Luke 20:31
ESV
and the third took her, and likewise all seven left no children and died.
NIV
and then the third married her, and in the same way the seven died, leaving no children.
NASB
and the third married her; and in the same way all seven died, leaving no children.
CSB
and the third took her. In the same way, all seven died and left no children.
NLT
Then the third brother married her. This continued with all seven of them, who died without children.
KJV
And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died.
NKJV
Then the third took her, and in like manner the seven also; and they left no children, and died.
What does Luke 20:31 mean?
Jesus is teaching in the court around the temple. Local religious leaders, jealous and fearful of His popularity, are trying to discredit Him using religious, legal, and theological paradoxes. So far, they've not only failed, but they've humiliated themselves (Luke 20:1–26).Now comes the Sadducees' turn. They don't believe in the resurrection of the dead, but they know Jesus does. They value the Mosaic law, which includes the practice of levirate marriage. If a married man died before his wife could conceive an heir, his line would die and he would be dishonored. The cultural answer, which God incorporated into the Law as "levirate marriage," was for the deceased man's brother to marry the widow; their first son would be the original husband's heir (Deuteronomy 25:5–6).
The Sadducees combine the two concepts: a woman marries, but her husband dies with no heir. She marries his next-oldest brother, but he dies with no heir. This continues through seven brothers. Then, she dies. If the resurrection is true, which brother is she married to? All of them? Just one? This is not really a question as much as a claim: that the concept of resurrection is ridiculous (Luke 20:27–33).
In Jesus' era, interactions like this were common. Rabbis and students would ponder thought experiments, attempting to better understand and apply Scripture. The problem here isn't the question itself, but the motive in which it's asked. The goal is not enlightenment. It's to prove Jesus is not worth following.
Of course, Jesus was and is exactly who He claimed to be. He is worth following. And fallible humans can't trap the Son of God in a false paradox.
Luke 20:27–40 records the Sadducees trying to discredit Jesus' authority to teach. They plan to present a paradox about marriage and the resurrection of the dead. Leaders of other religious sects have already failed to embarrass Jesus regarding the law and civil responsibilities (Luke 20:19–26). Jesus easily explains away the Sadducees' argument using the very text which their sect reveres: the Torah. He continues with proof that the Christ has authority over David and warns the people to be wary of the scribes' hypocrisy (Luke 20:41–47). This debate is also recorded in Matthew 22:23–33 and Mark 12:18–27.
After His triumphal entry into Jerusalem, Jesus find Himself in conflict with the city's religious leaders. Elders, priests, scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees all attempt to discredit Him. This comes mostly in challenging Jesus with trick questions. Jesus deftly handles those challenges without falling into the trap. He provides several teachings about His role as the Son of God and directly warns the Jewish people against their generation of scribes, who are arrogant and pretentious.
