Page last updated

 


 

Scripture Text (NRSV)

 

Luke 20:27-38

 

20:27 Some Sadducees, those who say there is no resurrection, came to him

20:28 and asked him a question, "Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies, leaving a wife but no children, the man shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother.

20:29 Now there were seven brothers; the first married, and died childless;

20:30 then the second

20:31 and the third married her, and so in the same way all seven died childless.

20:32 Finally the woman also died.

20:33 In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For the seven had married her."

20:34 Jesus said to them, "Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage;

20:35 but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor

are given in marriage. 20:36 Indeed they cannot die anymore, because they are like angels and are children of God, being children of the resurrection.

20:37 And the fact that the dead are raised Moses himself showed, in the story about the bush, where he speaks of the Lord as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

20:38 Now he is God not of the dead, but of the living; for to him all of them are alive."

 

Comments:

 

As I consider the lectionary texts this week, I am aware of the tension between tradition and God's revelation. In the Thessalonians passage, Paul clearly states that the faithful are to hold onto tradition (granted it is the traditions(s)taught by him); in the Luke passage, we see how the Saduccees held onto their tradition (their views of resurrection)so tightly that some want to trap Christ and some seemingly miss what the Christ has to offer. I am aware that in many churches we serve, that tradition is important. I am pondering when does the tradition "yield" to God's revelation, God's calling to live in a new way in a new day? Some traditions are Godly, others clearly are of a cultural bent. Also not every voice or vision is of God... how do we deal with the tension between tradition and revelation?

jjinchassc


I'm thinking of starting my sermon with a couple of the innocent questions kids ask about what heaven is like (found in books like Kids Questions about God). Then contrasting their curiousity with the Sadducees questions, which are not innocent inquiries at all, but attempts to get Jesus. Jesus doesn't feel the need to put the Sadducees down, and show his superiority in being right, which as humans we often have the need to do. Nor does he give a simplistic answer. Instead he goes to the heart of the gospel. Through him is new life both now and after death, as God is a God of the living. The Sadducees were already "dead" in their faith, being distracted by power plays, instead of seeking a true and intimate relationship with God. Jesus addresses our real needs, giving true hope. GB in MI


November 11th is also Veterans Day, which also adds to the brew. I also used the ladder. For once I really had everyone's attention! Thank you for your contributions last week! Mark in WI


This passage of scripture is not about marriage per say but about the resurrection. How do we speak of the resurrection in light of the events of in our wold today? The resurrection is our hope I believe. For God is a God of the living and not of death. God is a God of hope and not despair. God is a God of life and and not destruction. For we believe in the one who is resurrected. We believe in the one who said, "I am the resurrection and the life..."

I believe this can be a very theological sermon about the resurrection, yet I'm not sure how to present it...yet.

RB in NC


I just bought a book on prayer last night (i can't think of the name but will add it later.) It will convince you as well as this man of the positive need he can be for prayer. Also at my church we got prayer partners last night.


I too am thinking of revisiting Sept. 11--perhaps with a view as to how we approace Jesus with "trick" questions in order to shore up our own prejudices. It would seem that old "Just War" theories answer the question "May we engage in war?" and do not address the larger and more important question of "should we engage in war?"


Help! My stewardship committee and head pastor chose this Sunday to be the one for the Big Stewardship Sermon, and it's my Sunday to preach. All my initial thoughts of how to work with this are going nowhere. We are "children of the resurrection" and we celebrate this new life and freedom by giving of ourselves...? Unfortunately when the people know this kind of sermon is coming, many tend to automatically tune you out. Any voices of experience out there with some ideas? Steph in SD


Steph in SD... a little advice, probably of little use. Regarding Stewardship, I'd say feel free to go off the lectionary. Develop your own sense of stewardship - what it is all about to you. Find scripture which informs you. Share it -just witness from your heart. If you want to be sure they don't ask you to do it again next year, start with this (as I once did)...."Stewardship really has almost nothing to do with money"...It'll drive the trustees crazy. Then go on to talk about stewardship as a way of living thankfully and faithfully before God - the Provider of all. Money is just one little part of a life of stewardship before God. However, as the only pastor, I was not excused from preaching on the subject the next time around. Be not afraid, and rememebr that in the congregation there are some who "get it" and live life as thankful, generous stewards. Some of them are wealthy and some are like the widow and her one coin, giving all they have. They can really teach others a lot by their example - its great if you can get them to share in worship or in groups their sense of stewardship. There are also those who think its only about the money and the budget, and they have much to learn from the others. Then there are those who are on the edge of getting it, and have great potential to discover the blessings of generous sharing of God's gifts - our time , talents, material treasures. Maybe you can't preach to all of these people, so perhaps decide who your "target" is. Jim in CT.


Right now I am calling my sermon disturbed ground. It is based on the field of flanders. (Whole people) Disturbed ground can be very good for new growth. I cant connect it to this yet. seems better over in thes. and Haggai. The last few week we have had the prophetic voice call us to worship. Rambling here. I really like the question idea too. Fertile ground this place. nancy-Wi


Please tell me, where is the story about the ladder? Thanks mbs4c


mbs4c There is no story really, some of us used a ladder to preach from. A new perspective. I talked about what Z, might have seen from there and how it might have been safer. Then went on with some other points. Nancy-WI


Is this passage about the future or the present? For me there is a conundrum woven in here. It relates to how you emphasise the grammar.

