The passage
      v27-33. The Sadducees had a number of tricky arguments which they used against those who believed in the resurrection of the dead. One such example promotes the question: will the resurrected require ritual cleansing since they are in contact with a dead body, namely, their own? The Pharisees were constantly frustrated by these arguments. In our passage for study we see the Sadducees trying out one of these tricky arguments on Jesus.
      v34-35. Jesus first exposes the limited understanding the Sadducees (and the Pharisees) have of life in heaven. People of this age find meaning and fulfillment in marriage and procreation. In heaven, those who share in the resurrection of the dead find meaning and fulfillment in fellowship with Christ, in union with God. So, there is no marriage in heaven. Jesus also implies that the Sadducees denial of the resurrection undermines the whole notion of divine judgment, of reward for compliance with God's law; it is only "those who are considered worthy" who share in the resurrection and who gain a place in the age to come.
      v36. When Jesus says that resurrected believers are "like the angels", he means that like the angels they "can no longer die", cf. Heb.2:14-18. By making this point, Jesus further exposes the flaw in the Sadducees' argument. The issue that Moses is dealing with in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 is the survival of a person's family, but those who "share in the resurrection" ("sons of the resurrection") have God as their Father, and with him they will survive forever. In simple terms, the situation Moses is addressing does not apply in heaven.
      v37. Jesus now moves to the centre of his argument by quoting from Exodus chapter 3. The books of Moses (the Law, the Pentateuch) serve as the highest authority for the Sadducees. Using this recognized source, Jesus promotes a "tricky" argument in return: if God is the God of the patriarchs then obviously the "dead rise", for he is not God of the patriarch's remains, but the God of living persons.
      v38. So, God is the God of the living. Jesus is not suggesting that Abraham is living in heaven now. If that were the case, Abraham would not be in need of a resurrection in order to have God as his God. Such a view would undermine Jesus' argument for a future resurrection of the righteous dead, which is the point he is making to the Sadducees. Jesus is not answering Plato's question, "if a man die is he still alive?", but Job's question, "if a man die shall he live again?" The implication of Jesus' argument is that at the present moment, all believers "in Christ" who have already died, share Christ's resurrection life (are "hid in Christ"). On the day of resurrection, the dead in Christ will rise individually; the dead in Christ will rise along with all those believers who are alive at Christ's coming.

And all the stuff will be no more
      All the funny stuff, the territorial, nesting, procreative, games we play, is the stuff of humanity. It's what makes the world go round. We humans are driven by the urge to mate and rare our young. Defining our territory and creating our nest, controls and shapes our life. It shapes corporate life, shaping the way we market and sell products. In the end, it is the basic motivator of life.
      The problem is, our desire to know another, to share the progeny of that union, is corrupted; it doesn't work properly. Relationships break down; marriages disintegrate and friendships don't seem to last. Circumstances change, people change, and of course, as time moves on, we start to see the flaws in each other's character.
      So, how do we survive? How do we get through life when the begetting business doesn't seem to work properly. Jesus gives us a clue in our passage for study. "The people of this age", says Jesus, "marry and are given in marriage". Such is life. It's the way it is. Yet, those who share the glory of the day of resurrection, will discover a change in focus. It is no longer two becoming one, it is now one with God - "they are God's children". In simple terms, in heaven it is just Jesus and me, and Jesus and you. Somehow it will all be right between us, but of first priority, it is just Jesus and me.
      We survive the limitations of our personal relationships, not by limiting them, never reaching out, demanding...... but rather allowing the eternal end of things to take a more central place in our lives. "What a friend we have in Jesus" helps us when we are "cumbered with a load of care".

v27
      oiJ antilegonteV (antilegw) pres. part. "who say there is no [resurrection]" - the ones speaking against [the resurrection is not to be]. In some texts the verb is without the negative prefix, but this was probably dropped due to the following negation = a double negative = "definitely no resurrection", ref. Metzger. the participle functions as a substantive. "Those who argue there is no resurrection", NJB.
      mh einai "-" - is not to be. The negated infinitive of the verb to-be. Identifying what they speak against; the resurrection does not exist.
      proselqonteV (prosercomai) aor. part. "came" - having come, approached. The participle is possibly temporal, "when the Sadducees came [to him]", or possibly attendant circumstance, "came and asked him", TNT.

