29. On the same day, Sadducees came to him and said, “There is no resurrection” etc., up to, They were astounded by his teaching ^[253]. Mark and Luke have said things of equivalent force or indeed the same as [Matthew’s] account, with different readings in some small details ^[254]. On the same day: Which day but [the one] when “the Pharisees came and took counsel against him so that they might entrap him in speech” ^[255], and they made inquiry with regard to the matter of the tax? For it was fitting, when our Savior answers concerning the tax, and says, “Render therefore to Caesar the things of Caesar and to God the things of God” ^[256], and they <all> marvel at his answer, that the Sadducees might suppose, when they saw his intelligent answers, that either through the difficulty they have their own better word to present, saying that there is no resurrection for those who are hoping for it, or perhaps even to learn how there could be a resurrection according to writing of Moses and what kind of life it will be for those who are raised. Do observe that almost every teaching of our Savior at this time comes in reply to questions. First “when he comes to the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people come to him while teaching and they say, ‘By what sort of authority do you do these things? And who gave to you this authority?’” ^[257], to which he replies with the question concerning John, thinking it right to decline to answer because of their intention. Then after this he speaks a parable about the two children, one which does <not> consent to work “in the vineyard” and yet works, and the other who promises [to work] but does not work ^[258]. Then after this he speaks the parable about the vineyard and the vineyard tenants who kill the servants and the son ^[259], which is followed by another parable about those called to the wedding feast ^[260]. And after this Matthew recorded a second question about the tax ^[261], and a third difficult problem from the Sadducees about the resurrection ^[262]. But there is indeed a fourth questioning after this which comes from a certain Pharisee who tests him concerning, “What is the great commandment in the law?” ^[263]. And when questions such as these are being brought to him, Jesus himself “asks the Pharisees when they were gathered together” things “concerning the Christ” ^[264].

^To be sure, when the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, not <only> do they reject the resurrection of the flesh as it is termed in the custom of the simpler folk, but they also completely deny not only the immortality of the soul but also [its] continued existence (ἐπιδιαμονήν), as they think that the life of the soul after [this life] is nowhere indicated in the writings of Moses.^[79] The same teaching to the Sadducees concerning the human soul is the opinion up to the present day of the Samarians and those who seem to have been instructed in the Law from them and are struggling unto death for the Law of Moses and circumcision. Some of the Corinthians in the time of the Apostle <also> believed this interpretation of the resurrection (I mean as according to the Sadducees and Samarians, <who> reject the life of the soul after [this life]), and they were teaching that there is no resurrection, concerning which he writes these things: “But if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how do certain people among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” ^[265]. But that those in Corinth who were saying that there is no resurrection of the dead in accordance with the interpretation of the Sadducees were [also] rejecting the continued existence of the soul, he makes clear from, “if we are only hopeful in Christ in this life, we are most pitiable of all men” ^[266]. Wherefore one who gives careful examination will see that the one who rejects the resurrection of the dead as believed in the church, even though he might reject while being deceived, he is not completely hopeful “in Christ only” in “this life.” For in order that, according to [our] supposition (καθ' ὑπόθεσιν), the resurrection as believed by the masses might not be true, he who rejects this [understanding] of the life of the soul does not have hope “in this life alone,” [for he hopes] not for the recovery of this body, but of being clothed with one that is ethereal and better. But “we are” not “most pitiable of all men” if we should say that the soul lives and exists, but we would not attach this body to it, nor say that it recovers [this body].

Yet for the construction of something better than this interpretation [of the resurrection] the Apostle presents in the First [Epistle] to the Corinthians, we might also avail ourselves of, “If the dead are not at all raised, why indeed are they baptized for their sake? Why indeed are we endangered every hour?” ^[267], as well as, “If according to man^[80] I fought with beasts in Ephesus, what is the benefit to me? If the dead are not raised, ‘let us eat and drink, for on the morrow we die’” ^[268]. For let what is deemed by the masses to be true, not be true as concerns the resurrection of the dead, how does it follow from this the folly for us to be endangered who are struggling for the sake of the salvation of our souls? And how is there no benefit to our fighting beasts on account of Christ *** as each one has been administered according to merit, but one ought receive back the first body? How does it follow from there being no resurrection of the flesh that “let us eat and drink, for on the morrow we die” ^[269]? We do not say these things while disbelieving what was written by Isaiah in this passage, “All flesh will see the salvation of God” ^[270], or that which is said by Job, “for he who is about to deliver me from the earth is everlasting, and he will raise my skin that endures these things” ^[271]. Nor do we disbelieve the apostolic voice which says, “He will make alive our mortal bodies through His Spirit which indwells us” ^[272].^^[81] But insofar as we are able, let us clarify what is signified by the term “resurrection” in the text set out in the Gospel, wherefore we have set forth these words from the First [Epistle] to the Corinthians.

