The God of the living and Jesus' resurrection argument
Jesus quotes God's self-identification to Moses as the God of the patriarchs when defending resurrection before his own death.
Historical context
At the burning bush, God calls Moses and identifies himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The scene leads into Moses' commission to bring Israel out of Egypt.
Tradition note
Read the unity of Scripture in Christ while attending to the Old Testament's literal setting and the New Testament's use of it. Fulfillment can include a renewed historical pattern, not only an isolated prediction; this collection is a study guide rather than an exhaustive doctrinal catalogue.
Avoid overclaiming
The original scene establishes God's identity and his relationship with the patriarchs in the call of Moses. Jesus draws a resurrection argument from that relationship; Exodus does not explicitly predict the date or circumstances of his own empty tomb. This earlier defense of resurrection must not be placed as an event that occurs after Easter.
Key points
- New Testament application
- Matthew 22:31–32 (New Testament application) — During the final Jerusalem disputes, Jesus quotes the patriarchal identification and argues that God is the God of the living. This is a scriptural defense of resurrection before the passion, grouped with his temple-period teaching rather than his own resurrection event.
Doctrinal connections
- During the final Jerusalem disputes, Jesus quotes the patriarchal identification and argues that God is the God of the living. This is a scriptural defense of resurrection before the passion, grouped with his temple-period teaching rather than his own resurrection event.
Scripture
- Exodus 3:1–6 — At the burning bush, God calls Moses and identifies himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The scene leads into Moses' commission to bring Israel out of Egypt.
- Matthew 22:31–32 — During the final Jerusalem disputes, Jesus quotes the patriarchal identification and argues that God is the God of the living. This is a scriptural defense of resurrection before the passion, grouped with his temple-period teaching rather than his own resurrection event.