The Sadducees raise a very important point in their question. They are implying that the resurrection applies to the future. In other words, for them marriage is related to the present and that if there is no resurrection then it all works out ok. It ends with the death of the wife. But if there is a resurrection, then it causes (for them) major ramifications for relationships later.

And this is a very human concern. I am often asked whether grandparents will have alzheimers following the resurrection. Will they recognise their grandchildren? Will handicapped people have their impediment? All of this is caught up in the question the Sadducees are asking, because for them, they are essentially applying divinely revealed Law to this issue. The Torah, required that a woman marry her husband's brother to produce offspring.

Jesus confirms that marriage is for the present, but that they have the wrong concept of the resurrected life. Jesus is virtually saying that the resurrected life, which he is offering means that a person cannot die anymore and therefore the requirement for marriage is nonsensical. People of the resurrection love beyond the boundaries of earthly existence.

A society that effectively cannot die and loves all people as God requires does not require the institution and order of marriage, because procreation is not necessary and all are already in a marital relationship state. A healthy and fulfilling marriage is a precursor or a foretaste of the kingdom of God. Married couples are supposed to represent the relationship shared by all in the Kingdom of God.

It pays us to remember that in Jewish custom a woman was a man's possession, and that marriage often was regarded as a commercial transaction.Marriage was therefore instituted to promote order in community. Jesus is saying that for those who understand the freedom of the renewing life of the Spirit, marriage takes on far more divine dimensions.

The example of Moses, indicates that this is not a futuristic endeavour but a present reality.

This is a powerful reminder of the difference, between a meaningless life of human endeavour,(marriage for offspring or for lawful reasons) and the difference that acknowledging God's imprint in our human activities can make. (marriage based upon mutual concern and care)

One lot of people are dead to the possibility of such a society (They are stuck on the Law), the other are resurrected, or renewed in their minds of the potential of such a state of being (They are freed by their faith in God). Read Romans 7:1-6.

(Be attentive to how you read - "neither marry nor are given in marriage.)

By the way, this is in no way advocating total freedom of sexual expression, fornication or all out orgy, (which it was sometimes interpreted as during Paul's era) but the transforming power of "marriage" freely accepted by both parties as an eternal relationship. "Neither death nor life can separate us from God's love." Romans 8:38-39.

Have a wonderful week everyone.

Regards,

KGB in Aussie.


Seems to me that this is one of the passages that deals with a question that has little interest to us - I wonder why? perhaps it is because we don't have a real concern for heaven and the way things will be in heaven - we don't trouble ourselves with stuff like this because we don't take heaven as literally as the ones in this story. Now granted they were trying to trap Jesus - but the point for me is the fact that I hear few questions if any about heaven - because we just don't care? What about a sermon where the preacher would make an effort to really challenge the congregation to take the heaven more seriously? so that each of them might put more hopes in heaven and thus put more effort into their spiritual lives. I like the idea of looking a some of the questions kids ask about heaven - why don't we ask any questions like that anymore? revdan


GReat discussion this week. I was wondering if anyone had an illustration of someone who wrestled or struggled with her/his faith. Willimon claims that it takes some effort as well as some risk to come to faith. THe Sadduccess were unwilling to take that risk or make the effort. Any help would be appreciated.

Paula in sunny Fl


GReat discussion this week. I was wondering if anyone had an illustration of someone who wrestled or struggled with her/his faith. Willimon claims that it takes some effort as well as some risk to come to faith. THe Sadduccess were unwilling to take that risk or make the effort. Any help would be appreciated.

Paula in sunny Fl


Thanks for the idea of the ladder. I adapted it. I retold the story of Zacchaeus--talked about what it is like to be small (I was always small for my age). Had the kids look out into the congregation--they couldn't see all the faces, then had them look out at the congregation from the pulpit (pretty radical here!). Doesn't life look different when you're up high in a tree. Maybe this is how Zacchaeus felt. Can you imagine Jesus calling to you? What would you say? The congregation loved it--especially when I lifted the little ones so they could see out. Thanks. Roberta


Like many of you, I am not sure where this sermon is going yet. I have been pondering the question of what life would be like if we did not believe in the resurrection. Seems to me it would seem pretty bleak. I would hate to think that this is all there is -- & I live a pretty good life compared to many. I know the Saducees were the priestly aristocracy, but I wonder what life was really like for them. Just a few open-ended considerations for now. Art in KY


Steph, On the stewardship thing, I heard Dr. John Maxwell talk about an approach he used once which was interesting in getting across the point that is in the Haggai passage, "All the silver and gold is mine." He said before church he gave someone a fifty dollar bill with the instruction that they were to give it back to him at the place in the sermon where he asked for money. Right at the beginning of his sermon, he said. Some friends are coming by after church today and I find that I need some money to take them out. Could someone give me some cash to use. At this point the person dashes up front with the fifty and hands it to Maxwell. Maxwell thanks him and begins his sermon. In a few minutes he says. I'll bet you wonder what that little exchange between X and I was really all about. In fact there are a few of you that are saying I wonder why I didn't jump up and give the pastor the money. Why did X react so quickly? The truth is that X found it easy to give me the money since the money was already mine. He was just giving me back what was already mine. Well you can see the implication this has for stewardship, that we can truly be generous when we recognize that all we have is God's to begin with. It is not ours. J in IL


revdan, I agree with you that there seems to be a general disinterest in the passage.

