What Matters
Luke 10:27-38
Luke 10:27-38 (NRSV):
27 Some Sadducees, those who say there is no resurrection, came to him 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. 29 Now there were seven brothers; the first married a woman and died childless; 30 then the second 31 and the third married her, and so in the same way all seven died childless. 32 Finally the woman also died. 33 In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For the seven had married her.”
34 Jesus said to them, “Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage, 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. 36 Indeed, they cannot die anymore, because they are like angels and are children of God, being children of the resurrection. 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. 38 Now he is God not of the dead but of the living, for to him all of them are alive.”
We like good questions, at Camas Friends. Do the Sadducees ask a good question, here?
We generally appreciate what Jesus has to say around here. Does he give a good answer?
Is your response to this 2000 year old exchange, closer to “this is the stuff that matters” or closer to “I’m having trouble caring about this”?
Well let me ask you this: “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” Please support your answer by citing your sources.
This is of course, an absolutely pointless question that people have used to show how some of the things we argue about are kind of…a waste of time?
Since we don’t have an official theology here, I don’t think we really have theological debates, other than where theology meets practice. So for example, if two people were debating whether it was “biblical” (and thus “appropriate”) for a woman to preach in a church, I wouldn’t say “who cares?” because this debate has real implications for real people. However, I might not be a good dialogue partner for this, because I don’t think you need a biblical justification to permit a woman to preach.
I wouldn’t ask “what does the Bible say?” to figure out whether a woman can preach. But I would ask a prospective woman preacher: “When are you available? Is that something you feel called to do? Would your message be in line with who we are, even if it challenged us? How can I best support you?” I would not follow up any of those questions with, “let me check my Bible, just to make sure we’re good, there.”
Some theological debates may matter. I think even this exchange matters, between Jesus and the Sadducees, in that it reveals something sacred, even if the question isn’t asked in good faith, more of an attempt to “win” than to learn.
There are some theological debates I’ve engaged in that now feel like a waste of time and energy, given more pressing needs. Especially in high school and college.
For example, we argued about evolution vs creationism. My teen friends and I were very excited to dunk on scientists because–“the eyeball, it’s too complex to have evolved that way.” While those efforts were misguided, reflecting a misunderstanding of how biblical literature works and a failure to recognize the compatibility of science and spirituality, which both ask good but different kinds of questions, I can see how, for a person needing to feel like my developing Christian identity was legitimate, something was at stake for me.
We argued about who is saved, and whether if you become saved–if you accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior and in so doing secure your eternal destination in heaven–could you lose that security? Or, is it once saved, always saved? And can you make yourself saved, or does God have to choose you, to predestine you, to be saved? While my present faith is not based on securing my afterlife destination, but centered in Love, I could see why this mattered to me. I want good things for the people I love, and so maybe needed to figure out where I stood on this eternally weighty question, in light of the theological framework in which I was operating. Do I reject that framework now? Absolutely. But my questions were sincere.
We didn’t really argue about how and to what extent Jesus is in the bread and wine of communion, or the point of and right way to baptize, or which atonement theory best explains the significance of the cross, or any number of things Christians argue about.
What is not worth arguing about, when it comes to faith and spirituality? What is worth arguing about? What do people’s arguments reveal about what is important to them?
Let me tell you about the Sadducees, and if you find this sermon online after today, you can see my sources, in case you want to read further on the topic. And I’ll just note, in case this is helpful, and since I’m talking a lot about Judaism today, that even as we lament the violence of Hamas and the genocide in Gaza, neither of those realities stops our commitment to honoring our Jewish and Muslim neighbors, whom we take care not to conflate with the actions of any government or terrorist organization.
So…the Sadducees were a Jewish sect or party, alongside the Pharisees and Essenes, in this historical moment, trying to follow the Jewish tradition in the way they understood it. The Sadducees had a this-life focus, as opposed to an afterlife focus. As the text says, they didn’t believe in the resurrection of the dead. Now while that might resonate with some of you, the Sadducees may have been primarily concerned with wealth and personal enjoyment rather than communal flourishing. As opposed to the Pharisees who, despite the uncharitable and unfair portrayal of them in the New Testament, were thinking more in terms of communal well-being*.