Sadducees came to Jesus, therefore, which are those who say that there is no resurrection, but the resurrection (as we have set forth) according to them, and they question again our Lord saying, “Moses said, if someone dies without having any children, his brother will take his wife as next of kin and will raise up seed for his brother” ^[273].

30.^[82] I think it a worthwhile endeavor here to set forth the text of Moses, unto which the Sadducees are said to have appealed in what is written about them in the Gospel. The text runs as such in Deuteronomy: “If brothers should live together, and one of them dies,” etc., up to, “the house of him who has had his sandal loosed” ^[274]. The Sadducees, as they have no hope of the resurrection, hear this text in a faulty way, not considering the present law in a way at all worthy of God. They suppose that it would follow from there being a resurrection that the husband^[83] will be raised again as a man having male parts, and likewise that a woman will be resurrected as the wife having a body that is female as at present. And taking hold in lowly fashion of the things said concerning the resurrection of the dead as from their reckoning to follow these things, they fashion some sort of myth that concerns seven brothers marrying one woman, and so pose the problem of whose wife she would be when raised, one woman having come to be named for seven husbands. They could also have posed the problem apart from this form of women with many marriages, perhaps also [in the forms] of men with many marriages. Yet when our Savior answers them, he does not explain the intention of Moses’ law, as though they are not worthy of the knowledge of so great a mystery. Rather, he sim<ply makes a pro>nouncement, saying only that the divine Scriptures proclaim that there in the resurrection of the dead there are no marriages, but those who are resurrected from the dead become as the angels in heaven, and just as the angels in heaven neither marry nor are married, so also (he says) it is with those who are resurrected from the dead. I myself think it is made clear through these things that not only will those who are accounted worthy of the resurrection from the dead be as the angels in heaven with respect not only to not marrying or being married, but also with respect to their bodies “of lowliness” ^[275] being transformed to be such as the angels whose bodies are ethereal and brilliant light.

But someone might inquire about a certain teaching that is shocking to the masses of believers, perhaps indeed for many reasons but clearly because of the difficulty posed here, whether [it is the case that] just as those who are raised from the dead are as the angels in heaven and a certain rank of angels, changing over from men [to angels], in the same way also other angels in heaven, who were men at one time and have struggled well in the human body, have become angels in heaven as with certain others before them. Let the person who seeks this shocking teaching from the present text, and perhaps also from other places, observe so as to make full inspection of the whole Scripture and the sequence of matters, and what remains at the disposal of one who asserts these things, <and> let him inspect if such a teaching should be accepted by someone who has at hand such things as are indicated from the passage, “we will judge angels” ^[276] and from [the passage], “into which things angels desire to look” ^[277]. And if one might also admit the Epistle of Jude, let him see what is at hand in the word on account of “the angels who did not keep to their own rule but abandoned their own dwelling have been kept in eternal chains under darkness for judgment of the great day” ^[278]. Let him who dares to inquire about such things observe how one must hear those things that are written in Genesis that “when the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were beautiful, they took to themselves for wives from all those whom they chose” ^[279]. Perhaps it was not without danger even to clearly pose the difficult problems involved in this passage and to make careful observation as to their sequence and to believe with delight the clarity of such great matters, for it is sufficient indeed for us to have courted danger to the degree [we already have] with the things [we have] said.

