Jesus said to them, “Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage; 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. Indeed they cannot die anymore, because they are like angels and are children of God, being children of the resurrection. 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. Now he is God not of the dead, but of the living; for to him all of them are alive.”
Commentary
I tried, unsuccessfully, to do a word search on “resurrection”, in the old testament. Yet here we have, in the first line of our reading, a statement that the Sadducees did not believe in resurrection. In my mind, the implication is that other Jews did. So why can't I find, in the old testament, what the pre-Jesus Jewish community thought on the subject? I think it is of more than just passing importance, because it could give us insight into what Jesus himself thought about the subject. After all, Jesus claimed on at least one occasion to have come not to destroy the existing law but to fulfill it.
I am going to leave that thought incomplete. We do not have the time today to chase it to its source. But I do suggest we remember that it is, I think, central to today's reading. There is a great deal in the Bible we are left in the dark about.
So what we do have, in the gospels, is this story, also repeated in Matthew and Mark; a passing mention in Luke 14 about being repaid at the resurrection; and the famous claim from John “I am the resurrection”. That's it. No golden streets, no new bodies, no great throne. Those may well be in the Bible, but Jesus never said them.
So with that caution about my severely limited understanding, lets look at what IS said in this little reading. As I have already noted, the Sadducees didn't believe in resurrection. That is what we are told. And, apparently in the belief that Jesus does, they want to engage him with a trick question about how it will work. In particular, who exactly is the poor woman going to be stuck with in the resurrection, after having been married to all seven brothers in her worldly life.
Jesus does not waste his time on the question of whether or not there is a resurrection. Instead, he goes directly to the question of the nature of the resurrection. For him, its existence appears to be pretty much a given. Hence my fascination with what the Jewish faith said. Jesus asks us to recall the story of Moses and the burning bush. In particular, that Moses spoke to God in the burning bush.
That ought to tell us right away that in Jesus' mind, we are not dealing here with physical bodies. Instead, what Jesus focuses on is that Moses addresses God as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And in the next sentence, Jesus says that since God is the God of the living, a point of faith apparently needing no explanation, then Moses must see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as living. End of argument. The only way I can understand that as having closed the loop in any way is to conclude that to Jesus, resurrection is just another way of saying eternal life, and eternal life is in the spirit.
I want to be very clear here. Jesus did not say “ resurrection is just another way of saying eternal life, and eternal life is in the spirit”. Those are my words in an attempt to make sense out of what Jesus did say. What we are told he said was that Moses addresses God as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and because God is the God of the living, Moses is telling us that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are living. Remember, before Jesus, Moses was the authority. If Moses said it, it was true.
It still leaves us in the quandary. Jesus is asked a question about the resurrection and he gives an answer about eternal life. Does he think he is answering the question, or is he just blowing off the Sadducees. It seems like a silly question, and if we had a host of alternative scriptures to go to we could just set this one down and not worry about it.
But we don't. So unfortunately, to the question of what does it mean, I have to say, “I don't know”.
I tried, unsuccessfully, to do a word search on “resurrection”, in the old testament. Yet here we have, in the first line of our reading, a statement that the Sadducees did not believe in resurrection. In my mind, the implication is that other Jews did. So why can't I find, in the old testament, what the pre-Jesus Jewish community thought on the subject? I think it is of more than just passing importance, because it could give us insight into what Jesus himself thought about the subject. After all, Jesus claimed on at least one occasion to have come not to destroy the existing law but to fulfill it.
I am going to leave that thought incomplete. We do not have the time today to chase it to its source. But I do suggest we remember that it is, I think, central to today's reading. There is a great deal in the Bible we are left in the dark about.
So what we do have, in the gospels, is this story, also repeated in Matthew and Mark; a passing mention in Luke 14 about being repaid at the resurrection; and the famous claim from John “I am the resurrection”. That's it. No golden streets, no new bodies, no great throne. Those may well be in the Bible, but Jesus never said them.
So with that caution about my severely limited understanding, lets look at what IS said in this little reading. As I have already noted, the Sadducees didn't believe in resurrection. That is what we are told. And, apparently in the belief that Jesus does, they want to engage him with a trick question about how it will work. In particular, who exactly is the poor woman going to be stuck with in the resurrection, after having been married to all seven brothers in her worldly life.
Jesus does not waste his time on the question of whether or not there is a resurrection. Instead, he goes directly to the question of the nature of the resurrection. For him, its existence appears to be pretty much a given. Hence my fascination with what the Jewish faith said. Jesus asks us to recall the story of Moses and the burning bush. In particular, that Moses spoke to God in the burning bush.
That ought to tell us right away that in Jesus' mind, we are not dealing here with physical bodies. Instead, what Jesus focuses on is that Moses addresses God as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And in the next sentence, Jesus says that since God is the God of the living, a point of faith apparently needing no explanation, then Moses must see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as living. End of argument. The only way I can understand that as having closed the loop in any way is to conclude that to Jesus, resurrection is just another way of saying eternal life, and eternal life is in the spirit.
I want to be very clear here. Jesus did not say “ resurrection is just another way of saying eternal life, and eternal life is in the spirit”. Those are my words in an attempt to make sense out of what Jesus did say. What we are told he said was that Moses addresses God as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and because God is the God of the living, Moses is telling us that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are living. Remember, before Jesus, Moses was the authority. If Moses said it, it was true.
It still leaves us in the quandary. Jesus is asked a question about the resurrection and he gives an answer about eternal life. Does he think he is answering the question, or is he just blowing off the Sadducees. It seems like a silly question, and if we had a host of alternative scriptures to go to we could just set this one down and not worry about it.
But we don't. So unfortunately, to the question of what does it mean, I have to say, “I don't know”.