But is it a disregard for "heavenly things"? (By the way heaven isn't even mentioned in the passage.) Or is it more simply an unwillingness to address the complex consequences of resurrection thinking.

This exchange recorded by Luke, reflected the slight movements people have in thinking about death. The Sadducees regarded death as the end of being. Mortality and relationship with God were connected. In their thinking, our relationship with God only extended to the extent of our mortal life. This had resultant consequences for which they had formulated answers for.

This is different to Christ, however, who regards death only as the end of the mortal body. For Jesus, it is not the end of spiritual significance. To have life, is to have significance beyond the grave.

I would suggest that it is precisely because many Christians have trivialised the resurrection and have simplified it, that has allowed for the disinterest. Disputes over the resurrection of the body/spirit only exasperate those who are struggling with the question. Are we raised as a 5 year old or a 35 year old? Do our resurrected bodies have wrinkles or not? Will we recognise each other? etc, etc....

When the resurrection is regarded as a present reality, it becomes much more relevant in the normal person's every day life. Every single choice that we make contains elements of it. For Jesus/Luke, the resurrection life is not just a future hope, but a current crucial aspect of our existence.

Most human beings simply do not want to struggle with the reality, that every human choice contains the universal elements of life and death/right and wrong. For them it makes life too difficult and too demanding. Much easier to blame God or the devil.

The resurrection life for Jesus, translates as the way of the cross. In other words it infiltrates every moment of our life.

When the disciples finally understood what Jesus was getting at they asked the crucial question. "Who then can be saved?". It is still a very good question.

Yes, the Christian resurrection life, requires tough thinking and uncomfortable wrestle, but it provides the only fully loving way to live our life. It is not about marriage or children (Which the Jewish culture regarded as immortality - your life continued through your children) but about individual relationship with God's Spirit/Life/Word. It is a journey of never ending struggle.

No wonder many are disinterested. They prefer a more simplistic approach.

Thank-you all for this page, and the space to voice my thoughts. I look forward to the rest of the week.

Regards,

KGB


This is a facinating reading. The Sadducees try to "trap" Jesus in this discussion. How interesting that such an aristocratic group choses the very issue that they don't believe in to try to bring him down!!!!

What does this suggest for us? How often do we have discussions during the fellowship hour about similar issues: homosexuality, the death penalty, abortion, etc. People trying to find the one "flaw" to capture something that doesn't exist!

Anyway, it is appropriate to discuss the meaning of the resurrection and eternal life in these passages - something that us modern day "Sadducees" need to be reminded.

I know you all have heard the old joke:

Why were they called "Sadducees"? Because they didn't believe in the resurrection -- "sad-you-see"

Peace, tom in ga


jjinchassc asked: "how do we deal with the tension between tradition and revelation?"

I haven't seen anyone tackle the question ... so I'll give it a shot.

As an Episcopalian, I have had to deal with this question rather often because our Anglican theological method (first enunciated by Richard Hooker during the reign of Elizabeth I) purports to draw from three streams: Holy Scripture, Divinely-inspired (or "right") reason, and Tradition. Sometimes this is referred to as Hooker's "three-legged stool." (Hooker was pre-Enlightenment, so for him "reason" was not the cold rationality of the modern age; "right reason" as he called it included an experiential component. Post-Entlightenment Wesley, as the Methodists amongst us will testify, took Hooker's "three-legged stool" and made it into a quadrilateral by separating "experience" from "reason" and ending up with a four-legged pedastal for theology: Scripture, Reason, Experience and Tradition.)

As I have understood the application of Hooker's method, Scripture has precedence over "right reason" or "tradition." If the answer to an issue is not found clearly in Scripture, one moves on to the application of reason (and experience) within the community of the church (this is not an individual exercise!). If the issue cannot be clearly decided thusly, one finally looks to the "tradition" -- how has the church dealt with similar issues throughout its history?

It's interesting that in the discussion this week there has been mention of a ladder.... because I once heard a theologian suggest that Hooker's three-pronged method should be pictured not as a stool but as a ladder: Scriture and Reason constitute the uprights of the ladder and the church's Traditions make up the rungs. As we "climb" through history or as we "climb" toward greater understanding of God and our relationship with God we leave various traditions behind, just as we leave behind the rungs of a ladder. We actually build this ladder as we move up, adding new rungs of "tradition" to help us move forward.

So, the tension between tradition and revelation (which includes Scripture _and_ Reason guided by the inspiration of the H. Spirit) is a healthy thing. That tension keeps the rungs of tradition steady so that we can use them to progress forward. As we move, though, we leave behind the various little-t traditions but always rely on the "uprights" of Revelation (Scripture and Reason). Traditions (little-t traditions, but not the steam of Tradition), thus, are intended to be abandoned, but Revelation is never abandoned.

