, you need to know, were really touchy about the resurrection. Here is m. Sanh 10.1, “All of the Jewish people, even sinners and those who are liable to be executed with a court-imposed death penalty, have a share in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “And your people also shall be all righteous, they shall inherit the land forever; the branch of My planting, the work of My hands, for My name to be glorified” (Isaiah 60:21). And these are the exceptions, the people who have no share in the World-to-Come, even when they fulfilled many mitzvot: One who says: There is no resurrection of the dead derived from the Torah, and one who says: The Torah did not originate from Heaven, and an epikoros, who treats Torah scholars and the Torah that they teach with contempt. Rabbi Akiva says: Also included in the exceptions are one who reads external literature, and one who whispers invocations over a wound and says as an invocation for healing: “Every illness that I placed upon Egypt I will not place upon you, for I am the Lord, your Healer” (Exodus 15:26). By doing so, he shows contempt for the sanctity of the name of God and therefore has no share in the World-to-Come. Abba Shaul says: Also included in the exceptions is one who pronounces the ineffable name of God as it is written, with its letters.”
19 “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife, but leaves no child, the man must take the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.
Nothing controversial here, this is just what Deut 25:5-10 outlines in the Torah. This is protection for widows carried out to extreme measures throughout the ancient world—this wasn’t just an Israel thing. When a woman contracted (through her father and her husband’s father) to become part of her husband’s family, they gave her certain protections in case she was widowed without sons. Sons, of course, would inherit their father’s portion of the estate and would thus provide for their mother. Without this protection, she could be abandoned by her husband’s family and left destitute. And so, it was the job of another brother to impregnate the widow and give her a son so that she would be provided for. Yeah, we are grossed out but marriage wasn’t a love connection—it was about heirs for the man and security for the women. It was a business arrangement. But here, the Sadducees think they are being all clever. I imagine this was a famous talking point that they would pull out whenever they wanted to irritate the Pharisees.
20 There were seven brothers; the first took a wife, and when he died left no offspring. 21 And the second took her, and died, leaving no offspring. And the third likewise. 22 And the seven left no offspring. Last of all the woman also died. 23 In the resurrection, when they rise again, whose wife will she be? For the seven had her as wife.”
I can like always just see the little smirk as they think they have Him cornered. It’s like people who argue over masks on social media with their clever little talking points that make me, as a scientist, want to rip out my eyeballs with a fork. Because, some people shouldn’t try to do science, okay? You don’t see me out there talking about computer programming, okay? If you don’t understand about particle size and the difference between gases and liquids and solids then just stop. There’s a difference between having an opinion about effectiveness and trying to sound scientific when you don’t understand the basics of chemistry and biology. You are only fooling the easily fooled. But, that has nothing to do with this so let’s get back to the topic. So, they have their clever little story and Yeshua is going to own them in a particularly satisfying manner.
You see, their real argument is that Moses wouldn’t legislate adultery and so there can be no resurrection. They have in their minds only one way that this can go—that things will continue on as they have always been in the world to come. Women will still be given in marriage. Men will still take wives. People will need to reproduce and they will still need heirs and women will still need the security of marriage. These men cannot imagine a world any different from the one they have always known. This is a problem. It assumes that the institutions of this world, that we need because of how things are now, will be necessary in the world to come.
24 Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God?
So, two really scathing insults here. “Is it any reason you are so totally wrong—when you are ignorant of the Scriptures and you have no respect or appreciation whatsoever for the absolute power and authority of God?” I mean, here you guys are with your little story and having God in your little box, thinking you have him hedged in with your little argument to satisfy your little agenda because you don’t think there is any resurrection and, given the fact that if I was living the way you guys are living, I wouldn’t want a final judgement either, you see exactly what you want to see and nothing more. Please, allow me to divest you of your blatant and irresponsible level of ignorance. Okay, maybe that’s a bit extreme but a girl can dream, right?
