The Faith Of Sadducees

Please turn your Bibles to Luke chapter 20, that can be found on page 880 if you're using the

Pew Bible. Luke chapter 20, we will be looking at verses 27 to 38.

When you have that, please go ahead and stand for the reading of God's Word. There came to him some

Sadducees, those who deny that there is a resurrection. And they asked him a question, saying,

Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies having a wife but no children, the man must take the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.

Now there were seven brothers. The first took a wife and died without children. And the second and the third took her, and likewise all seven left no children and died.

Afterward, the woman also died. In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be?

For the seven had her as wife. And Jesus said to them, The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage.

But those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage.

For they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed 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 to him. Then some of the scribes answered,

Teacher, you have spoken well. For they no longer dared to ask him any question. Amen. You may be seated.

Dear Heavenly Father, we ask this day as your word is open before us that we would have words of life.

We pray that we would see the hope of the resurrection, and not only that, that we would be instructed by Christ's demeanor, his familiarity with the scripture.

We pray that you would equip us to face all enemies. We pray that you would equip us to face the great enemy that we have of the accuser, but then also those who speak on his behalf.

We pray that you would give us a great hope in the future, in the resurrection, but also great confidence in the work that you are doing even now.

In Jesus' name, amen. Well, as you should have been noticing throughout

Luke 20, if you have been here, that Jesus is responding to various opponents.

There are different opponents who have come at him. There are the scribes, the chief priests, the elders. And they have come at him.

They have come at him through spies as well. And they have given different arguments. And now he has a new set of opponents, the

Sadducees. And this really is the thing that ties together this whole chapter, is that there are various opponents of Jesus Christ who have come at him and are challenging him.

And so in each of these passages, we have something to learn about the doctrine that is addressed in that passage.

Like here, we have the resurrection that is addressed. But that is not necessarily the main thing that we should pay attention to and focus on.

Rather, we should also notice how Christ is instructing us in dealing with opponents.

How he himself, the great example for us, the one who is the author and defender of our faith, the author and architect of our faith, has resisted these opponents and answered them.

So we should gather both of these things. We should gather details about the resurrection, about the life to come.

And we should also gather information about how Christ is instructing us to live our life as we will face opponents.

Both of these must be considered. And so I would like to break this up into three different categories.

First, there is what we should know about the resurrection. And there is also how we should be interpreting Scripture. And lastly, how we should be arguing about Scripture, how we should be arguing with opponents of Jesus Christ.

But just to walk through this passage first, so that we understand what's being said here, starts off in this first verse.

There came to him some Sadducees who denied that there is a resurrection. So there are Sadducees. Luke explains to us what a

Sadducee is, or at least something about Sadducees. Sadducees deny the resurrection. They're essentially the ancient equivalent of modern -day liberals.

Modern -day liberal Christians deny things like the resurrection. They deny spiritual realities.

They deny angels, things like that. And so the Sadducees do. The Sadducees deny the existence of spirits.

They deny the existence of the resurrection. And they're also very particular about what passages that they consider as weighty, just as a modern -day liberal might only care about the red letters of Scripture and discount others.

So the Sadducees particularly care about the words of Moses, and they argue from the words of Moses.

So they give this doctrinal premise in verse 28. They ask him a question, saying,

So this is talking about Deuteronomy 25, Leveret marriages. Leveret marriages were marriages where if a man had died without having had a child, his brother, being free to marry, would have to marry that woman in order to produce offspring for his brother.

So his brother's name would be carried on. And his widow would not have to suffer dishonor.

Now, you see an example of that in Genesis 38, where Tamar had married Ur. Ur died, and then there was

Onan, and then Onan dies, and then so on. And so Tamar, because she had been wronged in this, because a

Leveret marriage had not been pursued as it ought, she ends up wrongly going about seeking union with Judah himself in order to produce offspring.

And it's from that line that we even have Jesus Christ. So there is in her desire to obtain the promise, which is a good desire, she'd use sinful means to pursue it, but that is one example that you have of Leveret marriages in Scripture.

So that is what this is talking about. They're talking about this law of Leveret marriages. Okay, Moses tells us this particular thing that we must do.

Now, in verse 29, it gives not the doctrinal premise, but the situational premise. It says, And likewise, all seven left no children and died.

Afterward, the woman also died. Okay, so it's describing the situation. It's explaining that she doesn't have children each time.

That's what motivates the additional marriage each time, that each brother is marrying this woman. And even the final one has no sons.

So there's nothing that really distinguishes these brothers. There's not one that has a son that would make him more her husband than any of the others.

So they're describing this situation as a setup, as a challenge for Jesus.

Because here's the question. The question is, Afterward, the woman also died. In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be?

For the seven had her as wife. Now, this seems to the

Sadducees to be kind of a preposterous situation, okay? If she had seven different husbands, you know, being monogamous with each one, she's going to wake up in the resurrection, if the resurrection were true, as a polygamist.

And certainly, this couldn't be the case. So therefore, the resurrection cannot be true.

They rejected the oral traditions of the Pharisees. And in their mind, this might be an example of Scripture triumphing over tradition.

That clearly, the resurrection cannot be true. Clearly, if you were just to take Moses out of his word, you would wind up at the conclusion that there is no resurrection.

Now, Jesus responds to that. He says, Okay, so he answers their objection.