*https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12989-sadducees
The Sadducees, as a sect, were wealthier than the Pharisees and Essenes*. Which kind of makes me wonder where their head is at here, in their question about marriage in the afterlife. Are they concerned about justice and care for the widow, or about ensuring that a man’s property remains his? The Sadducees may have also been much more conservative, in contrast to the more liberal Pharisees*. The Sadducees prioritized the Torah, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible (i.e., Old Testament), and were for example, more pro-death penalty, whereas the Pharisees were open to new interpretations and saw themselves as part of an evolving tradition. The Sadducees were originalists, in a way, and so wouldn’t have embraced an idea like “the resurrection,” which didn’t really emerge until the 2nd century BCE or so.
*https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sadducee
*https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sadducee
The Sadducees were also willing to compromise with the Empire, unlike the Pharisees, who were generally pretty critical of Rome, like Jesus. The Sadducees were a bit elitist, while the Pharisees were more blue-collar*. Now the Sadducees kind of faded away, while the Pharisees are recognized as predecessors to the rabbinic Judaism that has endured.
* https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/pharisees-sadducees-and-essenes
The Essenes, the third group, were more monastic and mystical, than the other two*. It seems maybe they were annoyed with these theological debates and also with the pursuit of power and wealth of the Sadducees? And so the Essenes looked to find the Divine outside these arguments and pursuits and more in the realm of personal experience and in radical community.
* https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/pharisees-sadducees-and-essenes
Now, as I mentioned, the idea of the resurrection of the dead didn’t really emerge until 200 BCE. While there are only minimal references to the idea, in places like the book of Daniel, it’s more thoroughly discussed in some deuterocanonical or extracanonical books–books that exist but maybe didn’t make into the Bible you grew up with, unless you were Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, books like Maccabees and Enoch, for example.
The resurrection of the dead, as a belief, is not quite like modern ideas about heaven and hell, where the soul departs the body at death. The belief in the soul came later in Christianity, influenced by Greek ideas that the body is essentially a prison to escape in an effort to encounter higher, purer realities. But if you believed in the resurrection of the dead, you believed that all bodies are resurrected in the end.
Now…does this matter? I think if we’re too focused on the literal, on actually sorting out what happens after we die, then, no, this might not be worth thinking about. But if there are implications for how we live our lives now, how we treat each other now, then I’d say people’s beliefs and feelings on these things very much matter.
So in that tradition, Jesus’ resurrection could be seen not just as a heroic triumph of good over evil or a validation of his ministry, but as a foretaste of things to come and a comment about the sacredness of our bodies and each suffering individual.
If our bodies matter enough to be resurrected by God someday at the end of time, then our bodies matter now, and deserve care, then other bodies, who we’re quick to abandon or bomb or shame or detain or cut SNAP benefits for, those bodies matter. If bodies matter, bodies emerging from the dust of the Earth and sustained by that Earth, then the Earth matters, too–the Earth, like bodies, is not expendable.
How do we treat bodies, and how do we treat the Earth? Or as Quakers, if we believe that Jesus is resurrected, in that he has taken up residence in our bodies, as Light and Love and Spirit and Wisdom, then these bodies, and their intuitive wisdom, matter. So even if you don’t feel like you believe in resurrection, or do but not like this, or don’t know where you stand, or don’t really care, there could still be something at stake.
What’s at stake for the Sadducees? Maybe nothing that deserves our sympathy. But for onlookers, listeners? Maybe there is something at stake for them.
The Sadducees, with this question about a man marrying his brother’s widow, are referencing what’s called Levirate marriage, a very patriarchal practice, so it's fair to wonder whether it’s meant to protect vulnerable women or protect the interests of men. It’s also important to note that marriage in this context, probably wasn’t so much about romantic or affectionate love as survival*. Something to keep in mind next time someone appeals to Biblical marriage. I don’t personally want a “Biblical marriage.”
*https://www.bibleref.com/Mark/12/Mark-12-19.html
The Sadducees are referencing Deuteronomy 25. Now this Jewish law seems designed to protect women, to ensure that a widow is taken care of. There may be few more sacred and repeated invitations in the Bible than the invitation to caring for widows and orphans in distress, or anyone in distress. Is that the Sadducees' concern? Jewish sources I found seem to suggest they were pretty self-interested. So are the Sadducees asking in good faith or not? They don’t believe in resurrection, so are they just trying to dunk on Jesus, and expose the absurdity of his views? Maybe!