25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
He goes right back to their story about the woman and the seven brothers. When they (the woman and the brothers) are raised, they are no longer needing this human institution—not because they become angels. Geez, this verse gets abused but are only like the angels. And if they are like angels they are also unlike angels, otherwise it would say, “they become angels” which it doesn’t. But angels don’t need to get married. They are beyond that—angels exist to serve God and humans and hey, so are we. In the world to come, then, according to the expert—the entire male/female dichotomy is over once and for all. I mean, I am sure we will still be male and female but it won’t matter anymore. Men will no longer follow the ways of Adam in dominating women. And this verse is more important than it first seems for this reason. Right now there is so much angst within the Body of Messiah over like two verses in the writings of Paul that seem to subordinate women within the Body as to what we can and can’t do. Which, of course, ignores the historical context of the communities those two letters were written to and also ignores other verses that fly in the face of those two, when taken as hard and fast rules for all communities and all times. I taught the kids a few months ago on my other radio show, if something won’t be important to us or matter to us in the world to come—like color—should we treat one another differently about it now? Of course not. We are Kingdom people—if it will be true then we need to work for it now. We need to be respectful and not scandalize the rest of the world, which was Paul’s point in those two communities, but we can’t be ruled by the world either. We must be of the Kingdom even though we don’t see it completely around us. So, do we really think that men are going to still be dominant over women in the Kingdom? Or is that the only Genesis three consequence that we keep for all time, even though death and the curse on the ground are both long since dealt with? Just a bug in your ear there.
26 And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? 27 He is not God of the dead, but of the living. You are quite wrong.”
Right here is the kicker—they do not know the Scripture and they do not know His power. And the worst thing is that He used the Torah, which is the only text recognized by them as authoritative—so it’s like, “You guys don’t even know the short section of Scriptures that you are putting all your faith in.” Yahweh made promises to Abraham and His seed. In Gen 17:8, “And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.” Well, if there is no resurrection then Yahweh lied to Abraham. He said He would give the land to Abraham personally, and to Isaac and Jacob and their offspring. But until the generation after the Exodus, none of them possessed it. How can this be? Is Yahweh unfaithful? No, the only solution is that Abraham and His seed will possess the Land in the world to come. Abraham is not dead. Isaac is not dead. Jacob is not dead. I don’t know if they are asleep or with Yahweh right now. I don’t know how it works exactly—there are a lot of verses that say different things that I can’t reconcile right now and frankly I don’t care how it works. I trust that it does work and that Yahweh is just. Because He is just, there has to be a resurrection or injustice wins. More importantly, death wins. You can’t have a curse win! That doesn’t even make any sense at all. Sin wins if there is no resurrection. God loses if there is no resurrection. The only people who win would be the wicked who were rich and who did whatever they wanted and went unpunished—which is what the Sadducees were counting on.
We also see this same thing in Exodus 6:2-4 God spoke to Moses and said to him, “I am the Lord. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the Lord I did not make myself known to them. I also established my covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan, the land in which they lived as sojourners.” And this did not go unnoticed by the later Rabbis, who said in B. Sanh 90b, “It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Simai says: From where is resurrection of the dead derived from the Torah? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated with regard to the Patriarchs: “I have also established My covenant with them to give to them the land of Canaan” (Exodus 6:4). The phrase: To give to you the land of Canaan, is not stated, as the meaning of the verse is not that God fulfilled the covenant with the Patriarchs when he gave the land of Canaan to the children of Israel; rather, it is stated: “To give to them the land of Canaan,” meaning to the Patriarchs themselves. From here is it derived that the resurrection of the dead is from the Torah, as in the future the Patriarchs will come to life and inherit the land.”
And again, like the Sanhedrin delegation, and the Herodians and the Pharisees, the Sadducees are pictured here as silenced. Boom. Next week, we have a nice change of pace with a scribe who is not far from the Kingdom of Heaven and a controversy about the son of David.