v28
      legonteV (legw) pres. part. "they said" - Attendant circumstance participle, "the Sadducees came, and asked, and said."
      hJmin dat. "for us" - Possibly "to us", but "for our advantage" is more likely. "Moses prescribed a regulation for us", Barclay.
      ean + subj. "that if" - if [.... dies]. Introducing a conditional clause, 3rd class, where the realization of the condition is a possibility. The apodosis is the hina clause. The quoted scripture is drawn from Deut.25:5, and Gen.38:8. "If a man dies and has no children, his brother should marry his widow", CEV.
      ecwn (ecw) pres. part. "leaves [a wife]" - [dies] having. Attendant circumstance participle, "dies and has." His "having" means he "dies leaving a wife."
      oJ adelfoV "the man" - the brother [of him]. This second reference to the brother is a bit confusing so is often translated "he", or "the man" as NIV., but it can be translated "brother"; "if a man's married brother dies and is childless, his brother is to take the woman and raise the offspring of his brother", Moffatt.
      iJna + subj. "[the man] must [marry]" - must [take, receive]. This hina clause forms the rare imperative construction.
      exanasthsh/ (exanisthmi) aor. subj. "have children" - may/should raise up [offspring]. The subjunctive with the introductory hina continues the imperatival clause. "Provide an heir for his brother", REB.

v29
      oun "now" - therefore. Having quoted Moses, the Sadducees draw out an implication. "Well then", Barclay.
      lambwn (lambanw) aor. part. "married [a woman]" - having taken, received = married. The participle is probably temporal, "the first/eldest [brother], after taking a wife/woman, died."

v30
      oJ deuteroV "the second" - Serves as the subject, along with "the third", of the verb "took (married)", although the verb should properly be plural.

v31
      wJsautwV adv. "in the same way" - in like manner. "The same thing happened to the third one.

v32
      uJsteron adv. "finally" - afterwards, last, later, finally.

v33
      The point of the argument being, "granted your belief in resurrection, does not the given scenario produce for you a knot that cannot be untangled?", Nolland.
      oun "now then" - therefore. Marking the transition to the Sadducees question.
      hJ gunh "-" - the woman, wife. Emphatic position identifying that "the wife" is the focus of the question. "So then, concerning this woman, ..."
      en + dat. "at" - in, on. Possibly "in relation to / with respect to", but more likely temporal, "at the time of."
      ginetai (ginomai) pres. "will she be" - she becomes. The present tense is best read as futuristic, as NIV.
      gar "since" - for. Expressing cause/reason.
      oiJ ... eJpta "the seven" - Adjective used as a substantive. "All seven had her as their wife."
      authn gunaika acc. "[were married] to her" - her wife. Double accusative object complement. "Her" is the accusative object, and "wife" the accusative complement, so "the seven had her [as] a wife", or simply, "she was married to all seven of them", Rieu.

v34
      "Marriage is a major preoccupation here, but not there", Peterson. Possibly even stronger if we follow the Western text; the people of this world "are begotten and begat", ie. "the sons of this age find the ground and continuity of their existence in procreation", Ellis.
      oiJ uiJoi tou aiwnoV toutou "the people of this age" - the sons/children of this age. "People in this world", Phillips.

v35
      de "but" - Here adversative.
      oiJ kataxiwqenteV aor. pas. part. "those who are considered worthy" - the ones having been considered/judged worthy. Probably "judged righteous", in which case, divine reward would properly apply, and such reward would logically entail resurrection. The participle functions as a substantive and is best translated as relative clause. Not all participate in "the age to come", "only those who are judged worthy", NJB.
      tucein (tugcanw) aor. inf. "of taking part" - to attain, experience. The infinitive is epexegetic explaining what they are considered worthy of; they are worthy of experiencing eternity.
      tou aiwnoV ekeinou "in that age" - of that age, eternity. = "this age" = "this future age."
      ek + gen. "from [the dead]" - of, out of, from. Best taken here as partitive, identifying the whole, "the dead", from which "the resurrection" is part; "some from the dead are raised", Plummer.
      oute .... oute "neither .... nor" - See above, v34. It's not that there are no relationships in heaven, rather there is no need to retain an institution that functions for the purpose of continuing the family line through procreation, given that those who share in the resurrection will never die. Naturally, there is some reaction to this logic as it implies that procreation is the only purpose of marriage; remove procreation and we remove the need for marriage. Of course, there is more to marriage than procreation; it is the deepest expression of human intimacy, compassion, love.... This relationship bond must surely continue in heaven, but it is obviously no longer exclusive, given that we are all one in Christ.