Whenever we discuss Tradition, I am reminded of Jaroslav Pelikan's remark about the difference between "tradition" and "traditionalism": "Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living." That seems particularly applicable to the Sadducees in this week's Gospel lesson.

Blessings, Eric in KS


Eric KS- I like the ladder theology. I think it will preach and I can tie in Haggai too. The ladder is the way to think your way out of the despair of September 11. We find a vision hope in both the promise made to the Israelites and the promise of resurrection. Any insights will be welcome. Nancy-WI


I have a vague idea brewing that is related to the image of the people in the story being compelled by law to assume the roles they did. The women and the men are in a sense treated as objects -- the woman must marry the next brother, and the next brother steps up and assumes the role of his "fallen" brother. Almost like in war, when the next man, it doesn't matter who it is, steps up and retrieves the banner that fell with his comrade. I guess I'll tie this image to Veterans' Day somehow, and the idea of doing what you conceive to be your duty, etc. But when I retrieve the idea of the freedom of the resurrection, that no one marries or is compelled to do anything, this life seems grim in comparison. I don't want to draw this stark a comparison. Can anyone give me a suggestion? Or should I scrap this idea and turn to another emphasis within the text? Thanks for all the great ideas I take in whenever I preach.

Jeri in IA


Steph in SD - I don't know why everyone hates Stewardship. I think it's a most inspiring time, a chance to put our faith into action. In fact, at the offering each week I often say, "Let us bring our tithes and offerings and worship God with our money."

Anyway, the Haggai passage is good on this theme: "Shaking earth and heaven." On 9/11 lots of people were shaken up (although I wouldn't say it was God doing it, the result was the same). One of the results was an amazing expression of generosity. Sometimes it takes some shaking up for us to realize what's important in life. And when we put our lives in perspective, we also tend to be much more generous.

This is related somewhat to the theme of resurrection. You have to die before you are resurrected. You can't be resurrected until you are shaken up in death (whether physical or spiritual).

I'm not sure where that's going. We "did" stewardship last week, and I've already made many of these points in previous sermons. So I'm still waiting to see what the word is for this week. Thank you for all your helps.

DGinNYC


This was sent to me Though someone might like it. Don't konw who wrote it.

" MEET ME IN THE STAIRWELL "

You say you will never forget where you were when you heard the news on September 11, 2001. Neither will I. I was on the 110th floor in a smoke filled room with a man who called his wife to say "Good-Bye." I held his fingers steady as he dialed. I gave him the peace to say, "Honey, I am not going to make it, but it is OK...I am ready to go."

I was with his wife when he called as she fed breakfast to their children. I held her up as she tried to understand his words and as she realized he wasn't coming home that night.

I was in the stairwell of the 23rd floor when a woman cried out to Me for help. "I have been knocking on the door of your heart for 50 years!" I said. "Of course I will show you the way home - only believe in Me now."

I was at the base of the building with the priest ministering to the injured and devastated souls. I took him home to tend to My flock in Heaven. He heard my voice and answered.

I was on all four of those planes, in every seat, with every prayer. I was with the crew as they were overtaken. I was in the very hearts of the believers there, comforting and assuring them that their faith has saved them.

I was in Texas, Kansas, London. I was standing next to you when you heard the terrible news. Did you sense Me?

I want you to know that I saw every face. I knew every name - though not all know Me. Some met Me for the first time on the 86th floor. Some sought of Me with their last breath. Some couldn't hear Me calling to them through the smoke and flames; "Come to Me... this way... take my hand." Some chose, for the final time, to ignore Me. But, I was there.

I did not place you in the Tower that day. You may not know why, but I do. However, if you were there in that explosive moment in time, would you have reached for Me? September 11, 2001 was not the end of the journey for you. But someday your journey will end. And I will be there for you as well. Seek Me now while I may be found. Then, at any moment, you know you are "ready to go." I will be in the stairwell of your final moments. God author unknown


I remember the old movie "The Portrait of Dorien Grey" where his portrait gets older and uglier because of the sins encountered and involved in in this world. Seems like the Saducees are convinced that our enganglement in this life would really screw up the next life. Jesus says, those fit for the next life, don't get permanantly marked in this life. That is different, radical and is a gospel point of view! Heltoni in SC


On the other hand, I have always wondered if this isn't where Paul got the idea that if folks could avoid burning with passion they should refrain from marriage, since Jesus said those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. Heltoni in SC, hope this only gets posted once.


Thinking on Nancy-WI comment on “revisiting Sept. 11” this Sunday, as we come to “Veteran’s Day” overlapping God’s day, it might be interesting to look at where Sept. 11/Nov. 11 overlap theologically.

The Job 19:23-27a lection (not mentioned on this site as such, though it is in the lectionary for Nov. 11) provides cover art and quote for UCC bulletin covers: “I know that my redeemer lives.”

