Jesus’ Heavenly Family Values—Lectionary Reflection for Pentecost 22C/Proper 27 (Luke 20)

Luke 20:27-38 Common English Bible (CEB)

                27 Some Sadducees, who deny that there’s a resurrection, came to Jesus and asked, 28 “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies leaving a widow but no children, the brother must marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. 29 Now there were seven brothers. The first man married a woman and then died childless. 30 The second 31 and then the third brother married her. Eventually all seven married her, and they all died without leaving any children. 32 Finally, the woman died too. 33 In the resurrection, whose wife will she be? All seven were married to her.” 

                34 Jesus said to them, “People who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy to participate in that age, that is, in the age of the resurrection from the dead, won’t marry nor will they be given in marriage. 36 They can no longer die, because they are like angels and are God’s children since they share in the resurrection. 37 Even Moses demonstrated that the dead are raised—in the passage about the burning bush, when he speaks of the Lord as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. 38 He isn’t the God of the dead but of the living. To him they are all alive.”

********************

               When we think about where Jesus fit in the milieu of First Century Judaism there is a tendency to pit him against the Pharisees. In the Gospels, Jesus had many run-ins with them. However, in many ways, his theology aligned well with the Pharisees. The religious grouping that stood much further away from Jesus’ way of thinking was the Sadducees. We see that difference play out in this reading from Luke 20. Contextually, Jesus is now in Jerusalem. He had already entered the city riding on a donkey. While he was welcomed with open arms and shouts of praise by at least some of the people in the city, that wasn’t true for everyone. This, of course, is the Palm Sunday reading (Luke 19:28-40).  After he entered the city, he had run-ins with both the Pharisees and the Sadducees (according to Luke’s account). In our reading, it is the Sadducees who approach him and raise questions designed to embarrass him.

The Sadducees formed one of several First Century Jewish religious parties. In many ways, they were religious conservatives who sought to protect older theologies, especially when it came to the afterlife. This party was comprised largely of aristocratic members of priestly families. The high priests came from this party, and they tended to have a good or at least cordial relationship with the Roman authorities. While the Pharisees embraced the Resurrection, they rejected it. Interestingly, this group disappeared with the destruction of the Temple while the Pharisees became the fount of the Rabbinic tradition. Israel Knohl writes of them that the “Sadducees continued the classical view of the Torah, which stressed the difference between God and human beings and avoided messianic expectations for the future.” Knohl suggests its this difference between the Sadducees and the Pharisees and other similar groups that may have led to Jesus’ death [The Messianic Confrontation, p. 108]. As Knohl makes clear in his book, it was the Sadducees who presided over Jesus’ trial, and so this was but a preview of coming encounters.

This particular group of Sadducees, likely part of the priestly company, approached Jesus and attempted to test him. They seemed eager to mock him, which is a common political move. Being that they were in charge of the Temple, they would have had a motive to embarrass Jesus. Just before this encounter, Jesus had caused a ruckus in the Temple. After his triumphal entry, he scattered the merchants, freed animals set for sacrifice, and turned over the tables of the moneychangers, suggesting that the Temple leadership had turned God’s house into a den of thieves (Lk19:45-46). This is the so-called cleansing of the Temple, and no doubt the priests and their allies (all Sadducees) would have been rather irate at the way this upstart Galilean peasant had messed with their Temple.  So, why not ask a question that might cause embarrassment to Jesus?

                The Sadducees who approached Jesus set up their test with a question making use of the ancient practice of levirate marriage. In an attempt to attack Jesus’ teaching on the resurrection, they asked what would happen in a purported afterlife, if a man died without leaving an heir. According to custom, it was up to his younger brothers to marry his widow and hopefully produce a son (heir). So, what would happen if none of the seven brothers provided him with an heir? In that case, who would the wife belong to in the resurrection? Now, it needs to be remembered that the point of levirate marriage was to assure the eternal value of one’s legacy. That eternal legacy was achieved through one’s male line (in a patrilineal society).

While levirate marriage is no longer practiced within Judaism, many of the concerns that gave birth to that practice remain with us. There is a need in many families to perpetuate the family tree. To give an example, my father was very interested in our family’s ancestry. As such, he was concerned about his legacy. While he (with my mother) had produced two sons, what about the next generation? I will say that he was pleased that Cheryl and I produced a male child. At least for one more generation, the Cornwall name would continue, but what if our son doesn’t produce a male heir? Of course, my cousin David, the son of my father’s older brother, also produced a male heir, so perhaps the Cornwall name will continue for another generation. I simply don’t know at this point. People who spend a lot of time with genealogies believe that family legacies are important, including the passing on of the family name. But, while legacies seem important to many of us, Jesus doesn’t appear to agree. In fact, Jesus’ family values message might not resonate with many Christians today.

