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!)