HarperCollins Study NRSV indicates “redeemer” Job seeking here is “an avenger of blood.” It might be interesting to look at the redeemer Christ came as instead (or even the response Job actually gets from God). And even more interesting to see where we put our faith — in the Redeemer who came among us or the Vengeance we may prefer!

Peace and courage, Bill in NY


I am truly impressed with the quality of the discussion this week! Thanks esp. to KGB, revdan, and Jeri. I'm afraid my only contribution is to say that, having pastored a blue-collar urban church, a small, rural church, and hospital and nursing homes in the rural West, there are a LOT of people out there in our congregations who truly do believe in the resurrection -- or who at the very least speculate a lot about what it might mean. They may call it "heaven," or they may think of themselves as too sophisticated to call it that, but if they have had deep love on this earth, they hope to rejoin with those they have cared most for. Sometimes to resolve the issues that never got resolved in life. CE in CO


CE in CO, your words are well taken and you are correct to realize that folks have many ways of thinking about the resurection even if they can't put them into words. Sometimes we can sell folks short and not realize that spiritually in the end is not about words but about the lives that we live and the ways we make it through each day. Let me make a new statement about the passage - we don't care about it becuase it is not asking the "right" question for most of us. The real question we want them to ask Jesus is simply - will we be united with the ones we love? if the answer is yes, then all the rest is just details. RevDan


Here's a great interview with a modern day charming Sadducee -- listen to his view of life beyond this life. In particular, I liked his self-description: "you know what an agnostic is -- a cowardly atheist!" Go to npr.org, click on Programs A-Z, go to Morning Edition, click on experience the show (Nov. 8), then scroll down to Studs Terkel. It's worth the search, sorry I couldn't get a link to work here. NM in TX


This is a tough text to preach on... divorce is always difficult... I'm looking forward to finish reading your contributions...

I think I might preach on Veterans day instead! :?)

pulpitt in ND


drl,

Sounds to me like most of what you have done... a wonderful way to keep your friend active! I'm going to "steal" your idea about prayer "warriors" I might use a more peaceful word... like "prayer partner"...

still, the idea is a good one, thanks,

pulpitt in ND


How's this for a sermon title on 11-11-01...

"All for one and one for all..."

pulpitt in ND


The key is at the end - he is the God of the living, not the dead. The real question is not about marriage or resurrection, but the God who is the God of all the living. this is a liberation text, as I see it. It is an affirmation that women are not property, nor do they relate to God through their husbands, as some claim even today, but have their own direct relationship with God.

The Saducees were trying to trick Jesus - they did not believe in the resurrection anyway. But Jesus obviously did, so they asked him what they thought was a loaded question. Because women were viewed very much like property, the question was basically, "whose property will she be?" To which Jesus replies, "No ones."

I think this text really belongs with "there are no longer ...male nor female ... for all are one in Christ." It is our declaration of freedom and unity in the "God of the living."

Marriage is just a sign of a greater union, as Paul says in Ephesians 5. In the resurrection there is no marriage, because all will enjoy a closeness that marriage only hints at. I think of it as trying to describe the sunset to someone who cannot see - we do not know what it will be like, and cannot even begin to capture it in words, or even in our experiences here. But God has given us marriage as a gift, so that we can have a "sign" of that which is to come (similar, perhaps to communion as a "sign" pointing to a greater feast of love). The sign is one of unity, but also of freedom - the freedom found in love.

Anyway, a few thoughts!

Gary in New Bern


A man went searching for his uncle’s grave in a military cemetery in Germany. They told him it would be impossible to find. His uncle was just 14, still a boy, when he died. It was the final days of the war, when bodies were buried in haste as the Allied forces advanced. You see, the man’s uncle had been a Hitler Youth.

When I was 14 I was a mass of insecurities and sometimes monumental stupidity. As an adolescent I really didn’t have a clue what was I was doing but I was too anxious to get my life going and never stopped to ask questions. Sounds familiar, I’m sure. We just went ahead. That 14-year-old boy who died in the war was prone to the same teenage uncertainty. I wanted to join the most popular club, the high school band, and that German boy jockeyed for a spot on the most revered club in the land, the Hitler Youth. And why not? It was like summer camp every day, steeped in German pride and history. He shouted their slogans, believed whatever they told him. In the end he was as much a victim of Hitler’s insane propaganda as any other who died.

The Allies didn’t have much opposition at the end. The neat white tombstones showed that Hitler had 14, 15, and 16 year olds in the army, boys who had scarcely finished playing with their toy soldiers.

A group of Sadducees came to Jesus. “In the resurrection, whose side will he be on? Will he be on the German side or on the Allied side?” Jesus said to them, “Those who belong in this age worry about allies and whose side you’re on. But those who are considered worthy of a place in the resurrection will not be concerned about allies and enemies. Indeed they cannot die anymore, because they are like angels and children of God.”

History may well judge these boys differently, but to Jesus they are victims of a world not yet made whole. May God's kingdom come soon.

[The story is based on a column in the Toronto Star, November 11, 2000, written by Martin Patriquin. His uncle’s name was Eberhard Rumscheidt.]