31. I do not think it inopportune, having already set out the text of the law from Deuteronomy, to see what its intention is. We must inquire in this [passage], therefore, as to the identity of this one wife and these two men who are brothers of one another, <of whom> <it is> the other [brother] who first marries the woman but does not bear offspring from her, but when the brother of the one who dies marries [her] in the second place and begets a child from the name of the one who has died. And after these things, you should inquire who it is who does not want “to take the wife of the brother for himself” and because of this the wife unlooses “the one sandal” “against the older” and spits “on [his] face” and ascends “to the gate,” saying, “My husband’s brother is not willing to raise up his brother’s name in Israel” ^[280]. You might also inquire in the passage as to the identity of the elder [assembly] and the gate to which “the woman” ascends when she says the things written. For let everyone who is not completely without sense confess, then, being fully persuaded that every law which is announced to be of God contains something noble and is worthy of reverence, or that what is not noble is not a law from God; but whether or not we ourselves find the nobility and dignity of this law, first God and his Christ would know, and after this also he who is called according to Scripture the tester of the table and who knows to test “all things” and to accept “what is good,” but to reject “every form of evil” ^[281]. Come, then, as we desire to explain the problem before us from the law, and calling upon him who said, “I will utter problems from the beginning” ^[282], let us speak what is “good” provided <we accept> the things given by him, but otherwise [we have said] the things that occurred to us about the passage. Let the [reader] who engages these reflections [of ours] be the judge.

It seems to me that according to one explanation, the woman is the soul of man, who is first married to the letter of the law yet does not bear [offspring] from it, while in the second place [she is married] to the spiritual law and bears fruit from it and begets and does not abandon what is begotten to her of from the letter for the law which dies. Perhaps in fact each soul who would be blessed and is figuratively <called> woman is always at first married to the letter of the law in accordance with initiation, which [husband] dies when the soul qua wife advances, such that she might be attached to a more noble and child-producing spouse, at which time “she will be saved through childbearing” ^[283], when the children remain “in faith and love, holiness and moderation,” [the soul] not being saved before childbearing or apart from it. The children of this woman qua soul that come from the second husband, the spiritual law, are the works in accordance with it. <Two> brothers which are begotten from one mother, the intellect, are the two laws ***, which continually dwell “together” ^[284], for their house is not divided from one another, but the “brothers” are both interpretations together in the letter which contains them as though in one house. And see if this is not able to be indicated from, “And brothers may dwell together” ^[285]. Then this follows, “And one of them died, and there was no seed for him” ^[286], which I have explained as able. But let us also look at the text, “The wife of him who died will not be [married] to a man outside [the family] who is not near” ^[287], and who is the wife-soul who transgresses this law, and who it is who keeps [the law]. So, then, in these passages I take it that a certain soul who, after the death of the interpretation of the law according to the letter and its annullment, works against the divine commandment, is the wife who first belonged to the man who died and was faithful to him, and she became [married] completely “outside” [the family] of the law “to a husband who was not near,” when she accepted a word which was <not> near *** to the interpretation of the letter, but completely foreign (and such are the souls of the heterodox, for whom the interpretation of the letter according to the law kills, and they are not willing to <continually> be married to the spiritual law who lives “together” with this one [according to the letter], but to a certain teaching (λόγῳ) “outside” [of the family] of the both of them and who in no way has communion “with the one who is near”). And [I take it that] another soul <is the wife> of the first husband who dies and is annulled, who living according to God does not want to be [married] “outside” [the family] “to a husband who is not near,” but who is married to the brother of the one who dies and who lives “together” with him, when “the brother of her husband comes in to her” and is inside her soul and takes “her for himself as wife” and cohabits with her soul for her blessedness, inasmuch as it is in accordance with the will of God that she is married to the second spiritual law ^[288]. “But the child which she might bear” and beget—she, the wife-soul who cohabits with the second spiritual law—is appointed “from the name” of his brother “who had died” ^[289], and [the child] exists not from the first but shares a name with the first, for the name [given] to the offspring from the spiritual law is the name of the one who had died, since each law is called <a law> of God, and there is no need for “the name” of the husband who has died to be erased from the true Israel who has the power of vision, even should he himself be erased.