He answers their hypothetical by explaining that they're starting off with wrong premises.

They don't understand the nature of the resurrection. They don't understand what it is that's even being argued for.

It's not that we would have the same kind of life that we do here. It's rather that there would be an entirely different kind of life in the resurrection.

Yes, it is a physical resurrection, but it's not one that entails all the same things of physical life here.

The sons of this age, that is, both believer and unbeliever alike who are here in this world, marry and are given in marriage for particular needs.

In Leverant marriages, what's the issue? The issue is, well, there is limited life, so there's a need to continue on a line, continue on a legacy.

Well, if there's no death, there's not a need for continuing on a legacy for children, etc.

Because you are your own legacy. You can continue on forever. There's not a need to pass something on.

And if there's no death, then the same thing is true for the widow, that she does not have to worry about being shamed.

So there's not the same needs that would drive us to marriage.

They are rather like the angels. They are sons of God, angels being occasionally called sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

So they are raised from the dead. They are like the angels, not necessarily bodily, not necessarily in every way.

They aren't like the angels bodily. But they are in terms of not dying, in terms of not having the same needs that people do here on this earth.

But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed 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 the

God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him. So now he goes on from answering their objection to giving his own positive case.

He says not only is it the case that your objection doesn't work because you don't even understand what our position is, but rather, in addition to that, you're wrong because if you were to take

Moses, you would believe in the resurrection. He is the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.

He's not the God of the dead, but of the living. All live to him, meaning that if he has saved someone, that salvation is for his purposes, that they might live unto him.

And that necessarily entails a resurrection. You see this throughout scripture. In the passages that we've been looking over in Isaiah, what motivates the resurrection and what motivates not just the resurrection, but God's salvation of his people in general, is that they are a chosen people for his purposes.

And if he has chosen them for purposes, then he can't simply discard with them because that would mean that his purposes are not good.

Rather, his purposes are to give life in order that they might live unto him.

This entails a continued protection. This is what Isaiah, or the

Lord in the book of Isaiah, consistently points to as motivating assurance of God's good hand in salvation, is that he picks a people not to discard them, but rather to preserve them for his purposes.

So he is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him. So first of all, the resurrection.

What should we be taking away from this about the resurrection? First of all, that there is a resurrection. There is a resurrection.

There is a bodily resurrection that will happen on the last day. That is the day that Christ returns and all will be raised from the dead bodily.

Both believer and unbeliever will be raised bodily. The believer will be raised to a glorious resurrection.

The unbeliever to a shameful resurrection. On that last day, if you can imagine that everyone will be lined up before the throne of judgment and you would see all the different people, it would be visibly obvious who the saints are and who those who are not holy are because they will have different qualities of resurrection.

And Jesus mentions that here. This is not just a statement that all will be raised from the dead.

He speaks of those who are worthy to attain to that age. Now, he doesn't describe how exactly one becomes worthy.

It's explained elsewhere in Scripture that worthiness happens through him. That through trusting in Jesus Christ, you can have his righteousness and alien righteousness that's credited to you in order that you may stand before the

Lord. But he speaks of some being worthy to attain to that age. Now, everyone will still exist in that age but only some will have status in that age.

So that's what he means by attaining to that age. They will have honor then.

And this is something that he describes as happening to all. He says all live to him. Now, that's another thing that people might look at and get the wrong idea.

Well, if he's describing all living to him, then that means that all will be resurrected, that all will be saved.

And so Jesus is advocating for universalism, the idea that everyone will be saved. Scripture speaks like this frequently.

When it has in mind a particular group of people, it will speak of all, it will speak of the entirety of that group of people.

And Romans, it speaks of all having been condemned through the actions of one man.

So it is the case that all will be justified through the righteousness of one man. That does not mean that every single person will be made righteous.

Rather, it is talking about those who are under that headship. Just like with Adam, everyone was under Adam, so it is with Christ that everyone who is under Christ will be justified.

So when he says all here, he's talking about all who attain to that age, all who are counted worthy. The idea of being counted worthy suggests that some will not be counted worthy.

So there is a judgment as well. There is not just a resurrection of gloriousness for everyone, but there is also likewise a resurrection that is to judgment.

Now, all will stand before Christ in judgment, but some particularly to be condemned in judgment because they do not have true righteousness, the only righteousness that can come from Jesus Christ.

Now, one other doctrine that I think this is very helpful to counter is the idea of hyper -preterism.

If you've never heard of this, preterism refers to a kind of interpretation. In each passage that talks about the future, you can interpret it in different ways.

You can interpret it in a futurist way. That means that it is still in the future for us today.

You can interpret it in a historicist way. That means that it happened sometime in the past couple of millennia.

You can interpret it in an idealist way, which means it's kind of always happening. Or you can interpret it in a preterist way, which means it happened really soon after Jesus Christ.

So it happened in the future relative to him speaking, but it was very soon after, like within a generation. Now, preterism is not a dirty word.

There are some passages that you should interpret as coming very soon after Jesus Christ.

There are some passages that you should interpret as not having been fulfilled at all. There are some passages you should interpret as having been fulfilled in the past several millennia, and there are some passages that you should interpret as being fulfilled constantly.

So no one of those is a right thing. They are right and wrong depending on the passage that you are looking at.