Rev. Karen in Ontario


Gary in NC & Karen in Ontario - Thank you both so much. What inspiration takes on the text you have. Gary, I always find your comments helpful and have made a habit of reading your sermons which you post so amazingly early on your webpage. Peace, RWH in MD


One small note: I see this passage as a debate between Jesus' challenging message of incarnation and the Sadducee's distrustful use of the theology of resurrection. On the one hand, with incarnation one is searching for God in the present and, on the other hand, with resurrection one is searching for the hope of God in the future. Neither is 'wrong' but I would argue that incarnation is the superior of the two. By searching for God in the present, we are also acknowledging our call to serve God with our actions, follow Christ's call in helping those in need and being open to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to discover the infinite ways God is present in our lives. One does needs the hope of a future resurrection but American Chiristianity often offers 'heaven' or 'salvation' as an end. It truely is only the beginning. Seeking the incarnation of God in our day to day living is the true work of a lifetime.

TB from MN


I have benefitted so much from the discussion forum in the past that I felt I should post a sermon for the first time on DP. felt very uncomfortable with this week's texts for Canadian Remembrance Day. I am concerned that as preachers we don't set up the Sadducees and Pharisees as the bad guys--as a result of Sept. 11th we must seek religious tolerance (especially) in our preaching. So I turned to texts on "light". Genesis 1:1-5; Jn 1:1-9; Mtt 5:14-16. I spent a good deal of time reading Martin Buber, Elie Wiesel and talking to a friend who comleted a Masters in Jewish Studies in Jerusalem. He made sure I did not "Christianize" the Jewish philosophy. I have posted my sermon. I hope it sparks ideas. Roberta


I have benefitted so much from the discussion forum in the past that I felt I should post a sermon for the first time on DP. felt very uncomfortable with this week's texts for Canadian Remembrance Day. I am concerned that as preachers we don't set up the Sadducees and Pharisees as the bad guys--as a result of Sept. 11th we must seek religious tolerance (especially) in our preaching. So I turned to texts on "light". Genesis 1:1-5; Jn 1:1-9; Mtt 5:14-16. I spent a good deal of time reading Martin Buber, Elie Wiesel and talking to a friend who comleted a Masters in Jewish Studies in Jerusalem. He made sure I did not "Christianize" the Jewish philosophy. I have posted my sermon. I hope it sparks ideas. Roberta

 

Previous:

 

So? What is the message in this? Where is the sermon in this? Where is the hope?

Jim - Iowa


Why would Jesus say that marriage is a worldly thing and not a heavenly thing? Is Jesus saying that marriage does not reflect the perfect will of God but circumstancial needs of humans on earth? How does this fit with the narrative of Jesus giving Peter the Keys to the kingdom and saying what ever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven? What about the phrase, marriages are made in heaven?


Any of you like the movie, What Dreams May Come? It offers a new paradigm for life after death which speaks especially to many people in younger generations. It raises many questions including what about marriage relationships in the life to come?


It seems to me that this passage is making the point that the logic of the resurrection is not the logic of the world. The Sadduccees try making an argument to prove the concept of the resurrection as absurd. The good news is that our faith is not primarily a logical construct, but an eternal relationship with a living God!

Nick


As I've prayed on this passage, I keep coming back to the fact that God is bigger than our human minds can handle. In our confirmation class last week we were talking about the names that we use for God. I had posted 31 different biblical names for God around the room -- and could easily have found hundreds more. The point was, none of those words was able to encompass all that God is. We need to learn (or perhaps only remember) that although we are restricted to human concepts, God is beyond our wildest imaginings. And that is the Good News -- God can do things for people that we can't even imagine. For example, God is big enough to forgive a person who abuses a child so badly that the child dies. Most importantly, God is big enough to send His Son to die for my sins -- 2000 years before I had even committed them. JJ


WILLIAMS'S PEN FILLED With God's Spirit Again

THOSE COUNTED WORTHY

Oh those poor Sadducees' have been placed all in one lump but if we read real close only some were in a resurrection slump

Now here lies the perfect question for that Sad- ducee camp the ones oppossing a resurrection and using the law of Moses as their lamp

One wife and seven brothers all together in a marriage slate so the question seemed perfect to prove no resurrection state

So amazing were these Sadducees' reasoning so for if all eight were resurrected what would she do with these seven bows

But Moses pointed to a much stranger sign the God of the living so there is never any dead time

We only die to each other in this very short life but the Sadducees' were slow to account for God's living should have ended this very strife

Oh those poor Sadducees' have been placed all in one lump but to the ones oppossing the resurrection Jesus revealed a change in condition from that deadly slump

10/29/98


For Rebecca in MD,

Thanks so very much for your posts. I find them very helpful. Do you accept direct email?

jah


I understand that the Saducees not only denied the resurrection, they did not believe in life after death or any reward or punishment beyond this life. They denied the existence of angels and demons. They did not believe that God was concerned with what people did or did not do.

Doesn't this parallel Spongianity in many respects? And other neo-Christian sects who deny so much of orthodox Christianity while impying that they know the truth, the way and the life?

Early musings...

Rick in Va


Sometimes, maybe most of the time we limit God to our vison rather than vision God as the ultimate. Perhaps this Lukan passage is not about marriage at all but about our concept of eschatology. Frequently or conceptual thinking of eternal life is clundy by our family view.


where is the hope? As someone going through a divorce, it is a very hopeful passage.