32. Let these things be said in part concerning the law, with it again being even more necessary for us to have God enlightening our mind in Christ for inspection of the things that follow. For “if the man does not wish (it says) to take the wife of his brother, then the wife of his brother will ascend to the gate to the elder and will say” the things that follow ^[290]. Now first, you should note that, in sofar as <on the one hand> the wife was doing what was prescribed by the law, and the man who goes into her cohabits with her and bears a child from her, he is not referred to as “man” but as “brother” of the wife’s husband. But when he does not wish “to take the wife of his brother” and “he does not want to raise up the name of his brother in Israel,” and he is summoned by the elders “of the city” and says, “I do not want to take her” and she is dishonored and takes off “her sandal” and the woman spits “in his face” and he undergoes a name change, in order that “his name” might be “house of the one who removed the sandal,” then he is <not longer> called <brother but> “man” ^[291]. For it is, as it were, through the keeping of the law that it is said to him, “I myself said, ‘You are <all> gods <and sons> of the Most High” ^[292], but [it is] by doing things opposed to the law that, as it were, he is reproved by the word which says to him, “But you will die as men” ^[293]. And you should attend if you might be able to understand how it is that after of the death of the interpretation of the letter there is a <certain> other [interpretation] which goes astray from the interpretation of the law and is neither spiritual nor blameless, clearly having its origin <from the law> [from which it] goes astray but beginning from the pretext of those things written in the law, yet not wanting “to raise up the name of his brother” ^[294] and to honor the name of the law. Such an interpretation does not want to accept the wife-soul of his brother, for he does not wish to produce offspring so as to glorify the name of his brother who has died. Wherefore the wife who is prepared to honor her first husband does not stand below, but she ascends “to the gate” and the entrance of her own city which has the “elder-council.” Indeed let these things that happen be understood as concerning with the church and the initiation and entrance into her.

The wife, therefore, reproves the husband who does not want to produce offspring with the word as follows, saying, “The brother of my husband does not want to raise up the name of his brother in Israel.” Then “the elder-council of” this “city” examines this man and inquires as to whether he is truly unwilling. When he answers that he is not willing, she approaches the man who is not willing to raise up seed for his brother, and she reproves him before the elder-council and dishonors him by taking off “one of his sandals.” Indeed you should note in these passages because of “loosing [λῦσαι] the sandal from your feet” which is mentioned in reference to Moses and Joshua ^[295] as well as [the passage], “<of whom> I am not worthy that I might loose [λύσω] the strap of his sandal” ^[296], which is recorded in [the Gospel] according to Luke, <in> Mark, and in John, that perhaps this loosing [λῦσαι] of the sandal is not the same thing as taking off [ὑπολῦσαι]. For neither Moses nor Joshua is bid to “take off,” nor did John name [the action] concerning the Savior as taking <off but as> loosing. This transgressor, therefore, neither has everything taken off, nor is completely adorned with shoes, but he has each [done] halfway. Wherefore the wife who reproved him before the elder-council spits “in his face,” for every soul spits on the one who does not produce children nor bears fruit by reason, and through the annulment she removes from him [one of the things] by which he stumbles and “answering” she says that “Such is the way they treat a man who does not build up the house of his brother” ^[297]. And you should attend again here that a second time he is named “man” because he sinned, but now as well for not building up “the house of his brother.” Everyone, then, who sees this man [whose sandal] was taken off by the woman and who was spat upon and heard her say, “Such is the way they treat a man who does not build up the house of his brother,” let him do “all things for the building up” of the brother ^[298], for unless he build up “the house of his brother” <the law>, “the one sandal” will be taken off and he will be spat upon and “the name” of every such person “in Israel” “will be called” by <all> who see [him] “a house of one whose sandal was untied.”

