But, as touching, &c.— Our Lord, having demonstrated that the Sadducees were ignorant of the power of God, proceeded to shew that they were ignorant of theScriptures likewise; and particularly of the writings of Moses, whence they had drawn their objection: for out of the law itself he demonstrated the certainty of a resurrection, at least of just men, and thereby quite overturned the opinion of the Sadducees, who, believing the materiality of the soul, affirmed that men were annihilated at death, and that the writings of Moses supported their opinion. His argument was this: "As a man cannot properly be a father without children, or a king without subjects, so God cannot properly be called in this sense God or Lord, unless he has his people, and be Lord of the living. Since, therefore, in the law he calls himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, long after these patriarchs were dead, the relation denoted by the word God still subsisted between them; for which reason theywere not annihilated, as the Sadducees pretended, when they affirmed that they were dead, but were still in being, God's subjects and glorified saints." Others choose to explain the argument thus: to be the God of any person is to be his exceeding great reward. See Genesis 15:1. Wherefore, as the patriarchs died without having obtained the promises, Hebrews 11:39 they must exist in another state to enjoy them, that the veracity of God may remain sure. Besides, the Apostle tells us, that God is not ashamed to be called their God, because he has prepared for them a city: Hebrews 11:16 which implies, that he would have reckoned it infinitely beneath him, to own his relation as God to any one to whom he had not offered a state of permanent happiness. The argument taken either way is conclusive; for which cause we may suppose, that both the senses were intended, to render it full of demonstration: accordingly, the people were most agreeably surprized, when they heard such a clear and solid confutation of the sect which they abominated, and that too in an argument where they had always thought themselves impregnable. See the next verse, Macknight, and Doddridge. Bishop Sherlock observes, that it appears from hence that our Saviour thought the law of Moses afforded good proof of a future state; which is inconsistent with the supposition that there was no evidence for life and immortality till the publication of the Gospel. See his Discourses, vol. 1: serm. 6. Beausobre and Lenfant observe very well upon this subject, that, "as the calamities and misfortunes which Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob underwent in this life could not well be reconciled with the extraordinary favours that are included in the expression,
I will be thy God: it thence follows, that, when God declared himself to be their God, he consequently bound himself to reward and make them happy after this life, if faithful to his grace." See Hebrews 11:16. This argument was then already very conclusive against the Sadducees, who denied the immortality of the soul, and the resurrection of the body: but it proves at the same time the resurrection, because the souls of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not being Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, themselves, it thence follows, that God could not properly be stiled their God, unless they were to rise again from the dead. There are in the Jewish writings some arguments, much like this, used to prove the resurrection. See also Grotius, and Archbishop Tillotson.