Please, let's not go into this scripture with a 20th century view of marriage. Marriage in the first century was an economic arrangement, usually initiated and concluded by the parents of the two parties. Generally speaking, the woman had no say in the matter, and the man often had very little, especially if he were 15 or so, which was a normal age to be married.

To me, when Jesus says we won't be giving people in marriage in the Kingdom, Jesus is saying that one human being will not be held subservient to another, that we won't have the economic necessities that made marriage what it was.

I find this very hopeful.

ST


I need the help of all of you as I struggle to preach this week's eschatological passages. I have a great deal of trouble knowing how to approach this.

On the one hand, I am appalled by the kind of fasciniation with the "end times" and trying to predict Jesus' return that we see in a lot of pop Christianity. It's nothing new, my grandmother's cousins one put on white robes and got into their wagon to sit on a hill to wait for the appearnace of the Lord. He was sure to come that day.

On the other hand, I believe firmly in the resurrection to life everlasting. We go finally to the presence of God.

That in itself is a struggle for me, because I had seminary professors in theology who taught that to believe in a personal resurrection was simply a human wish to defy our mortality. They considered it a selfish belief.

I think that part of what Jesus is saying here is that our life in the Realm of God will be so different from what it is here that we can't understand it in those terms. It's not more of the same. No harps. New relationships.

Please share how you will deal with these issues.

ST


Perhaps a way to 'manage' the issue, is not to answer the questions, but rather ask even more- stretching our congregations own imagery so that they can better push their own ideas and concepts which may be false, or at least too small.

RL


Perhaps a way to 'manage' the issue, is not to answer the questions, but rather ask even more- stretching our congregations own imagery so that they can better push their own ideas and concepts which may be false, or at least too small.

RL


My husband's grandparents were in our lives for quite a while. First the grandfather went. A good man, a Christian, a product of his time he was appalled when one granddaughter was seriously involved with a person of another color. He got over that. Anyway, both his first wife and the daughter of that marriage died and he re-married Julie, who was a widow with teenage daughters. After his death, Julie worried that in heaven would he be with his first wife or with her? She was tortured by these thoughts. She was not worried about getting in, just who wold be with whom. Interestingly, she was not worried about the first husband, just the second.

I offer this because these were real thoughts of a not-so-dumb lady. If your church is like mine, it has some widows and widowers and re-marrieds older folks, and who will be with whom may be for them more than a "sad-you-see" joke. Comments that "God is bigger than that" will surely need amplification.

Aloha, HW in HI


Where is the hope? I find it in the last few words :for to him all of them are alive." I wonder why it can't be enough for us simply to place our trust in that. That to God, the dead are all alive. Whatever that means in terms of our relationships, we trust that it is good, that is is far better than our relationships this side of the grave, though through them we can experience eternal life for sure. IT seems here an "earthly" question gets a "heavenly" answer. Mary


Mary,

I agree with you. The Saducees, who did not believe in the resurrection, ask questions of Jesus concerning the resurrection. Their motive was not the seeking of an answer but the entrapment of Jesus.

The Scriptures elsewhere tell of Christ, the bride-groom, coming for His Church, the bride. Would it be theologically sound to say that marriage, as defined this side of heaven will pale in importance when compared to our 'marriage' to Christ, our being united with Him, where we will worship, praise and glorify Him forever?

Hw In HI,

Your questions and comments display a strong pastoral sense, but I wonder if concerns today about which husband/wife we would be with in Heaven doesn't distract from or diminish the fact that our focus eternally will not be about each other but about the One who has reconciled us to the Father and whose existence and purpose has allowed us to be in His presence?

Great thoughts so far, keep 'em coming...

Rick in Va


It's apparent from the context that Saduccees are just trying again to trap Jesus. They think that Jesus is a kook- at best a Pharisee wannabe, at worst part of the desert-dwelling lunatic fringe. They think that if they embarass him, they will somehow get people to stop following him. His answer is not really about resurrection, it is about relationship. What Jesus is saying is that only our relationship with the God Who Resurrects counts. He is not intending to give us some sort of a systematic explanation of the "resurrection body." After all, what does it mean that the resurrected "are like the angels in heaven?" What are angels anyway? The Saduccees considered angelogy to be pagan supertition, so why does Jesus use this image as the answer? Could it be that he is saying, "Hey, folks, eternity will be like nothing you can imagine. God, the Eternal One, will bring those with faith into resurrection life. Oh, and by the way, morons, if you ever read the Torah you would know that there was a resurrection. After all, didn't Moses call Yahweh the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. That means that death doesn't even count in eternity: only our relationship with God does."


My grand suspicion is that we are nearly clueless about heaven, about resurrection about God.... But Jesus came to gives us clues, and that those clues are sufficient for faith. That in the resurrection our past alliances, marriages, loves, will not be trashed I am sure. But somehow they will not be critical, either.