The Sadducees weren’t that interested in the family values issue. Their big issue had to do with the resurrection, something they had rejected outright. By posing this question to Jesus they sought to demonstrate how ridiculous the doctrine of the resurrection was. As to who the woman belonged to in the afterlife if no child was produced was designed to be an unanswerable question. However, Jesus found a way to turn the question on its head. He answered them by suggesting that in the resurrection marriage and family doesn’t exist. If that’s true, then the question of who the woman would belong to in the afterlife is a moot point (yes, the question of to whom the woman belongs should rattle our modern sensibilities; but for that age, women were still considered property of husbands/fathers). In his answer to his examiners, Jesus suggests that if marriage and giving in marriage don’t take place in the heavenly realm, then their question poses no problem to adherents of the doctrine of the resurrection. That’s because, in the next life, we’ll all be like angels! With that it would seem that Jesus wins the argument (even the Pharisees might cheer him at this point)—the resurrection still stands.

While Jesus fends off their attack on the resurrection, he does raise questions about the value of marriage and family. If it doesn’t have eternal value, then what? It is common in weddings, at least the ones over which I’ve presided, for the couple to pledge their covenant loyalty to each other “until death do us part.” That would seem to suggest that the bond of marriage lasts as long as we “both shall live,” at which point the covenant promise of fidelity ends. We can marry again, even have children, and life goes on. As for the next life, who knows how things will work out?

While we say the words about the length of the covenant partnership, over time, assuming the marriage lasts for a lifetime and children are produced, a hope often emerges that assumes that the bond forged in life will continue into the next life. So, when we gather at funerals, many will envision being reconnected with our loved ones so that life will continue as it did before. We don’t seem to factor in second marriages and blended families, or perhaps we just assume that the family gets a bit larger. Ultimately, we don’t seem to worry about the intricacies of the situation. We just want to take up our former lives, without any adversity, in the next life. That is one of the reasons why in Mormon theology, the practice of consecrating marriages in the Temples is so attractive. In this theology, couples are sealed for eternity. It also answers the question of to whom one is married in the resurrection. It’s the one to whom one is sealed in the Temple. As far as I know, that can take place only once (except among those who continue to practice polygamy). Alas, for the rest of us; we don’t have the theological legacy to stand on. What we have is this message from Jesus.

                I take up this passage in my book Marriage in Interesting Times (Energion, 2016). I made this passage the concluding chapter in the book, which I titled “Beyond Marriage and Family.” I address the question of security. If you have security in this life, as the members of the Sadducees party had, then there’s less need for an afterlife. If you have male heirs to carry on one’s legacy, that will be sufficient. But what if you don’t feel secure in this life? Perhaps the next life will provide the kind of security this life did not.

                In our modern context questions raised about the resurrection are different from the first century. They’re mostly intellectual ones. Since we can’t prove the existence of an afterlife, then why bother believing in one? If we do believe in the resurrection, the question of to whom we’re married in heaven probably doesn’t even come to mind. Yet, at least on an emotional level, a good majority of Christians expect to take up life as usual in the heavenly realm. We want to believe we’ll be reunited with our family members. But it would seem that Jesus sets all of this aside. This would suggest that while family might be important to us when it comes to the kingdom of God, it’s not ultimate. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus even suggested that his relatives didn’t include his mother or brothers and sisters, but rather all those who follow the ways of God. They are his mother and brothers and sisters (Mk. 3:31-35). So, much for Jesus’ family values!! 

               If Jesus doesn’t back up contemporary concerns about family values, he does want to affirm the doctrine of the resurrection. That is ultimately the real issue at hand—the Sadducees weren’t concerned about family makeup in the afterlife since they didn’t believe in it. Unlike the Sadducees, Jesus embraced the idea of resurrection. He sought to back up this affirmation with a bit of scripture. After all, in raising the question of levirate marriage the Sadducees sought to challenge Jesus’ reading of Scripture. In response to the challenge regarding the possibility of resurrection, Jesus reminds the Sadducees who embraced the Torah as the definitive scriptural text that when God appeared to Moses at the burning bush, God revealed God’s self as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exodus 3:6). According to Luke’s Jesus, the wording of God’s self-revelation meant that these three Patriarchs still lived (they had experienced resurrection). Therefore, if this is true then God is the God of the living and not the dead. As such, death has lost its sting. Death is not victorious. It is not ultimate. That is because of the promise of the resurrection, a doctrine that was late in emerging within Judaism, but which held great promise among the people to whom Jesus addressed. That message of resurrection was affirmed by Paul, who claimed that Jesus has conquered death through the resurrection, guaranteeing for us the promise of resurrection (1 Cor. 15:54-55).