Let us also look at a second explanation of the passage at hand, and let the brothers stand for two laws, according to which he who keeps the first is not “without a law of God,” but he who guards the second is “in-lawed to Christ” ^[299]. And I would understand a man with the soul of men as the first law which died at the appearing of Christ, since “what is glorified” first “in this case is” not “glorified” “because of the surpassing glory” which is in accordance with the second ^[300]. And the second the law of Christ, which is the brother of the first and through Moses and his son, reason, he begot indeed the first.^[84] With these two brothers dwelling “together,” therefore, especially with regard to the appearing [of Christ], one of them dies and he has no seed. But the wife of the first husband who dies—the soul under the law—after [his] death she does not go [get married] “outside [the family] to a man who is not near,” for the husband—the law of the gospel—is drawing near, as brother of the man who died to the first law, and he goes in to the wife of his brother. Such is the case in the example, as I see it, in the soul of Paul “under law” ^[301], when because Christ redeems him from the law [his soul] came under the gospel ^[302]. And do observe that unless the husband of Paul’s soul die, and the wife of the one who died does not [marry] “outside” [the family] with anyone inferior to this man who dies, as those from the heretical sects suppose, nor [does she marry] “a man who is not near.” For the “brother of her husband” went in to her and took “her for himself as wife” and he cohabitated with her, and [as a result] there came the fruit and offspring and “the child” who was born “from the name of the one who had died”. For in accordance with the spiritual law, the gospel names all things, and the name of the one who had died is not erased, at the time when the law of the gospel had come, for the name of the first is indeed preserved by the true Israel. But who is the man after these things who does not want “to take the wife of his own brother,” other than the teaching (logos) in the heresies which does not want the soul who honors the first husband and the memory of the first husband to be accepted? Against this [man] the wife of his brother ascends “to the gate,” concerning which it is said “This is the gate of the Lord, the righteous will enter into it” ^[303], and she ascends “to the elder-council” and bears witness concerning [the man] who does not want “to raise up seed for his brother in Israel” nor to honor the law of God through Moses. When, therefore, “the elder-council” inquires of this man if what the wife says about him is true, that he is not willing to raise up seed for his brother, then “the wife” of him who had died comes “before the elder-council” and she takes off “one of the sandals from his feet,” in order that even if he may be bound with the name of Christ, he may indeed have the name of God taken off and because of this not be nobly nor truly bearing the name of Christ. The wife also spits “in the face” of this person and reproaches him as [being only] a man, since he did not want to be made divine^[85] from bearing fruit. And it speaks in this way to everyone who will not build up “the house of his brother,” the evangelical teaching, which is the law and prophetic [scriptures]. Indeed the person who does not build up his [brother’s] name will not have a name with the Israelites other than this, that he is “house of the one whose sandal was taken off” ^[304]. Every person who is wallowing in the heretical sects, then, especially those which divide the deity and separate the law from the gospel, is “a house of the one whose sandal was taken off,” who is spit upon “in the face” and whose “one sandal” is taken off.

Let us set forth this third concept for this passage, which we will express succinctly. Wisdom is called a “Wife” on account of “I sought for this bride to be brought for myself” ^[305], <whom> indeed it is necessary to love according to Solomon who said, “Love her, and she will keep you” ^[306], and the wise person is her husband. If, then, the wise person who has not begotten any [offspring] from wisdom might depart this life, let the brother who dwells along with him and takes rest in these words take charge over them, in order that the renown surrounding the one who departs from the wedded life might beget so as to present the fruit from wisdom. But should the remaining brother not wish to take charge of the words, he will be dishonored by wisdom who removes from him half, for neither will this person not be removed nor be removed completely. About Scripture’s practice [κατασκευὴν] of calling the law “husband” and the soul “wife,” let us set forth the things which read as such from the [Epistle] to the Romans, “Or are you ignorant, brothers, for I speak to those who know the law, that the law acted as lord of man for as long as you live?” etc., up to, “I became to another husband” ^[307]. We have spoken more completely about the passage when we explained the pericope with <this [text]> of the Epistle to the Romans in our exegetical discussions about it.

33.^[86] We have said these things—even if it seems we have engaged in a digression—for clarification of the law from Moses of which the Sadducees make mention and inquire of the Savior, saying, Moses said, “If someone dies who does not have children,” etc.

Come, then, let us inquire about other things in the Gospel after this which are from, But there were seven brothers to us, and the first wife died, etc. On the one hand, Isaiah says in his prophecy, “Seven women will grasp for one man, saying, ‘We will eat our bread and we will use our own garments for clothing; just let your name be called upon us, and remove our reproach” ^[308]. The Sadducees who come to the Savior reverse the categories in the prophecy to seven men marrying one woman. And it seems to be that it is this form that causes their problem, when they set forth through the form the teaching rejecting the resurrection and think it follows that in the resurrection each of those who are raised has the same relationship as he had in this life, such that the man would receive back the wife after the resurrection takes place, and the father would remain in the same relationship to the son and brother to brother. They are ignorant that while the Creator made all things with regard to usefulness, where procreation is also corruption, he made these types of relationships out of necessity, so that, on the one hand, a certain man might be provided through a woman for the procreation of children, and on the other hand those who are begotten might, being brothers, have some kinship through their common origin. The work of procreation was also [for the relationships of] father and son and mother and daughter. If then, those who are counted worthy of a privilege because they lived well in the present age they will exist in that life in the more blessed state, and no one of those who have not struggled here will be accounted worthy of the resurrection of the dead, clearly then those things that were useful here for procreation will not be present there. For God does nothing extraneous nor does anything useless come to be on his account. One must see <then> that it would follow from the Sadducees’ assumption concerning each [husband] receiving back his own wife, that there would again be child-bearing and begetting of children and death. And if these things, then also sicknesses, and if begettings, then also infants and advancements from infancy unto the attainment of <the> language and later, reason, and with the fulfillment of reason, [the attainment of] vice, and only then again [the attainment of] virtue which is found by those few who seek it.

