Ἐν τῇ οὖν ἀναστάσει τίνος τῶν ἑπτὰ ἔσται ἡ γυνή; πάντες γὰρ ἔσχον αὐτήν. (Matthew 22:28)
In the resurrection, then, of which of the seven will the woman be? For all had her.
The Syntax of a Trick Question
This verse arises in the context of the Sadducees testing Jesus with a hypothetical scenario involving levirate marriage. The Greek sentence itself is deliberately constructed to reflect the rhetorical trap. The clause ἐν τῇ οὖν ἀναστάσει (“in the resurrection, then”) is a prepositional phrase using ἐν + dative. The particle οὖν functions inferentially, pointing back to the elaborate scenario and introducing the logical consequence of their story. Grammatically, it marks a transition from the narrative to the challenge.
τίνος τῶν ἑπτὰ: Interrogative Genitive Construction
The phrase τίνος τῶν ἑπτὰ is a beautiful example of a genitive of possession formed with an interrogative pronoun. τίνος is the genitive singular of τίς (“who?”), and τῶν ἑπτὰ (“of the seven”) is a partitive genitive. Together, they ask “Of which of the seven?” This genitival chain modifies the future verb ἔσται (“will be”), pointing to possession or association with ἡ γυνή (“the woman”). It’s a subtle grammatical trap: the woman cannot simultaneously belong to all seven, yet πάντες γὰρ ἔσχον αὐτήν claims they all did.
ἔσται: Future Indicative of Being
The verb ἔσται is the third person singular future middle indicative of εἰμί, meaning “he/she/it will be.” Though morphologically middle, εἰμί is semantically active and used here with no reflexive nuance. The future indicative is used here to imply legal or relational status in the afterlife: “will be (the wife) of whom?” This kind of usage of εἰμί with a predicate nominative (ἡ γυνή) is standard, but carries profound theological implications in the debate about resurrection.
πάντες γὰρ ἔσχον αὐτήν: Aorist as Past Possession
The final clause πάντες γὰρ ἔσχον αὐτήν (“for all had her”) uses the aorist active indicative ἔσχον, from ἔχω (“to have, to hold”). The aorist expresses the totality of a completed action in the past — not just repeated possession, but collective and sequential marital relationships that are legally valid according to Mosaic law. The subject πάντες (“all”) is plural, hence the verb is third person plural aorist active indicative. The direct object αὐτήν is feminine singular accusative, agreeing with ἡ γυνή. The force of this clause is to reinforce the legal dilemma: since all had her in life, who retains her in the resurrection?
Article and Noun Agreement: ἡ γυνή
The noun phrase ἡ γυνή (“the woman”) uses a nominative singular feminine article and noun pair, functioning as the subject complement of ἔσται. In Koine Greek, word order is often flexible, and here ἡ γυνή is fronted after the verb for rhetorical emphasis. It is not the subject, but rather the element about which the question revolves. The use of the definite article reinforces that the Sadducees are referencing a specific woman from the story — one who successively married seven brothers under levirate law.
Theological Irony in Syntax
The grammar is not neutral — it carries theological overtones. The Sadducees use precision Greek to frame a problem they believe exposes the absurdity of resurrection. But the syntax betrays irony: by constructing a logical and legalistic dilemma, they reveal their shallow understanding of resurrection’s nature. The use of possessive genitive, aorist indicative, and future linking verbs in legalistic harmony underscores their commitment to earthly categories, which Jesus will soon transcend in his response.
Discourse Flow and Particle Logic
The placement of οὖν (“then”) and γάρ (“for”) shows a classic Koine discourse pattern. Οὖν looks backward and connects the resurrection to the preceding story, while γάρ offers a logical grounding — “for all had her.” These particles are small but significant. They signal the logical structure of the argument, and their inclusion reveals the sophistication of the Sadducees’ reasoning. But the discourse also lays a trap for their theological blindness. They treat resurrection as merely an extension of earthly legal logic, which the Messiah will soon overturn.
Parsing Overview
| Word | Form | Parsing | Function |
|---|---|---|---|
| ἐν | Preposition | + Dative | Introduces temporal phrase |
| τῇ ἀναστάσει | Noun | Dative Singular Feminine | Object of preposition |
| τίνος | Interrogative Pronoun | Genitive Singular | Possessive (whose?) |
| ἔσται | Verb | Future Middle Indicative, 3rd Sing. | Main verb (linking) |
| ἡ γυνή | Noun | Nominative Singular Feminine | Predicate nominative |
| ἔσχον | Verb | Aorist Active Indicative, 3rd Plural | Completed past action |
| πάντες | Adjective | Nominative Plural Masculine | Subject of ἔσχον |
| αὐτήν | Pronoun | Accusative Singular Feminine | Direct object of ἔσχον |
When Resurrection Confounds Logic
Matthew 22:28 is a masterclass in how grammar can be used to frame theological traps — and how syntax exposes the assumptions behind human reasoning. The Sadducees’ question is logically tight, grammatically refined, and rhetorically polished — yet the very structure of their inquiry reveals their failure to imagine a resurrection that transcends earthly categories. In their genitives and aorists, they presume too much. In the linking verb of possession, they bind eternal realities to mortal legalism. The grammar of their question is sharp, but it cannot pierce the truth of the resurrection.
