Mark 12:20

“Neither do these two evangelists differ in the matter of the order.” — editor's note: Mark xii. 13–27; Luke xx. 20–40.

“…for the purpose of raising up seed to his brother; and this may happen repeatedly to the same person, according to that crafty question of the Sadducees; men for that reason think that frequency of marriage is permitted in other cases as well: it will be their duty to understand first the reason of the precept…” — editor's note: See Matt. xxii. 23–33; Mark xii. 18–27; Luke xx. 26–38. Comp. ad Ux., l. i.

“Their specious inquiry concerned the flesh, whether or not it would be subject to marriage after the resurrection; and they assumed the case of a woman who had married seven brothers, so that it was a doubtful point to which of them she should be restored.” — editor's note: Matt. xxii. 23–32; Mark xii. 18–27; Luke xx. 27–38.

“Therefore no solicitude arising from carnal jealousy will, in the day of the resurrection, even in the case of her whom they chose to represent as having been married to seven brothers successively, wound any one of her so many husbands; nor is any (husband) awaiting her to put her to confusion.” — editor's note: See Matt. xxii. 23–33; Mark xii. 18–27; Luke xx. 27–40.

After that our Lord has prudently escaped the crafty temptation of the Pharisees, it is shewn how He also confounds the Sadducees, who tempt Him. Wherefore it is said: “Then come unto Him the Sadducees, which say…

A certain heretical sect of the Jews called Sadducees denied the resurrection, and said that there was neither angel nor spirit. These then coming to Jesus, craftily proposed to Him a certain tale, in order to shew…

And fitly do they frame such a fable in order to prove the madness of those who assert the resurrection of the body. Such a thing however might really have happened at some time or other among them.

But in a mystical sense: what can this woman, leaving no seed to seven brothers, and last of all dying, mean except the Jewish synagogue, deserted by the seven-fold Spirit, which filled those seven patriarchs, who…

As if He had said, Ye understand not what sort of a resurrection the Scriptures announce; for ye believe that there will be a restoration of our bodies, such as they are now, but it shall not be so. Thus then ye know…

We must here consider that the Latin custom does not answer to the Greek idiom. For properly different words are used for the marriage of men, and that of women; but here we may simply understand that, “marry,” is…

Thus then they do not understand the Scripture, in that in the resurrection, men shall be as the Angels of God, that is, no man there dies, no one is born, no infant is there, no old men.

In another way also they are deceived, not understanding the Scriptures; for if they had understood them, they should also have understood how by the Scriptures the resurrection of the dead may be proved. Wherefore…

But I say, “in the bush,” which is an image of you; for in it the fire was kindled, but it did not consume its thorns; so my words set you on fire, but do not burn off your thorns, which have grown under the curse.

But I say, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” As if He had said, “The God of the living,” wherefore He adds, “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living;” for He did not say, I…

Or else; because after proving that the soul remained after death, (for God could not be God of those who did not exist at all,) the resurrection of the body also might be inferred as a consequence, since it had done…

But when He says, “The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;” by naming God thrice, He implied the Trinity. But when He says, “He is not the God of the dead,” by naming again the One God, He implies…

That is, because they contradicted the Scriptures, and derogated from the power of God.

Mark 12:20 and Luke 20:29 share the same wording (8 words).

Cited together in Jerome on Mark 12:18–27 (Catena Aurea).