But what would be more useless than these things? Indeed it would be better if there were no resurrection than for there to be such a kind of situation as the Sadducees supposed, assuming that it follows from the resurrection of the dead that each person will receive back his wife, which will belong in consequence to each of those [husbands] mentioned. Since, therefore, it is a new age that is hoped for and (as Isaiah names it) “a new heaven and a new earth” ^[309] and as it is written in the Gospel a “cup” of the new covenant ^[310], I think from a new vine, it is necessary that all these diverse things pertaining to this other life are indeed truly blessed. Just as, as the Word indicates, it would follow from there being wife and husband that there would also be children of fathers and brothers of brothers and mothers of those who are begotten, in the same way perhaps it would follow from there not being wife or husband that there would no longer be father and mother and certain brothers of others, perhaps not concerning future things only but also of things that have passed away. For there memory will no longer be of the kind according to the flesh for those who hear [the passage] in a reasonable way, “Do not remember the first things, and do not reflect upon the beginning things; behold I am doing new things” ^[311]. And in accordance with this, in the age to come Terrah will not be named the father of Abraham, nor Abraham of Ishmael and of those from Keturah, perhaps even not of Isaac, “for old things have passed away” and then it will be said, “Behold all things have become new” ^[312]. If there is something other than a brother “according to the flesh” ^[313] and a father and son different from the matters involved in procreation, no longer through a wife nor through the shameful parts of the body, but analogous to [how] the Savior is Son of God, let the one who is able attend so as to inquire into such great things rightly, accepting “the spirit” which searches “all things, even the depths of God” ^[314].

But I take not only the difference and just as similarity about these things, I say the [same] things of brother, and father, and son, but also concerning wife and husband. For it is true that in the resurrection of the dead they will neither marry nor be married, but they are as the angels in heaven, but what is said as though in a parable is also true concerning a differentiation from the wedding feasts on earth in the passage, “The kingdom of the heavens is like unto a man who is king, who put on a wedding feast for his son” ^[315], etc., and in the passage, “At that time the kingdom of the heavens will be like unto ten virgins who take their lamps” ^[316], etc. ^Therefore, in the resurrection of the dead the son of the king will celebrate a marriage feast that is beyond any marriage feast which eye has seen and ear has heard “and” has ascended “to the heart of man” ^[317]. This noble and divine spiritual wedding feast will be in inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for man to speak ^[318]. But let someone inquire if there are other wedding feasts analogous to the wedding feast of the bridegroom in the resurrection of the dead, or whether in the resurrection of the dead the bridegroom alone, abolishing every wedding feast, will celebrate a wedding feast, not where “the two will be as one flesh” ^[319], but where it is more properly said that the bridegroom and bride become one spirit. But watch lest you slip and fall when hearing these words so as to accept the myth-making concerning male and female aeons, in accordance with those who fashion their “unions” (τὰς συζυγίας)^[87] <which> in no way <exist nor> are indicated by the holy Letters.^^[88]

34. Since the Sadducees’ inquiry concerning the seven brothers who had one wife requires no figurative reading, come let us consider the Savior’s words concerning these matters, where he says, You are in error, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God, for in the resurrection they neither marry nor are married, but they are as the angels in heaven ^[320]. In regard to this someone way inquire as follows: When the Savior who says to the Sadducees, You are in error, neither understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God, he is exhibiting that the reality that there are no marriages in the resurrection of the dead is presented in accordance with the Scriptures, seeing that men <will b>e made like the angels in heaven with whom there is no marriage. How, then, does Scripture indicate that in the resurrection they neither marry nor are married? And where in the law and the prophets do we learn about those who will be raised that they will be as the angels in heaven? For clearly we do not find such things in the old [covenant] scripture. According to Luke this is not what is inquired about, who records the Savior as having said: “The sons of this age beget and are begotten, they marry and are married” ^[321], e<t>c.. [Jesus] does not say anything in this passage to the Sadducees concerning these things being indicated in the Scriptures. As with [the account] according to Matthew one might inquire similarly also according to Mark, for according to him Jesus answers and says to the Sadducees, “Do you not error concerning this, not understanding the Scriptures or the power of God? For whenever the dead are raised, they neither marry nor are married, but they are as the angels in the heavens” ^[322].

