This is the thirty-sixth installment, comprising Act 5,
Scene 7, chapter 12:18-27, in the online commentary on the Gospel of Mark,
which I am blogging on throughout the liturgical year. Please
see the thirty-fifth installment here. Links to the entire series are
available in one spot at The
Complete Gospel of Mark Online Commentary.
This is my division of the Gospel:
Prologue, 1:1-13;
Act 1, 1:14-3:6;
Act 2, 3:7-6:6;
Act 3, 6:7-8:26;
Act 4, 8:27-10:52;
Act 5, 11:1-13:37;
Act 6, 14:1-16:8(20).
Scene 7: 12:18-27
18 Some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him and asked him a question, saying, 19 "Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies, leaving a wife but no child, the man shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. 20 There were seven brothers; the first married and, when he died, left no children; 21 and the second married the widow and died, leaving no children; and the third likewise; 22 none of the seven left children. Last of all the woman herself died. 23 In the resurrection whose wife will she be? For the seven had married her." 24 Jesus said to them, "Is not this the reason you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God? 25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 26 And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the story about the bush, how God said to him, "I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? 27 He is God not of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong." (NRSV)
After the Pharisees and Herodians have made their attempt to
trap Jesus in Act
5, Scene 6, the Sadducees
take the challenge upon themselves. Mark allows no gap or period of transition
between the end of one attack and the beginning of another. In this case, the
High Priestly party attempt to trap Jesus on a religious belief that would have
been shared not just by Jesus and the Pharisees, but by the majority of Jews at
the time. It is not clear that the Sadducees would have gained much traction from anyone
else, that is, had they been able to score points against Jesus on the issue of
resurrection. It is not clear, therefore, whether they could have turned any of
the crowd against him if he could not show decisively why the belief in the
resurrection was a reasonable belief that arose from revelation. It might have
been enough for them just to knock Jesus down a peg, though that goal does not
fit with the overall movement of the Gospel towards bringing Jesus to his
death. Perhaps the intent is just to wear Jesus down and show the inadequacy of
his teaching and thus create doubt amongst the crowds and his disciples.
It is known from both Jewish (Josephus, Jewish War 2.162-166) and Christian (Acts of
the Apostles 23:6) sources that Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection,
so this challenge to Jesus is one for which they were noted. The belief in the
resurrection does not permeate the Tanach
(Old Testament), but had become a part of common Jewish belief in the
Hellenistic era. The Sadducees represent this older, more conservative stream
of Jewish thought. Mark’s introduction to this scene, introducing the “Sadducees, who say there is no
resurrection” (12:18), fits with all we know of them on the question of life
after death.
The Sadducees approach Jesus without any transition in the
text, giving the sense of one test after another, saying,
“Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a
man's brother dies, leaving a wife but no child, the man shall marry the widow
and raise up children for his brother. There were seven brothers; the first
married and, when he died, left no children; and the second married the widow
and died, leaving no children; and the third likewise; none of the seven left
children. Last of all the woman herself died. In the resurrection whose wife
will she be? For the seven had married her.” (12:19-23)
The reality which the Sadducees describe, however absurd the
manner in which they situate it, is based upon the ancient Israelite practice
of levirate marriage, as described in Deuteronomy 25:5-10:
The reasoning behind the law is to maintain both the family
name and the family’s property. The Sadducees present what for them is a reductio ad absurdum meant to disprove
the resurrection: given the legal force of levirate marriage, how could a woman
marry seven brothers and be a “wife” to all of them in the resurrection?
Jesus does not dispute the Mosaic Law, not even their absurdest rendering of it, but the Sadducean understanding of the resurrection.
His response to them indicates that the gloves are off in his disputes with the
Temple authorities; there is no attempt to couch his answer in the gentlemanly terms
of academic disputes, but to push them either to acknowledge who he is or to reject
him completely. Enough with the verbal niceties: “Jesus said to them, ‘Is not
this the reason you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the
power of God?’” (12:24). Jesus flatly rejects their knowledge of Torah and God.
This is generally not the way to win
friends and influence people, but Jesus’ verbal parry indicates he is has left
that hope behind or he believes that only provocation can lead them to consider
his claims.
Jesus does not
attempt initially to prove the resurrection, he just asserts its reality: not if but when they rise from the dead. “For when they rise from the dead,
they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven”
(12:25). He brushes away the Sadducean proof of the absurdity of resurrection by
explaining that the resurrected person, male or female, does not marry. The
heavenly life is a life beyond sex and marriage – it is a life of the angels.
It is only after this proof that Jesus responds to the reality of the resurrection
itself and he does this with a passage which on first consideration is not a "go
to" passage for proof of the resurrection.
This is Jesus’ full answer:
“And as for the dead being raised, have
you not read in the book of Moses, in the story about the bush, how God said to
him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is
God not of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong.” (12:26-27)
The passage to which Jesus is
referring is in Exodus
3 when God appears to Moses in the burning bush and reveals himself as “I am who I am”
and, more importantly for Jesus’ proof, “the God of Abraham,
the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Jesus utilizes a passage to prove
the resurrection that on first glance simply identifies God as the God of their
ancestors, but Jesus interprets this to mean that he is still the God of these ancestors. If God remains the God of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, then Abraham, Isaac and Jacob also still remain! It
is an interesting argument and an interesting passage to choose. That is, why
not choose Daniel
12: 1-4? Because the Sadducees do
not accept the authority of Daniel; they accept the authority of the Torah. If
the Torah is what the Sadducees accept, then Jesus will use the Torah to prove his case. Mark ends the
conflict with Jesus’ proof. Either the Sadducees are not given a chance to
answer or they have no answer. It would be strange to think, though, that they
will not have something else to say later. Most religious scholars hate to be
told they know neither the Scriptures nor God. It rankles.
John W. Martens
Follow me on Twitter @BibleJunkies
0 comments:
Post a Comment