Unless I'm missing some Biblical or historical context, Jesus' argument supporting the resurrection seems to hinge on a grammatical choice.

'Then he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God. '

Exodus 3:6 https://www.bible.com/bible/111/EXO.3.6

Is the entire argument here the choice of "am" instead of "was"? If so, why was that so convincing to the Sadducees?

For example, let's say my father had a best friend. My father then dies, and I meet his best friend for the first time. To modern ears, saying, "I am a friend of your father.", even though he has died, wouldn't cause me to think my father was still alive.

It's awkward phrasing, sure, but if I'm a Sadducee I can't imagine not pushing back on this. So is there more to it? Was the Hebrew here much less ambiguous?

Unless I'm missing some Biblical or historical context, Jesus' argument supporting the resurrection seems to hinge on a grammatical choice.

Jesus' words:

'But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’ ? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” Matthew 22:31-32 https://www.bible.com/bible/111/MAT.22.31-32

The quoted scripture:

'Then he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God. ' Exodus 3:6 https://www.bible.com/bible/111/EXO.3.6

Is the entire argument here the choice of "am" instead of "was"? If so, why was that so convincing to the Sadducees?

For example, let's say my father had a best friend. My father then dies, and I meet his best friend for the first time. To modern ears, saying, "I am a friend of your father.", even though he has died, wouldn't cause me to think my father was still alive.

It's awkward phrasing, sure, but if I'm a Sadducee I can't imagine not pushing back on this. So is there more to it? Was the Hebrew here much less ambiguous?

Unless I'm missing some Biblical or historical context, Jesus' argument supporting the resurrection seems to hinge on a grammatical choice.

'Then he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God. '

Exodus 3:6 https://www.bible.com/bible/111/EXO.3.6

Is the entire argument here the choice of "am" instead of "was"? If so, why was that so convincing to the Sadducees?

For example, let's say my father had a best friend. My father then dies, and I meet his best friend for the first time. To modern ears, saying, "I am friend of your father.", even though he has died, wouldn't cause me to think my father was still alive.

It's awkward phrasing, sure, but if I'm a Sadducee I can't imagine not pushing back on this. So is there more to it? Was the Hebrew here much less ambiguous?

Unless I'm missing some Biblical or historical context, Jesus' argument supporting the resurrection seems to hinge on a grammatical choice.

'Then he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God. '

Exodus 3:6 https://www.bible.com/bible/111/EXO.3.6

Is the entire argument here the choice of "am" instead of "was"? If so, why was that so convincing to the Sadducees?

For example, let's say my father had a best friend. My father then dies, and I meet his best friend for the first time. To modern ears, saying, "I am a friend of your father.", even though he has died, wouldn't cause me to think my father was still alive.

It's awkward phrasing, sure, but if I'm a Sadducee I can't imagine not pushing back on this. So is there more to it? Was the Hebrew here much less ambiguous?