Let each of those who give their attention to our difficulty inquire from the Scriptures about the present things which the Savior said in regard to matters after the resurrection. As for us, we affirm these things, that the Scriptures contain these things, not in such a way as to be understood by the bare text itself nor by chance, but in a figurative way. For when “the law which has a shadow of the good things to come” ^[323] legislates certain things concerning husbands and wives, and gives accounts of righteous marriages, it does not speak concerning these things primarily such that one might apprehend the matters from the literal text at hand, but [it is speaking] concerning such things as we ourselves mentioned before when we proposed that these things pertain to the marriage of the Savior <and the church> which will happen in the age to come. In the manner <if> “Abraham had two sons, one from the bond woman and one from the free woman, and the one from the bond woman was begotten according to the flesh, while the other from the free woman was [begotten] through the promise” ^[324], it seems completely unnecessary to me to establish about the sensible marriage of the free woman [that it is] a common nature with the bond woman, for these things “have been allegorized” ^[325]. But if indeed “when a man will forsake his father and mother and will cleave to his wife, and the two will become one flesh” ^[326], we should not then hear what is said as though indicating no mystery, for “this mystery is great” and (as Paul says) applies “to Christ and to the church” ^[327]. And to be brief in setting forth the matter concerning her who was married to the brother of the man who had died, so far as we are able, let us inquire about the intention of the law. Indeed there are a multitude of other laws concerning husband and wife (as concerning the book of divorce ^[328]and concerning two wives being for one husband ^[329], with one being loved and the other hated, and concerning the marriage of a captive woman to the one who loves her, and the marriage after shaving and in mourning apparel crying over her father and mother ^[330]), all of which have a noble and divine [sense] which is to be found in the use of true figurative reading. If someone, then, who reads the law and converses with the things regarding the marriage of husbands and wives thinks that nothing fuller is indicated than the matters signified by the letter ***, he is in error, not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God.

35. But someone might inquire if <the> [passage], You are in error, not knowing the Scriptures, which is said to the Sadducees who did not recognize any other Scripture than the Law, has reference to other Scriptures than the Law of Moses. This person, therefore, might say in respect of this same passage that the Sadducees are so called because in not recognizing the Scriptures which come after the Law they are in error since they do not know them. Another person might say: it is sufficient for the Sadducees to be reproved of error for not understanding the Scriptures according to Moses such that they apprehend the divine meaning in them. To be sure, however, he claims that the Sadducees do not know two things: one, the Scriptures, and the other, the power of God, which is the power by which those of the resurrection and the new life in it comes to be. Yet someone could also <say> that when the Sadducees are said not to know the power of God, the Savior is referring to Himself, since Christ is the Power of God and Wisdom of God ^[331], and the Sadducees are ignorant of him, since they do not understand the Scriptures concerning Him, nor of the manner He will minister the resurrection from the dead for those who will be saved. The person who is not satisfied with explaining the passage in question, You are in error, not knowing the Scripture nor the power of God, by means of figurative interpretation, plunges into a dilemma which is a ca<use for peti>tion, either he will disbelieve the passage before us as though not having been recorded well, with the Savior having spoken of things as Scripture that are in fact not Scripture, or he will dare to disbelieve Jesus as though he were not truthful. And a third person, fleeing to the apocryphal words, whence it might seem that something clearer has been written concerning the life of blessedness, might appeal to these as what is being referred to in the things written here when [it says] You are in error, not knowing the Scriptures. Do note how one may fall into untoward [positions] on all sides because of fleeing figurative interpretation, for if he disbelieves the Scripture, he will be acting against the Church’s teaching (παρὰ τὸν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν ποιήσει λόγον), and if [he disbelieves] Jesus, he will be acting just as the Jew according to the flesh; if he flees unto the apocryphal <words> he will not arrive at a matter confessed together by those who have believed. Wherefore it appears to me that there is no other way one can explain the passage, You are in error, not knowing the Scripture nor the power of God, for in the resurrection they neither marry nor are married, except through the rule of allegory supplied by the Apostle in the [letter] to the Galatians in reference to the bond-woman and the free-woman ^[332], which is to be put into use for the rest of the Scriptures where something is read about a husband and wife. Indeed, just as they are in error who, because they do not interpret the prophetic [writings] figuratively, think that after the resurrection we will eat and drink somatic food <and drink>, since <indeed> the texts of the <prophetic> Scriptures contain such things, so also [they are in error] who keep to the literal sense of the things written concerning marriages and husbands and wives, and who think that we will make use of conjugal relations at that time, on account of which things one is not able to devote time “to prayer” ^[333] by the defilement in some fashion of existing things and by a kind of impurity of those who engage in sexual pleasures.

