READINGS

Luke 20:27-40
Levirate Law Dt 25:5-10 combined with Gen 38:8
Moses and the Bush: Exodus 3:6,15; 4:5

TEXTS

The Resurrection and Marriage

27 Some of the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus with a question.

28 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.

29 Now there were seven brothers. The first one married a woman and died childless.

30 The second 31 and then the third married her, and in the same way the seven died, leaving no children.

32 Finally, the woman died too.

33 Now then, at the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”

34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage.

35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection.

37 But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’

38 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”

39 Some of the teachers of the law responded, “Well said, teacher!”

40 And no one dared to ask him any more questions.

HOMILY

Last Sunday Jesus was in the middle of Jericho with Zacchaeus and that was on the eve of his departure for Jerusalem and arriving in time to visit the Temple.

Thereupon begins the readings that we are used to having in Holy Week starting with Palm Sunday (the processional coming into Jerusalem; his visitation of the Temple; the various discussions he has with authorities in the Temple).

Today we have one of these discussions in the Temple before the Passion (specifically with the Sadducees, who ).

This is Saint Luke's version of what happened after Priests, Scribes, Elders have come to Jesus raising various questions, which Jesus answered them in ways that are difficult to understand.

The Sadducees was a mixed group largely Priestly, but quite a lot of lay people as well; what they had in common was that they didn't believe in Resurrection.

These were rich aristocrats - people from the system, who are very keen on keeping the status quo standing well.

In their religious beliefs they were strict adherence of Torah, meaning that it was only the five books of the law that they regarded as binding.

They were not interested in any of the writings or the prophets and they were certainly not interested in the tradition of the fathers, which was something which the Pharisees, for example, took very seriously (the Pharisees had a much more open approach to what was in and what was not in the scriptures).

In fact, one of the things that definitely was in the scriptures from the point of the Pharisees was the book of Maccabees, because it told the story of the brothers who had revolted against the Greek rulers in a kind of a guerrilla war and had won, thus being able to restore (refund) the Temple (about 167 BC) and begin a new understanding of Israel.

So the story of the Maccabees was very important and, in this book, it's the first text apart from the book of Daniel, which comes from about the same time.

It's the first mention of the resurrection of the Dead that we have in Hebrew writings; therefore the Sadducees didn't like it for two reasons:

It wasn't in their books: it was only in books, which were recognized by the Pharisees;
It was in books linked to social upheaval of the sort of which the Sadducees strongly disapproved: they didn't want truth coming out from "unstable" people, who might take over the state and do something exciting.

The Sadducees were very keen on keeping in well with the Romans, as to make sure that nothing was upset.

From their point of view, the Pharisees and their rather two exciting doctrines were a bad thing.

So no wonder they have questions of Jesus and their question is as you would expect cunning and clever and really quite logical.

It's meant to put Jesus on the spot. It's a catch me - a catch you - question; it's a gotcha question.

Teacher, Moses wrote for us (so they treat him respectfully) 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 ...

They're quoting the law, which we know as the Levirate Law from Levy (meaning brother-in-law).

It's a law, which is constructed out of two passages from Torah:

Deuteronomy 25:

when Brothers reside together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a stranger; 

her husband's brother shall go into her taking her in marriage and performing the duty of a husband's brother to her; 

and the firstborn whom she bears shall succeed to the name of the deceased brother, so that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.

So that's the function of the Levirate Law and they've linked it to the story of Onan in Genesis 38.

Genesis 38, where Judah's (the leader of the tribe) firstborn son dies, and he tells his second son Onan:

go into your brother's wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her; raise up offspring for your brother ...

Note that the word for "raise up", in the original in the Greek of both Deuteronomy and Genesis, is from the same verb anastasis - you shall raise up (literally you shall resurrect in our language).

So the same verb for the resurrection and for the raising up.

They're actually producing the key texts and they're making a very good point.

If Moses had known about the resurrection of the dead, why would he have told people to raise up children for their brothers?

Why would the only mention of resurrection have been the sort which a brother can do for a brother by giving him offspring posthumously?

It's a sensible question, because you can assume that, if Moses had known about the resurrection, he would have therefore said:

well, in that case, it doesn't really matter if a brother dies without offspring, because there's a good chance that he made it in the resurrection life anyhow; 

he doesn't need an offspring to guarantee that.

So they quote the Levirate Law and then they tell him a tale.

This is a case, and they want Jesus to sort this one out for them.

It is a clever case, because they're going to use the Maccabees (the pet project of the Pharisees, whom they disliked).

So they're going to by reference (not by name), but anybody listening would have picked up at once, because it's about seven brothers and our first reading this week brings that out perfectly.

There were seven brothers: the first married and died childless; then the second and the third married her and so on in the same way all seven died.

So you have these brothers and each one passes the widow to the next on the hope that someone will raise up offspring for all of them, but none of that happens.

Finally the woman also dies. 

In the resurrection therefore whose wife will the woman be for the seven had married her?

Seems a sensible question presupposing resurrection to be some sort of continuation of human life and the bond to have been made between husband and wife must've been real, so whose wife will the woman be for the seven had married him.

Here we have Jesus's answer and he gives the state of things.

Firstly, before offering his proof, he does the reverse of them (they offer the proof and then give the story).

Jesus says to them:

those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage

Understanding that this age refers to equality of the life, in which we are currently living - doesn't necessarily refer to chronological time, but to a mixture of chronological time and the particular quality of the time.

This age may or may not be open to the age to come.

The age to come doesn't necessarily mean something future, but something starting now (there are different qualities of time).

but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age

"Worthy to obtain a place in that age": that's the age that is to come.

Again, it can refer both to a chronological element of time, but not one starting in the future and the quality of time, which could can be starting now.