Sometimes people will speak of any one of those categories as a wrong category. They are all right categories depending on the verse that you are looking at.

Now, what a hyperpreterist is is someone who counts way too many things as having been fulfilled right after Jesus Christ.

So a hyperpreterist would say, okay, the resurrection was sometime after Jesus Christ, but it was really soon after Jesus Christ.

We've got some passages in the New Testament where Paul says the resurrection hasn't happened yet, and it hadn't happened yet, but it happened really soon after Paul.

And in fact, the resurrection has already happened, and when we die, we have some kind of spiritual life that we enjoy, and that is the resurrection.

Okay, so that's what hyperpreterism would be, is if you count... It's especially the resurrection if you count the resurrection as something that happened, that has already happened.

Now, this is an excellent passage to respond to hyperpreterism. It's my favorite passage to respond to hyperpreterism because it describes this in terms of ages.

It talks about the sons of this age. It talks about those who attain to the next age. Now, these two ages refer to the time when there is resurrection and the time where there's not resurrection.

And the time that there's not resurrection is a time where there's marriage, where there's still marriage, so that means the resurrection has not yet happened.

Now, a hyperpreterist could say, well, you shouldn't interpret this as talking about ages. You should interpret this as talking about worlds.

Sometimes the word here is used to speak of worlds, but it speaks of ages as characterized by particular qualities, and that's why sometimes it would be translator's world.

It really does refer to ages. It's not talking about two overlapping times where you have some sons of this age and some sons of the next age.

It talks about sons of the age as even including us who are saved.

Even those who are saved are sons of this age, so it's not just distinguishing saved and unsaved or anything like that, but it is distinguishing two distinct time periods.

The resurrection has not yet happened. Now, maybe you've never encountered that, and you're very blessed if you have not, but occasionally you will find this, that people are hyperpreterist and believe that much of Scripture has already been fulfilled in such a way that it really leaves us without much application today other than some kind of small measures of personal piety or something like that.

A lot of those who are hyperpreterist abandon the Church because they don't see a need to follow things like the

Lord's Supper, because if this is something that we're supposed to do until Christ returns, and that return has already sort of happened, it happened in 70

AD with the destruction of the Temple or something like that, there's really no need for any Church ordinances, no need for the Church, et cetera.

So it's a very problematic doctrine. I find this an incredibly helpful passage to respond to it.

So there is a resurrection. There is a judgment. We should reject any kind of other alternative to that.

Now, this also tells us about the qualities of the resurrection. The resurrection has certain qualities.

So we will have a life that is like the angels. Once again, that's not referring to bodily.

The whole thing that Jesus is arguing for is a bodily resurrection, but we'll be like the angels and that we will not have the same needs that people do here on this earth.

So for example, we will no longer be subject to death. Another thing that's not explicitly mentioned here but is implicit is that we will exist in great quantities.

Now, it's the case that the way is narrow. Few will find it. Yet at the same time, the quantity of people that Jesus will gather on that last day will be great enough that it will be like the angels, more than the stars of the heavens, et cetera, these figures that God gives us, more than the sands of the sea.

I don't necessarily mean that in a literal way, but in the way that God intends it, that it will be such great quantities that they'll be innumerable.

It'll not be something where you can see any sort of lack. That is how the angels are now.

There are many armies of them. There are hosts of angels. That's what the word host means. It means army.

And so it will be that we will exist in such great quantities that there won't be the need for progeny for that reason also.

I mentioned honor already. There wouldn't be a need for continued marriage and for continued offspring because there would not be a need to pass on a legacy because you wouldn't die.

But likewise, it will be the case that there will be so many brothers and sisters around you that the need to populate the earth to be fruitful and multiply in that way will have been completed.

So what this speaks to is the fulfillment of multiple things, not just that we will have life, but that the people will exist in such great quantity that there won't be a loneliness among God's people that warrants that same kind of command to be fruitful and multiply.

If you've never considered this before, one more reason to believe that there wouldn't be continued offspring in heaven is because of God's purposes in making a redeemed people for himself.

One of the main things that distinguishes angels and humans is that God came to save humans, the offspring of Abraham.

He did not come to save angels. And that characterizes us in such a way where the angels long to look into it.

They want to know about the salvation that those that God has saved among humanity enjoy and God has created us in a special way that we might enjoy it in a special way.

We are created with particular weaknesses even in order that we might enjoy it. And so what would it mean for God to continue creating new people after that last day?

There would be... They would not be a redeemed people. They would be a people who already know protection, already know safety, that already know life and do not need

Jesus Christ, would not be thankful to him in the same way that we are able to be thankful that not even the angels are.

So there will not be two classes of people, those who are thankful for salvation and those who cannot be thankful for salvation because they didn't receive it.

But there will just be the redeemed. So an additional reason to, beyond simply

Christ's own words, that there would not be continued marriage and offspring in heaven.

Now moving on from the resurrection itself because this passage is not designed to be an exhaustive explanation of the resurrection, though it is a little more exhaustive than the doctrines that were addressed before in this passage, but it exists in this passage to describe to you the way that Jesus handles opponents.

I would have us next turn to the issue of interpretation. How should

Scripture be interpreted? One word for the interpretation of Scripture is hermeneutics.