36. After these things I might inquire whether [the passage], You are in error, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God, is referring only to, for in the resurrection they neither marry nor are married, or also to but they are as the angels in heaven. For I do not find where in Scripture those who will be saved are said to be as the angels in heaven, except someone might say that is what is indicated by, “You will depart to your fathers with peace, you will be buried at a good age” ^[334] and <by, “he was added to his people” ^[335], or> by, “he was added to his race” ^[336]. Or by what it is said in Deuteronomy about a man as assigned an order by God in heaven ^[337], but you should find the text to check for yourself. The next passage we observe reads, concerning the resurrection of the dead have you not read what was said to us by God who says, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead but of the living ^[338]. Now about this we might say that the Savior could have provided a myriad [of passages] from the prophets about the existence men will have in the life to come, yet he did not do this because the Sadducees only recognize the Scripture of Moses, from which he intended to silence their syllogism by demonstrating this fact: God says to Moses, “I am God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob” ^[339], when He gives His name from the bush. Either, then, God is the God of those who exist, or is God of those who do not exist. But it is improper to say that the God who says, “<I am> the Existing One,” “this is my name” ^[340], is God of those who in no way exist. And if this is improper, He is God of those who exist, who are alive, and subsist, and who perceive [His] grace, with which God has gifted to them, calling Himself their God and saying, “This is my eternal remembrance” ^[341]. They are living, then, who perceive God and his grace—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—<and> God names Himself in respect to each of them individually. For it is not written, “I am God of Abraham” and Isaac and Jacob, but “I am God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob” ^[342]. Indeed, Matthew, Mark, and Luke all record it in this way so that (I think) they might present to those who have the reading before them that God is the God of each of them, because he has bestowed upon them this special grace. For they were not similar to the Hebrews such that God might be called their [God] in the same way, in a kind of equivalent identification, as [he is called the God] of these ones (i.e., the Patriarchs). For in regards to the [Hebrews] it is written, “The God of the Hebrews sent me” ^[343], but in regard to [the Patriarchs he is called] their [God] individually, in order that the word [of Scripture] might show that Abraham as an individual is of equal honor as the whole nation of the Hebrews, for God is not equally God of Abraham and God of the Hebrews. You might say something similar concerning Him being God of Isaac and God of Jacob as [in contrast to] God of the Hebrews. I think that Elijah was also deemed worthy of such an honor, for it is written in the Fourth Book of Kingdoms, “The God of Elijah” ^[344].

God, then, is the God of Abraham uniquely, but in way that is similar also to [being God] of Isaac and of Jacob. But God is not only the God of our Savior who is better than the [Patriarchs], but [God is] also Father [of the Savior]. Wherefore it is rightly said by the Apostle, “Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” ^[345]. This Jesus Christ, whose “God and Father is blessed,” bestowed upon his genuine disciples the reality of [God] Himself being not only their God but also [their] Father. For he says to Mary after rising from the dead, “Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, even My God and your God’” ^[346]. I personally think that it was at that time that He bestowed to Abraham, and to Isaac, and to Jacob, that God might no longer be only their God, but right then [their] Father. Luke adds to the text, “God is not God of the dead but of the living,” as it reads in Matthew ^[347] and Mark ^[348], “for all live by him” ^[349]. Although this does not happen to be a commendation of the Patriarchs, seeing that our Savior who is so great testifies to them not only that they live, but also that one who lives, lives by God and by none other ^[350]. For this passage “for all live by him” is good for us to practice and to take up with every passage, so that we all might live to no one other than to God in Christ. When the crowds heard the succinct demonstration from the writings of Moses concerning the Patriarchs being alive to those who accept only those [writings] as divine, they were astonished, and they accepted the wiser teaching of the Savior which was able to refute those who were disbelieving on him.