Whatever their motivation, Jesus answers. And he tells them that this other, future reality is different from what they know. And better.
What if a future exists, Jesus might say, where nobody is “given in marriage”–wouldn’t that be nice, for every person to have agency and choice, rather than being forced into relationships they did not choose? What if a future exists where people cannot die from preventable causes, like hunger, sickness, houselessness, violence, and so on? It might be helpful to not think too literally about what will or won’t happen, and understand what bearing such a vision of the future has on the present.
Jesus also appeals to a famous spiritual experience Moses had, saying, “Now he is God not of the dead but of the living, for to him all of them are alive.” How many of you participated in Christian community where the primarily theological narrative was about death, about Jesus’ death, about what happens to you when you die? What changes when you focus on Jesus’ life, not his death? What happens when you focus not on escaping this world, but embracing this world, and your one life in it?
This could also be a way of thinking about how we carry the presence of those who came before us, with us, in our bodies, for better or worse. The dead are alive. And what we do in these bodies, has implications for generations to come, to whom, maybe, we will be alive, even if we are dead. Cultures and faiths who have strong practices for connecting to their ancestors may understand this better than some of us.
Resurrection of the dead is about bodies being raised up, not souls. This isn’t about your “real you” leaving your body at death; this is about this body, with all its beauty and limitations, being awoken, at…some point. Now whether you can accept that–and you needn’t–what is emphasized in that belief, I think, is that bodies matter, that how we treat bodies, through direct engagement or through policy, matters.
I don’t think Jesus is that concerned about the literal end of time. Jesus affirms the resurrection of the dead, for many possible reasons: he’s faithful to his tradition; he values bodies; he values equality, where nobody is anyone’s possession; he dreams of a world where life is long and full, not short and agonizing. “No one marrying or given in marriage”? I like my marriage! I’d give my marriage an A+! (long pause) I’d give my marriage a solid A! But if marriage was about survival, perhaps the dream is of a future, where there is no need to pour so much effort into surviving a hostile world, because the world has become remarkably different, remarkably…hospitable.
The challenge of Jesus, then, might be “think more creatively and imaginatively about this” which may be a tall order. For the Sadducees, the scripture says this, case closed. For Jesus and the Pharisees, who might disagree on conclusions but seem to share a similar approach to interpretation, it’s more like: the scripture is our point of departure, and we are free to reach conclusions that build on scripture or even diverge from the interpretations we inherited. We’re part of a living tradition. Life is change.
Marriage might have been seen as insurance against death in a world of violence and scarcity. But when you live in a world of peace and abundance, some of those things aren’t necessary. Now, we can keep marriage, as long as it's available to all consenting adults. But in a world of inclusion, equity, safety, real harmony, do we really need a military budget? Prisons? Police? Security systems? Insurance?
Now I’m pro-health insurance! In the world we live in, it’s a lifeline. Insurance may protect you (and benefit your insurers), but if the dreams of hippie socialist Jesus come true, nobody has a need for long. I think needs, and our response to them, in the world Jesus dreams of, are like the readiness to claim tickets or make a reservation for a huge event or opportunity; the moment it’s live, it’s a race to see who clicks the button first.
Why dream about such a future? Jesus is no escapist; his vision of the future has implications for the present. So does it matter how resurrection works or happens if at all? Or what marriage looks like in an afterlife, if there is one? Or whether marriage is fundamental to being human or a concession, in a flawed world? Does it matter what Jesus thinks happens after we die, or whether he interprets this Moses story about the bush, in a fair way? Does it matter what it means that everyone is alive to God?
Maybe it’s more helpful to ask, what matters to the people engaged in the argument? What’s at stake for them? What’s at stake for us, in the things we argue about, or argue for? Arguments can be stressful and turn…mean. But if we’re arguing about how best to put love in action, and people’s lives are impacted by the outcome; if we’re asking: “how can we solve this real problem in front of us? What can we draw on from our faith, to energize our efforts to make life better, safer, easier, and longer for others?” Then I might argue–I might argue!–then that might be an argument worth having.
Queries:
What truths am I encountering in the Sadducees’ question and in Jesus’ response?
What is not worth arguing about, when it comes to faith and spirituality?
What is worth arguing about?
What is worth arguing about, until it’s just not?
How has my sense of “what matters” changed over time?