That comes from the Greek word to interpret. If you ever heard the term hermeneutics, that's what it's referring to is just how you interpret

Scripture. This is one of my favorite passages likewise, not just to talk about hyper -preterism, but also to talk about the interpretation of Scripture.

I think it should be very sobering for many people when they see the way that Jesus interprets Scripture. I think every one of us should put ourselves in the shoes of the disciples listening to this and wondering, if we did not know that Christ was the

Messiah, if we did not know that Jesus was who he is, and we heard a mere man make this argument, or let's say that you had not read this part of the

Bible. Somehow you had read all the rest of the Bible, but not these particular parts in the

Gospels that tell you about this, and you heard someone make this argument. He's the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

He's not the God of the dead, but the living all live to him. You heard that as an argument for the resurrection. What would your response be?

I would guess that the vast majority of modern -day Christians would reject that argument entirely.

They say, that's a gross mishandling of Scripture, even if the doctrine is true. That is a gross mishandling of Scripture to just take some narrative, detail that he's the

God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and then say that, well, he's not the God of the dead of living, even though they're dead right now, and will live eventually, and so that means that there's a resurrection?

You should place yourself in their shoes and ask, would I have received this argument from Jesus Christ? And if the answer is no, something needs to change about the way that you interpret

Scripture, because you are not interpreting Scripture the way that Jesus is. Many people will talk about the way that you interpret

Scripture as being equivalent of the way that you would interpret any other book.

They'll talk about the grammatical, historical hermeneutic. If you've ever heard about that, that's good.

It's good to consider what the grammar is saying, the historical context, et cetera, but there are so many other details about the way that God has given us this book that should drive us to understand it more fully.

He has told us the purpose of this book, that the purpose is to correct us, instruct us.

2 Timothy 3, 16 through 17 says that all of Scripture is useful for correction and for reproof.

So if you take some passages and you say, this is just narrative, this is just telling us about history, this is not telling us anything that could possibly reprove us, you are not interpreting it as fully as you ought to interpret it.

Or if you are interpreting it in a way where you're seeing it as the words of man and not as the words of the

Holy Spirit, where it's designed to come together as a cohesive unit and all interact with one another, all culminating in the revelation of Jesus Christ himself as being our salvation, you are missing the main message of Scripture.

And many Christians do this. Many people who believe that the Bible is authored by the Spirit fail to read it as a document written by a single author in that way.

And it should shape so many of the ways that we read it. Here as we see

Jesus point to that promise of life that all live to him, that God has given us a pattern of saving his people in such a way that we could not, we could not even entertain the idea that they would just stay dead forever.

That must drive us to hope in the resurrection and to come to many conclusions interpreting the

Scriptures more fully than many might. There are several categories to consider here.

The way our confession, the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith talks about this is that there are some doctrines that are expressly set forth in Scripture.

Okay, that's a doctrine where it's just said point blank and that's how it is. And there are things that are necessarily contained in Scripture.

That means it's not expressly put forth but if you put all the pieces together and you really are reading it all in context and you're understanding

God's purposes in it you will come to that conclusion. There's a lot of debate around this term but when someone is very willing to take the express statements but then hesitates for many of the logical conclusions when it's all taken together in context all the things that are necessarily contained and they take a lot of the express statements and they demand express statements when someone tries to follow the logical conclusions farther.

That's often known as Biblicism. There's a lot of debates around whether or not that's an appropriate term to use for people but I think it's a useful one.

I think it's a useful category to say you need to be more willing to follow Scripture to its logical conclusions and not demand express statements everywhere.

That is not the way that Christ is interpreting Scripture. Express statements are good when God gives them to us but he has called us to interpret it completely.

Now what are the restraints on this? How do you interpret rightly? There's what is known and I know

I'm giving you a lot of vocabulary right now. If you forget the vocabulary and just remember the doctrine that's fine but having the vocabulary may be helpful to you in the future if you ever hear it.

It's known as the Analogia Fide or the Analogy of Faith. What that means is there are different ways that doctrine is set forward.

In some ways it's in very clear ways and in some ways it's analogous but less clear. The clear passages or even clear doctrines as they're taken together with all

Scripture have to interpret the less clear passages. Now that would be the case here where you have a passage that says

I'm the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. What doctrines should be controlling how we interpret that passage?

Well the doctrine of God giving life to his people. The doctrine of God saving his people.

That is important enough when we see David delivered from death as he prays to God for him to be delivered from death.

Certainly it can't mean that he's just delivered a few times and then that's it. But rather that there must be a resurrection.

And as God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob surely there must be a resurrection for them as well.

And so these clearer doctrines have to interpret less clear doctrines. Clearer passages have to interpret less clear passages.

One of my favorite examples of that and you should be thinking about this not as just clear passages like you have to have another express statement but just clear doctrines.

If you have a clear doctrine that many texts together have come together to show that can interpret the other.

So for example in 1 Samuel 15 twice in that passage it speaks of God regretting.

And so it says God regretted that he made Saul king. But then later on in that passage he says that he's not a man that he should regret or change his mind.

So how do you take those two things together? Well whenever we describe God's actions they're necessarily anthropomorphic.

He is not a man. He doesn't act like us. But the only way we could understand his actions you know when he speaks he's not speaking by the way we are by moving his lips.

When he acts he's not subject to time the way we are. It's all analogous.