v36
      gar "-" - for. There is no need to maintain the institution of marriage in heaven "because" those who share in the resurrection do not die and therefore do not need to breed to secure a family's posterity.
      dunantai (dunamai) pres. pas. "they can [no longer]" - they are [not] able [any longer].
      apoqanein (apoqnhskw) aor. inf. "die" - to die. Infinitive of means expressing how the action of the main verb, "they are able", is accomplished; "it is no longer possible for them to die", TNT.
      gar "for" - for. They don't marry because they don't die, they don't die "because" they are like angels / sons of God, and they are like angels / sons of God, because they are children of the resurrection.
      isaggeloi (oV) adj. "like the angels" - angel-like. Possibly "equal to angels", but better, "like angels." Hapax legomenon, once only use in the NT. Note the possible sense: "the resurrected ones don't marry because they are like angels", but better, "they don't die because they are like angels." Angel-like in the sense that like the angels those who share in the resurrection will not die, so Danker, Bock. Nolland disagrees, "the comparison should not be seen in terms of intrinsic immortality, but rather in connection with a certain kind of glory and dignity." "Nor can they die any more, for they are like angels", Barclay.
      uiJoi eisin qeou "they are God's children" - they are sons of God. "Sons of the Most High", Lk.6:35. Best as NIV. = members of the kingdom of God united to God, one with God in the Son of God. "All ecstasies and intimacies will then be with God", Peterson.
      onteV (eimi) pres. part. "since" - The participle is probably causal, "since / because."
      thV anastasewV uiJoi "children of the resurrection" - sons of the resurrection. Probably "because they share in the resurrection."

v37
      Having demolished the Sadducees tricky argument, which was based on the false notion that the ground-rules on earth are the same as the ground-rules in heaven, Jesus presents a tricky argument in return, one based on scripture, which proves that the righteous dead are raised.
      epi + gen. "in the account" - at [the bush]. When it comes to meaning, this preposition is a bit all over the place. With the genitive it tends to be "punctiliar", Moule, so here it's making the point that it's "at" that point in the Bible which speaks about the burning bush. "In the portion of scripture known as `the bush'", Plummer.
      thV batou "of the bush" - "Moses indicated in the passage concerning the thorn-bush", TH.
      kai "even" - even [Moses revealed, made known, showed]. Proof-texting the resurrection would be better supported by Job 19:26, Ps.16:9-11, Isa.26:19, Dan.12:2, ....., but Jesus confines himself to the Pentateuch, the scriptures regarded authoritative by the Sadducees.
      oJti "that" - Here probably explanatory; "that the dead are in fact raised", Barclay.
      egeirontai (egeirw) pres. pas. "rise" - are being raised. Theological passive, God does the raising, "are raised [by God]", Williams. Probably a futuristic present, "will rise", NAB.
      wJV "for" - as, while. The conjunction here takes a temporal adverbial sense; "when he calls the Lord", Moffatt.
      legei (legw) pres. "he calls" - he says. Durative, ie. The point being that God still speaks through Moses / the scriptures to the Patriarchs. Possibly even setting up a quote from the scriptures, "it says", Ellis, or "he says", Bock, cf. Nolland. "When he speaks", Fitzmyer.
      kurion ton qeon "the Lord the God [of Abraham]" - Lord the God. Double accusative. Unlike Matthew, Luke has not chosen to use the LXX version "I am the God of Abraham ....." expressing the Lord's "being the God of", rather than "having been the God of." As noted above, Luke may be giving us a quote, as both Matthew and Mark do, see above. If a quote, it serves, not as a direct quote, but as a que for the actual text, Ex.3:2-6. "When he speaks of (about/concerning) the Lord as the God of Abraham ..... Jacob", Fitzmyer.