These are the predecessors of our notion of eternal life.

those who are considered worthy to obtain that age and in the place in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage

So the presumption is that they have died before this question becomes interesting.

They cannot die anymore, because they are like angels and are children of God being children of the Resurrection.

Now that simply sounds as though he's saying something it doesn't actually sound like an argument.

I think it's worth trying to bring out some of the heft of what is behind that, because it's a difficult thing.

He's suggesting that, in this age, marring and giving marriage is for the production of offspring (and that's perfectly fine), but the age to come, the resurrection works on an entirely different principle.

The resurrection is not something that happens to dead people, but it's a form of being alive that God has already begun in some people before they are dead; once they die, they become alive in the resurrection.

In other words, the "driving force" between there being alive comes from God, and that can start now.

The same was hinted at when Jesus told the disciples to rejoice not that the evil spirits obeyed them, but that their name was written in heaven.

The notion of the name being written in heaven means that the driving force of who you are is something that is coming from elsewhere and turning you into a witness to it, rather than you being started from here and becoming a simple reproduction of a system going on indefinitely.

It's the driving points that are different.

Having suggested that what's important here is not whether your driving point is the reproductive one, but with your driving point is the one from heaven, who has as it brought you into being and turned you into a witness, which present in the world during your life.

Your marital status is neither here nor there.

It's part of your relationship to other people that has reproduced God's original Adam and Eve as one person, so you're going back to a zero point (an Omega point) before creation.

That's what's being brought into being, so being married, not married, is not very important. This is why Jesus uses the term you are like "an angel".

It's interesting that that was quite a polemical term, because it's clear that he means by angel something that is incarnate, whereas there were discussions at the time about humans, who were purely carnal; and angels, who are purely spiritual.

Jesus say no: the people who have found themselves becoming, given their name from above and therefore being turned into who they are, children of God from above.

They are like angels - carnal, but with a different sort of flesh.

Then Jesus gives the conclusive argument and he treats them to their own authority.

He doesn't argue by mentioning of other books by Maccabees, he says:

and the fact that the dead are raised, Moses himself bore witness to 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.

In fact, in the beginning of Exodus, when God introduces himself, first of all God says I am who I am and then he says I am the Lord, the God, I'm God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.

God repeats that at least three times in the early part of Exodus.

God says now he is God not of the dead, but of the living, for to him all of them are alive.

God indicates therefore that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were alive in him.

In other words, the resurrection is God's life.

It's the utter livingness, the effervescence of Life of God, which here on Earth turns people into sons and daughters inviting them to share in God's life.

It's not to do with "Am I immortal?"; but "It's my name written in heaven?".

In the latter, I am being brought into Life by the utterly living effervescent God.

So many of us have an understanding of immortality, resurrection, eternal life as things which start from here.

Is there something immortal in me and am I going to last forever?

Whereas it's quite clear from Jesus's understanding that none of this starts from here.

The whole point of God is that everything starts from the utter effervescence and aliveness of God.

We are dialogically called into it.

We are being created (started) from above, given a name from above, so that our flesh becomes the life of a son and daughter of God in the midst of this age, but not run by this age.

We are started from elsewhere; and this elsewhere is utterly alive, which is why we don't need to be frightened of death and its consequences.

This notion is so difficult for modern individualists to understand and something which, of course, was disconcerting to people who want a very stable social order: one above all where unhelpful things like hope are not encouraged lest it leads to uprisings and changes to the social order.

The utterly Alive Life Of God starting us from elsewhere is what we are being summoned into.

Then some of the scribes answered:

teacher you have spoken well for they no longer dared to ask him another question.

SUMMARY

Saducees were a mix group of priests and lay people.

They regarded onyl the 5 books of the Torah as binding.

28 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.

The word for raise up is 'anastasis' - you should ressurect.

If Moses had known about the resurrection of dead, why would he have told people to raise up children for their brother?

29 Now there were seven brothers. The first one married a woman and died childless.

33 Now then, at the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”

Pressuposing resurrection to be some sort of continuation of human life and the bond to have been made between husband and wife to have been real, whose wife will the woman be?

34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage.

'This age' is a quality of the life in which we are currently living. Doesn't necessarily refer to chronological time.

He's suggestion that, in this age, marring and giving marriage is for the production of offspring, but the resurrection works on an entirely different principle.

The resurrection is not something that happens to dead people. It's a form of being alive that God has already begun in some people before they are dead; and, once they're dead, they become alive in the resurrection.

The driving force of they being alive comes from God and that can start now.

The notion of the name being writen in Heaven means that the driving force of who you are is something that coming from elsewhere and turning you into a witness to it, rather than you being started from here and becoming a simple reproduction of a system going on indefinitely.

It's the driving points that are different.

Having suggested here that the driving point of reproduction is the reproductive one, but with your driving point is the one from Heaven that has bought you into being and turned you into a witness, which is present in the world during your life.

In this case, your marital status is neither here nor there. It's part of your relationship to other people that has reproduced God's original Adam and Eve as one person.

You're going back to a zero (omega) point before Creation.

37 But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ 38 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob are alive in God. That is, the resurrection is God's life.

It's the utter livingness, the effervescence of Life of God, which here on Earth turn people into Sons and Daughters inviting them to share in God's life.

It's a logical thing. It's not to do with am I Immortal, but is my name written in Heaven, in which case I am being brought into Life by the utterly living effervescent God.

The whole point of God is that everything starts from the utter effervescence and aliveness of God. We are dialogically called into it. We are being created, started from above.

We are given the name from above so that our flesh becomes the life of a son and daughter of God - in the midst of this age, but not run by this age.

That's why we don't need to be frightened of death and it's consequences.