It's all anthropomorphic. Even being described like a man. And so his actions are anthropomorphic but statements about his being are more precise.

So when it says that he is not man that he should regret or change his mind that statement that he is not capable of regret has to control the statement that he does regret.

We understand that okay this doesn't mean that he made a mistake. It just means that there is some displeasure that the

Bible is explaining to us with using the human emotion of regret.

Okay so that would be one example of this. Another good example of what people might call biblicism is where someone understands some truths about God but then is not willing to accept the doctrine of the

Trinity because there's no verse that says God is triune. Well that you'd have to collect from many different passages all together that is a bunch of truths placed into one.

The fact that Jesus is God. The fact that the Father is God. The fact that the Spirit is God. The fact that they are not the same person.

The Father is not the Spirit. The Spirit is not the Father. The Son is not the Spirit. Et cetera. All these things put together give you the doctrine of the

Trinity. You're not going to find all of that in a single verse. So it would be one extreme example of biblicism would be to reject the

Trinity because you can't find a verse that says God is triune. But this exists all over and it exists in a lot more places where people feel very uncomfortable accepting any kind of more developed doctrine from people who have been studying the

Bible more fully. For example, you see this a lot in the nature of creation.

Because the creation account is limited, abbreviated there is a lot of doctrine that is implied from there that is not expressly set forth but we are still supposed to take into account.

When Jesus interacted with the Pharisees about divorce what were they doing?

They were looking for express statements. They're saying, well Moses said that it was okay to divorce a woman in the context of this law so therefore it must be in general.

Just because there's no penalty in civil law that must mean there's no actual moral penalty in God's courts.

Because they can't find a verse that says well it would be wrong to divorce for these various reasons. And what does

Jesus respond to them with? From the beginning it was not so. The two became one flesh. For this reason man shall leave his father and mother.

The two shall become one flesh. This is his argument against them saying that their divorces that they would allow for are okay.

Once again, if you were to hear that argument two shall be one flesh how does that argue against divorce?

If you lived in a society where the kind of divorces that exist back then over small things were prevalent maybe you would say well that verse doesn't say that.

No, Jesus is saying creation itself implies this. The fact that God has brought them together implies that it would be so that they would not be separated unless there was an actual a full and final violation of the covenant or death parting them.

That's one interesting thing about the Sadducees here is they're ignoring the fact that well death actually breaks the covenant.

The covenant is for life and they seem to think that it would extend even beyond this particular life.

So don't be like the Pharisees where you were just reading individual expressed passages and not drawing from the whole of what

God has given in creation itself. You see that elsewhere in creation? Many people when it comes to the

Sabbath our church is one that in our doctrine the Sabbath is a the first day of the week is the

Christian Sabbath. Now many people would say well I don't see anywhere that says that Lord's Day is a

Sabbath. Well you do have a statement in Hebrews 4 a direct one that says that there remains a

Sabbath for the people of God. But let's say you were to discount that. Would it not be the case that even before the

Ten Commandments you have the people observing the Sabbath? And is it not the case that the

Fourth Commandment motivates itself by the fact that God rested on the seventh day so therefore there must be one day in seven.

If it's saying that that is the argument what it's appealing to is the nature of creation much the same way

Jesus is appealing to creation when he argues against divorce. You can see this in all kinds of places.

There's all different all different things when it comes to the way that especially the way that the world has been created.

One conversation I had with a friend recently at the beginning of Genesis we were asking whether or not it was it would be wrong and particularly demonic or satanic meaning and think about the way the word satanic is used.

Satanic is not just really really really bad. That's what a lot of people mean by satanic. Satanic meaning imitating

Satan imitating the accuser. So in Genesis 3 if you were to ask the question is it satanic to suggest a reversal of roles in the home where the man stays at home and watches the kids and the woman goes out and provides.

I pulled up the passage Genesis 3 16 and 17

To the woman he said I will surely multiply your pain and childbearing and pain you shall bring forth children your desire shall be contrary to your husband but he shall rule over you.

And to Adam he said because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I command you you shall not eat of it cursed is the ground because of you and pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life.

Now in part I was pointing to your desire shall be contrary to your husband and he shall rule over you.

Excuse me because you listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten the tree. So Satan tempted the man to reverse the role to not have authority requiring his wife to submit but rather submitting to his wife because he listened to her.

So there is a reversal of roles that's happening here. And the response I got well that's just talking about authority that's not talking about anything else.

But in this whole passage you have the nature of roles not just talking about authority but talking about activity as well.

What is the woman's activity? I will surely multiply your pain and childbearing. Okay so there's the activity of children of bringing forth children caring for them and then of the man cursed is the ground because of you and pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life.

So his role is to provide. So if there's a reversal of role and authority and that that is and Satan tempted into that why not make the same application to the reversal of role and activity?

Well naturally that would be a reasonable thing to do if you're willing to draw those conclusions and not requiring an express proof text at every step.

And is it not the case that they reverse activity? Is it not the case that that was Satan's temptation?

Here go provide for your husband. Right this is at least this is what Eve ended up doing.

Eve ends up providing the fruit. Adam was supposed to be gathering the fruit and she ends up providing the fruit to him.

So it is important to be able to follow these steps. You might have difficulty doing so.

