When someone says “X is the X of Y,” it does not require that “Y” be something that is currently in effect. We can call Abraham Lincoln “the Civil War president” without implying that the Civil War is currently being fought. We can call Marduk “the god of the Chaldeans” without implying that the Chaldeans still exist. And the Abrahamic God can be the God of the Exodus, the God of the Passover, and the God of the Cross, without any of those things still being around. The language used in Exodus 3:6 simply does not require that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob be non-dead, because if it did, Jesus would have shot down his whole argument with the only “supporting” Scripture he quoted.

There’s nothing in [Exodus 3:6] that says anything about death or resurrection or the future. There’s nothing in [Exodus 3:6] that requires Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to be alive in order for God to be their God… Jesus’ argument is simply not well-founded, even taking the Bible at face value. (DD, brackets mine)

I disagree, and my response is here.

Thanks for stopping by.

And don’t forget, Jesus IS God, so he can speak on his own authority, regarding the writings or the scriptures. The sermon on the mount was used to further the peoples understanding of the law and these teachings are not found in the OT either.

There is no shell game going on here.

“You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 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.”

When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.

Man, that looks familiar. Don’t modern “how to convert people by preaching the Gospel” guidebooks have segments like the bolded part all over the place? I’m pretty sure I’ve seen something similar in a Chick tract.

Which is to say – how do we know that they actually were astonished, and not just too busy snickering to themselves to say anything?

Although I do find the suggestion above in the comments that perhaps Jesus was referring to a non-canonical book somewhat promising. The topic of angel procreation does seem to fit the stereotype of what we might expect to find (i.e. randomly developed theological tangents).

Interesting.

Ben

That puts that last line into a different light as well, since it would be a shift in argument from arguing that they’re wrong because of a work they don’t accept as genuine to arguing that they’re wrong because of what the books that they DO accept as genuine say. Though the argument is a pretty weak one.

However. Even if this claim did mean to cover all of the Tanakh and not just the Writings, we still run into the problem that the entirety of the NT couldn’t possibly be covered by this claim because none of it had been written yet. So do G&T ever deal with the fact that this story might itself be in error because Mark (who Matthew copied this story from) might have gotten it wrong? Or might have deliberately made the story up for one reason or another? Something tells me that the answer to this question is a resounding no.

Jesus works as a great example of all the techniques used by modern-day preachers and apologists [...]

You’ve just characterised the methodology of a demagogue.

That’s a good point. I had never stopped to think about this, although it should have been apparent at first glance.

“… not God of the dead …” I can’t think of any place in the OT where he could have gotten this, either. In fact, doesn’t it imply the opposite, in Psalms 139:8, “If I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.” (Reading “hell” in the OT sense of “grave”.)

Jesus works as a great example of all the techniques used by modern-day preachers and apologists; lying, goalpost-shifting, invective, weasel words, trust-me statements, etc. Now I can add to that list, adding to Scripture, and whole-cloth invention.