Why were the Sadducees convinced by Jesus' argument about the resurrection?

Question

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?

Answer 1

While this is an admittedly over simplification, it can generally be said that Biblical Hebrew omits the present tense of the verb “to be” in subject complement constructions. In linguistics, this phenomenon where the verb is omitted is called a zero copula. Exodus 3:6 is an example of such a construction; the verb “am” is in parentheses because it is not present in the Hebrew:

אָנֹכִי אֱלֹהֵי אָבִיךָ 
I (am) the God of thy father

Subject complements can be predicate adjectives, predicate nouns, or predicate pronouns. The subject complement in Ex 33:6 is a predicate noun (God). In order to determine the function in context, I looked at whether the referent of “God” is unique or non-unique, concluding that it is unique. If so, then the predicate identifies rather than describes the subject. Thus, God is not describing Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as though there are other gods for other people. Rather, He is identifying Himself by the title “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (cf. Ex 3:15).

Commentary of Keil & Delitzsch on Exodus 3:6

Jehovah then made Himself known to Moses as the God of his fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, reminding him through that name of the promises made to the patriarchs, which He was about to fulfill to their seed, the children of Israel.

Given the above discussion, Jesus’ argument in Mt 22:32b is astonishing in its simplicity. His point is that God would not refer to Himself in such terms, as “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” if those individuals were not still living. While not conclusive on its own, the present tense of εἰμί (Strong’s G1510 meaning I exist, I am) in Mt 22:32 supports this interpretation.

Answer 2

The gospel account in Luke chapter 20 from verse 27 to the end gives Jesus' exact words to the Sadducees. This is the text that needs to be looked at hermeneutically, and not the Exodus 3:6 one, which will become clear when the particular verse is copied below:

"Now, that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him." Luke 20:37-38 K.J.V.

Jesus quoted from Exodus 3:6, showing God to be the originator of those words. (See Exodus 6:3). Jesus confirmed the truth of Moses' words, quoting him, and agreeing, plus adding a bit more: that they live unto God. This shows why the Sadducees were silenced.

Note that the account does not say the Sadducees were convinced by Jesus' argument! They were left without a leg to stand on, and Jesus' rebuttal of their wrong theology contributed to the Scribes and the Pharisees giving up on trying to trap Jesus with questions that would enable them to hand him over to the Roman authorities (Luke 20:20).

Note also, that the Scribes agreed with Jesus' argument, for the Scribes believed in the resurrection of the dead. The Sadducees did not (hence their trick question on marriage in the resurrection). Jesus' proof from the lips of Moses delighted them, for (on that point) they agreed with Jesus. But the Sadducees never said Jesus had convinced them. They just had to zip it, and stop trying to trip him up with their malintentioned questions.

As for what Moses said, it was a point further to the way God had identified himself to him as having the name, "I AM". Moses quoted God as saying to him at the bush,

"Thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you; this is my name for ever..." Exodus 3:14-16 K.J.V.

Given the length of time those three forefathers of the nation of Israel had lived, and how bone-dead all of them were by then, God was saying he was still their God. Impossible, unless those three were alive in another way. Then, when Jesus agreed, quoting all of that, he showed that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob remained alive thousands of years on, with God still being their God. And, to top it all, Jesus took the name of "I AM" to himself (John 8:58). No wonder those who hated Jesus (including the Scribes), wanting to silence him and having failed to do so with their words, resorted to trying to stone him to death, and when that failed, got him handed over to the Roman authorities.

The grammatical choice of words in Exodus 3 and Luke 20 is deliberate in both instances. The present tense teaches massively important truths as to the name of God and how that bears on God still being the God of those who died in faith, but who have passed over from death to life.

Answer 3

The OP asks specifically about the Hebrew of Ex 3:6 and the tense of the verb that God uses in talking to Moses. We observe several things about that quotation:

1. Hebrew verbs do not have tense and so the question of whether a Hebrew verb is past present of future is moot because it has no meaning.
2. No explicit verb exists in the Hebrew - it literally reads: "I the God of your father, the God of Abraham, ..."
3. The closest we get is its translation by the LXX (about 250 BC) into Greek which the NT quotes which says, Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ θεὸς τοῦ πατρός σου, θεὸς Ἀβραὰμ ... = "I am the God of your father, God of Abraham, ... " This verb is in the simple present tense.

The NT text of Jesus statement is the same:

Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ θεὸς Ἀβραὰμ καὶ ὁ θεὸς Ἰσαὰκ καὶ ὁ θεὸς Ἰακώβ; οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ θεὸς νεκρῶν ἀλλὰ ζώντων. = I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaak and the God Jacob. He is not the God of dead but living.

Answer 4

The Sadducees do not believe in a future resurrection of the dead, so they pose a question that they think Jesus will not be able to answer without making the belief in resurrection look silly.

But Jesus responds with two points:

• When resurrected, people will be immortal spirits, and lacking physical bodies, they would not be concerned with the concept of marriage and sexual relations.
• Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are all dead and buried, yet God still claims to be their God.

The first one nicely answers their question, causing their trap to fail.

The second one points out that by saying "I am" rather than "I was" God indicates that they still exist and will eventually live again.

So, not only do they fail in presenting Jesus with a question he wouldn't be able to answer, they themselves are presented with a situation that they didn't have an answer for. As verse 34 says "he had put the Sadducees to silence".