If you have difficulty doing so it is because you have not been associated enough with the word to be able to put together the pieces.

Now I'm not saying everybody that makes a wild claim or a claim that is new to you is necessarily right.

But many times this comes from being familiar enough with scripture that you're able to draw these connections and they will not seem obvious to you until you are sufficiently familiar with scripture in order to be able to do so.

You must read scripture deeply and study it deeply in order to be able to come to these conclusions.

When people point to context as being an important way to read scripture that should not just equip you to shut down all interpretation that doesn't have an immediate context.

That opens you up to understand the depths of scripture as you bring in the wholeness of the context.

A lot of times it's like a language. If you have a native speaker of a language they understand what words put together mean.

They might not understand all the reasons why even sometimes. But if you are familiar with scripture it's like that.

One of the experiences I've had in my life is I took a first year Tagalog course and I would come across phrases that I wouldn't understand why they would mean what they mean.

And I would ask a native speaker and they would not be able to answer me even though they perfectly understand in their head that of course it means that.

But they wouldn't be able to explain grammatically why. It's just familiarity with the language. This is often what's happening when you spend enough time in scripture.

A lot of this becomes more instinctual even if you're not able to express every last step that it takes to get there.

Now it is good to be able to articulate those steps but it will come naturally likewise even just as you read.

And you become more familiarity with the idioms of scripture with the fulfillments of scripture. Much of what has shaped my understanding of scripture is just reading through Isaiah and then looking at the places the

New Testament interprets Isaiah. Wow, that is not the way most people think to interpret Isaiah but the New Testament is consistently interpreting

Isaiah in a very different way than I would think to. And so this just shapes the way that I'm thinking about it.

Yes, this is ultimately fulfilled in Christ. And that's just my natural go -to. Of course this is talking about the blessings on God's church.

This is not just usually not talking just about something that happens in the new heavens and the new earth. Many times it's something that we enjoy today.

I was actually recently reading Richard Sibbes. He's a Puritan. His book called

I think it's An Invitation to the Marriage Feast of the Land something like that. And it's a book that's interpreting

Isaiah 26 .5. And I remember when I went through Isaiah 26 .5 some of my conversations with people were of the nature of how can you take that as applying to now.

It seems to be only something to this future. I was very happy to see that he interpreted it primarily as being about the feast that we enjoy now on a weekly basis as we come to enjoy the

Lord. There is something to be gained from consistently going through these passages looking at them.

It becomes more natural more instinctual to interpret with the fullness of context taking the examples of the apostles and prophets taking

God's purposes folding those all in and understanding what you should be led to believe about scripture.

Now beyond interpretation so we've talked about resurrection interpretation there's also argumentation.

Some notes about argumentation. This objection that Jesus receives from the

Sadducees what is the nature of the objection? They offer an internal critique.

An internal critique is where someone says that your position is inconsistent with itself. You believe

Moses you believe this law you believe that Moses basically is teaching people to ultimately become polygamists and that seems inconsistent.

But what is their problem? Their problem is they don't understand all the details and so they're wrongly bringing in assumptions from their world and placing them in there.

Well there aren't angels so people can't be like the angels. Life in this world must be the same as life in that world.

And this is exactly what happened before. What was the problem with the spies and their question about taxation when they say should we render taxes to Caesar?

It's that they don't understand that Christ's kingdom is not of this world. They're making assumptions about the nature of Christ's kingdom and so are the

Sadducees. The Sadducees are making assumptions about the nature of Christ's kingdom that it's just like this world would be.

Oh no. It is something different. And so you have to be on guard for that. That that is the nature of all objections.

Basically all objections to the faith will take some kind of shape like that. It is consistent within itself.

The only way that you could object to it is if you take something, some lie into it and assume that it's believing some lie at the same time.

And so you have to identify that lie and then expose it. And show, no you don't understand what we even mean.

This is not what we believe. It is in fact that people will be like the angels.

People will be like the angels. Okay so be ready for those kinds of attacks.

Secondly, you should be able to distinguish between the different kinds of people that will come at you or at the faith.

And that is an important distinction. The distinction between at you and at the faith. Jesus in these first two attacks is being attacked personally.

He's first asked tell us by what authority you do these things. Okay so his authority is being challenged.

Secondly, when they ask about should we render deceit or taxes, they are trying to challenge him once again in the nature of his kingdom.

They're trying to trap him. They don't really care about understanding taxation. They don't really care to prove one point or another.

They're just trying to trap him. And so the way he gives answers in these is very different. In the first one he doesn't even answer.

He just says I'm not going to answer you unless you answer my question. In the second one he gives a very limited response.

He says render to Caesar what is Caesar's. Render to God what is God's. To the Sadducees, because they're not attacking him personally so much as they are attacking the faith, true doctrine, and that really is their point, he is giving a more full response because of that.

So take note of the way that Jesus is responding to these people differently. The first one, that answer wouldn't satisfy and so being wise as serpents and gentle as doves, he just says

I'm not going to answer unless you answer. The second one, he has an answer that would satisfy. There's a distinction between this kingdom and that kingdom.

My kingdom's not of this world. Render to Caesar what's Caesar's. Render to God what's God's. This one, more full because they are not attacking him personally and trying to trap him personally.