One thing I have learned is to look at the scripture from the pain of the congregation. I once gave a sermon that side-stepped female subserviance, only to watch a woman sob and sob while i spoke -- she had been repeatedly raped by hre father as a child. Boy, did I feel awful! Now I try to look at the pain, as one aspect only, when i preach. And I still think its important to remember that some of our people will be wondering, just like the "sad-you-sees".

HW in HI


I think this text is a wonderful door into challenging are members views of heaven. Are children have a better picture of heaven from Hollywood than they do from the church? Do I have a better picture than Hollywood? Perhaps/perhaps not, but I can tell you God has a far greater view than Hollywood does. God tears down the limits. Personally my marriage is the most wonderful gift I have been given in this world, and yet Jesus tells me there is still greater gifts. A love which surpasses the love I have for my wife!!! What a gift!

On a different note same theme I once asked a group of mental patients to describe what they thought Heaven was like. The most enduring answer to this question came from a woman who could barely move. She responded, "Heavens a place without Wheelchairs." This text helps me ponder what heaven is like, but still keeps me hoping.

Intern Mike


The hope is in the fact that He is the God of abraham and not merely his creator.When the father tells us that he is our God, He means it in an active and living sense. His love for me is so great that he will not pass the rest of eternity without me. This hope in the ressurection was vital to the first century christians willingness to be martyred for the faith. Because Christ rose from the dead I can live for God and not worry that it is all for nothing that I give up certain worldly desires and attitudes. I fear that some of my more liberal freinds who deny the ressurection of Christ may be living the life of the dead before their time. Heideger was preoccupied with the notion that facing our death pushes us toward decision but I believe that belief in eternal life allows us to act fearlessly in our decision


I agree with H in HA. This passage does provide some interesting commentary on relationships once we pass to the other side. But I think the main direction of the text is about the resurrection. Marriage is an transitory covenant that is not needed in heaven. Here on earth, due to the brokeness of sin we need covenants to help us treat people faitfully. We won't need these in heaven. But we will still retain the knowledge, intimacy, and love we shared with our loved ones here on earth. In heaven its possible to love two, three, four lovers with out jealousy, abuse, fear, because we will be filled with the love of Christ. Now what to say about the resurrection...


The Great "I Am."....the God of Abraham.... I was hoping to weave Veteran's Day somehow into the morning message. I'm looking for the thread. My husband of 24 years keeps reminding me that we are only married "until death do us part." Oh well. What are the updates please? How was the baptism? Did we include Boomer? How is the organist? Any ideas for Vet's Day?


THE MAIN THRUST OF THIS is that earthly considerations are not necesarily heavenly ones. It was acceptable for a widow to marry her brother-in-law in order to have children and keep the family name alive. SEE the word, 'childless' in the passage? In heaven, having children, keeping a family name alive is not a worry, not a priorty, not a necessity. Neither is the earthly complication from someone being married to 2 or 3 spouses throughout their lifetime. In heaven, I think we'll all be as close as if we were all married or at least close enough to be part of the family of God. The Book of Revelation describes Heaven usually NOT BY what IS THERE, but by what IS NOT there--no tears, no sorrow, etc. With this passage, we could add, no jealously, no abuse, no marital domination, no coveting, no treating someone as if they were exclusive property. What are problems and considerations here are not the same problems in Heaven. STAN


I am touched by Mary's thought that heaven will be greater than our minds and hearts can even envision right now. What's hard for many people is that death is painful; it brings separation from the ones we love. So we latch on to the hope that we'll see them again, and that inevitably is understood in terms of the relationships we have had in this life. But we do forget that we are now living in the "shadowlands." Many things which exist for us now--even good things--are given to us by God because it is a broken world. Law, for example, is necessary to maintain order and justice. In the fullness of God's eternal realm, there won't be a need for law. Churches exist here because we are a people separated from God and forgetful of God's love and presence in our lives. We attend places of worship to remind us of who we are and to call us into mission into the world. But someday, in God's eternity, we won't need churches any more, for we will be always in the fullness of God's presence. Marriage, too, is one of those things that help us get through this barren world. Marriage calls us to discover the power of commitment, sacrifice, partnership, co-creation, tenderness, vulnerability, hopefulness, and the mystery of love in a world where those things are elusive and even avoided. Someday those same characteristics will describe every relationship, and we will be in the heart of love and joy. That doesn't diminish the importance of a wonderful marriage here. It gives us hope that we who strive for healthy, whole marriages here will be in practice for later on. We've been given a foretaste. And in all of this, we learn just to trust that God has better things in store for us, now and later, than we can even imagine. -- Tim in Deep River


From time to time I hear parishioners express concerns that we will not know one another in heaven. I'm not sure where this anxiety comes from, but I suspect they are wrestling with one of the issues that Jesus raises in this passage. If there is no marrying or giving in marriage in heaven, what will human relationships be like there? From this dark vale, it's kind of hard to imagine the transcendent relationships that will exist among the children of the resurrection. The idea that God is not the God of the dead but of the living really is an excellent follow-on to the emphases of All Saints Sunday.

Do any of you know C. S. Lewis's "The Great Divorce"? It deals with some of these issues, though indirectly. It's one of my favorites.

Bill in SoMD (where we are finally getting a little rain, thank God!)