Of course, they are trying to trap him doctrinally but the point is not to, it's not the same kind of thing where they're trying to get him in trouble with authorities.

That's not the point here. The authorities are fine with the resurrection. The authorities don't care about belief in the resurrection in this case.

They're a minority group and so they're trying to, they're trying to trap him in a different way and he's willing to give a more full answer.

He not only responds to their objection but then he gives a, then he gives a, a positive case as well.

So he, so he gives a defense and then he gives an offensive statement.

Offensive not meaning provocational just meaning going on the offense. So notice how he gives his defensive statement, how he justifies his position.

He is willing to answer them. He doesn't just give a question like he did before, whose image is on the coin or where did

John's authority come from? He gives them a direct answer and he says, and he says that the sons of this age marry and are given a marriage.

So he shows that, he shows the problems with their assumptions. They're assuming that it'd be like this age but rather it's a different age.

Notice he's willing to entertain their hypothetical too. There's a lot of times that people will not be willing to entertain hypotheticals because they think they're too far fetched.

Now sometimes people will give you hypotheticals just to show the difficulty of applying something.

They'll say, oh, what about this really difficult case to apply your ethics? Would it be right or wrong to, okay, you say we should attend church every week but let's say you're deathly in bed and et cetera, et cetera.

Well, then you shouldn't go. Well, let's say you're kind of half sick and then they try to find just this really obscure situation just to show that it might be hard to apply in some case.

Okay, that doesn't necessarily need to be answered. That's just, yeah, sometimes ethics are hard. But a hypothetical that expresses a real sense of inconsistency, not just difficulty, but inconsistency ought to be answered.

I've noticed several times that I will present hypotheticals to people and they will not answer them because they just sound too far fetched.

Even if this is far fetched, it's still a, if it were right, if the premises were accurate, it still would be a legitimate question.

And so he is willing to answer that. He doesn't just say this is too crazy, I'm not answering it. So he answers the hypothetical and in addition to that, notice that he stays within their premises.

So the way that he answers this is by, when he goes on the offense, he stays within their premises of Moses.

So when you go on the offense, there's two steps to any kind of argument. First would be the internal critique, and this might all be implicit.

First would be the internal critique where you show why your opponent's position is incorrect and the second would be the positive case.

Now Jesus folds both of those together. He's showing both that they are inconsistent and that he is correct in the same statement.

So he's moved from defense where he's explaining the consistency of the, you might call it a Pharisaical position.

That's a good thing in this context. In Acts, Paul says that I'm on trial for being a Pharisee because I believe in the resurrection.

So Jesus defending this position explains the consistency of it, but now having moved from defense, moving to offense, he folds together both an internal critique and a positive case.

The internal critique is you claim to believe in Moses, but Moses says in the very first revelation that God has ever given to him, in Exodus 3, that he is the

God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. So he could have, Jesus could have appealed to any passage of scripture.

He could have appealed to Daniel. He could have appealed to Isaiah. There are some great resurrection passages in those, but those would have not been an internal critique on the

Sadducees who, the history's a bit fuzzy on this, but a lot of people believe they only believe the first five books of the

Bible. So Jesus makes an argument from Moses, saying, okay, you're going to make an argument from Moses, I'll make an argument from Moses.

You don't believe Moses. You think I don't believe Moses, you don't believe Moses. And he explains that in the very first revelation

God ever gave Moses implies that there is a resurrection. Notice what Jesus also could have said.

He said this was the event at the burning bush. Who was it that spoke to Moses at the burning bush? The angel of the

Lord, it was him. Jesus is the angel of the Lord. He spoke to Moses. He could have appealed to his own revelation, but he appeals to Moses.

He says, Moses said this because Moses wrote it down even though he was the one to originally say it. So he sticks to their, he sticks to their premises in order to make an internal critique and show the inconsistency of their position.

But this, part of the genius of this answer is it also doubles as a positive case for his, that there must be a resurrection because Scripture says that there is.

He doesn't bother explaining further. In Daniel, Isaiah, he just makes the case from here. And this is a, this is a sufficient case for the resurrection.

So, don't just, don't just defend yourself. Also go on the offensive.

Remember that this is what Christ has done repeatedly. Okay, he did not just say, well, I won't answer you.

Then he goes on to tell a parable to explain what the chief priests and the elders are doing.

Right, and so he goes on the offensive there. And then he doesn't just say, well, render to Caesar what Caesar's.

He also says render to God what's God's so that he's appealing to the same parable of the tenants on the vineyard.

He's saying, you haven't rendered to God what is God's. So he goes on the offensive repeatedly. And here he goes on the offensive again.

He answers their question, but then he says, and you are wrong about this, there is a resurrection because God is not the

God of the dead, but of the living. He's the God of Abraham. He's the God of Isaac. He's the God of Jacob. Go on the offensive and make those cases.

Now, when you give a positive case, and this is important, part of the reason why

Jesus is able to fold those together and make an internal critique, show their inconsistency, and also give a positive critique, or a positive case at the same time, is because they, it is coming from Scripture.

They believe the first five books. He's able to make an argument from the first five books. There are some times when you can do this.

Right, when the Jehovah's Witness talks to me, I'm willing to go to those passages of the

New World Translation that speak of the deity of Jesus Christ sufficiently clearly, even though they disagree with the deity of Christ, and I will make an argument from that in as much as it is a proper translation of Scripture.

Now, you could show the inconsistency of other religions from something like the Koran. You could say, look, the

Koran says that you're supposed to listen to the testimony of Christians. Why aren't you listening to the testimony of Christians?

You could do that, but that wouldn't be a sufficient positive case. The reason is because it would not be from the right authority.

The goal should be to get people to bow to God's authority, and that only comes from presenting His word. You must present

His authority, and it is only through His word that the Spirit would work in them to actually transform them, which is likewise the goal.

So if you were to do something like this, it would only work with someone who, like Jesus did, where He melds the two together, the internal critique and the positive case together.

You could only do that if someone already agrees with some portion of Scripture. But otherwise, you would show the inconsistency of their position, and then you present the positive case from Scripture.

That's where, for example, you could go to Daniel, Isaiah, even if they don't agree with it and say, but our position is true.

This is what God's word says on its authority. Contend for the faith.

Don't just go on the defensive. It's more comfortable that way. It's a lot easier, but go on the offensive.

Take the opportunities you have, and we're going to see that later. After this passage, the scribes are silent.

Jesus doesn't just let off at that point. He presses on the gas, keeps going on the offensive even after they've become silent.

So, putting all this together, applications, resurrection, anticipate the resurrection. It is coming.

We are most to be pitied if there is no resurrection, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15. It is coming.

This gives us reason for joy. This gives us reason for hope. This gives us reason not to despair at the things in this world, at death, because there is a great life to come.

Second, interpret Scripture fully. Interpret it fully. Know the whole context of Scripture, including its purposes, including its author, following the example of Jesus and the apostles, being willing to take it to the fullest lengths.

Do not stop short. There's no... One way I often put this is there's no safe ditch. A lot of people think they're safer by sticking to express statements.

That's not a safe ditch. It was not a safe ditch for the Sadducees. Take Scripture to the full extent of it, and that requires being very familiar with Scripture, knowing it well, in order that you can do that, in order that you can be familiar with its idiom and language, that it would just become more instinctual to you and you wouldn't need a very large diagram of how to get from one place to another.

And then argue victoriously. Take the steps that Jesus takes.

He figures out who it is that is speaking to them. He's discerning that. It says repeatedly that he understands what they're up to, and so he responds accordingly.

He doesn't just walk into their trap, and then he responds differently. When they are attacking him and just trying to get him in trouble with authorities, he speaks very differently and more guardedly than when they are just attacking doctrine.

And so speak more fully when people are attacking doctrine versus when they're trying to get you in trouble with an authority. And say all that needs to be said.

Make the defensive clarification about your position, about the truth of the gospel, so that it wouldn't appear inconsistent.

Then make the offensive statement, which is both a critique of their position as well as a positive case.

Do all that, and be willing to be bold and go on the offensive and contend for the faith, as it says in Jude 3.

We should contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. All these things can be done by the goodness of the gospel.

Now this is not given to us so expressly in this passage, but once again, if we take the whole context of Luke and the whole context of scripture, it is plain how this pertains to the gospel.

The resurrection is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. He has been raised from the dead. It is through him that we have life.

It is through him that we can be counted worthy, that we might live unto God and be free from death.

You see Peter make the same argument in Acts 3 .13. The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the

God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, whom he delivered and denied in the presence of Pilate when he decided to release him.

So what's the point there? The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of the resurrection, resurrected

Jesus Christ. It's through Jesus Christ that we have the resurrection of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that we will have our own resurrection.

All this is through Jesus Christ. Secondly, interpretation. How is it that we might interpret scripture fully?

God has given us his spirit in order that we might understand spiritual truths in order that we might interpret them in light of his, of Christ's coming, in light of this one author of scripture.

He has likewise set an example for us. He has likewise been the fulfillment of all of the revelation of scripture that we might interpret it in light of his work.

All those things are true. So once again, it is through the gospel of Jesus Christ that we might interpret scripture more fully.

And then it is through the gospel of Jesus Christ that we might argue victoriously. Not only has he given us an example, an example that even nature teaches a lot of this stuff in some ways, but he has given us a guarantee that the word will go forward powerfully by the work of the spirit.

We live in the age of the Great Commission. It was not always the case that there was such a blessing on the message of truth, but we live in an era where there is that blessing on the message of truth that God would accomplish his purposes in it, that it would not return void.

So go forward confidently knowing that his word will not return void. It will accomplish his purposes.

Christ has given us an example, but he is also the power by which we can follow in his example.

He is the power by which we know that there will be success in that example. This does not mean that that success will always take the form that you want it to take.

I have no reason to think that all the Sadducees came away from this all converted. They may have continued to reject

Jesus, but those who are watching on learned from him. And perhaps many spiritual spirits were stirred.

And I know that many have read these words of Luke and had their spirits stirred. So God still accomplishes his purpose by his word.

Go forward victoriously because Christ has given victory. Amen. Amen. Dear Heavenly Father, we thank you for the words of Jesus Christ that teach us of the resurrection, that teach us how to interpret his own word, that teach us how to deal with opponents.

We thank you that it is by his power that we are able to do so. We pray that you would instruct our minds, but likewise that you would give life to our hearts so we might follow in your ways, enjoying the eternal life that can only be had through the alien righteousness of Jesus Christ.