https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NovjkifwFyQ
TEXT: Mark 12:18-27
[18] And Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection. And they asked him a question, saying, [19] “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife, but leaves no child, the man must take the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. [20] There were seven brothers; the first took a wife, and when he died left no offspring. [21] And the second took her, and died, leaving no offspring. And the third likewise. [22] And the seven left no offspring. Last of all the woman also died. [23] In the resurrection, when they rise again, whose wife will she be? For the seven had her as wife.”
[24] Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because 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 passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? [27] He is not God of the dead, but of the living. You are quite wrong.”
SERMON: “Our Resurrection Gallery”
I want to address the hard question from the start — What does Jesus mean that there will be no marriage in heaven? And I want to address this initial question to direct our time in this passage this morning. Because the thing is, Jesus did say exactly that, and we won’t dance around the fact that he didn’t. But it needs fuller context to understand its truest meaning. Because the promise of heaven is not that it will be less fulfilling but more. And so, how do we reconcile, perhaps, our favorite earthly relationship being absent in heaven? And here’s the thing — it’s not that we’re not going to be able to recognize other people in heaven. And it’s not that we’ll lose relationships. But every relationship we have will be maximized in fullest form and intensified — all completely fulfilled toward its fullest potential in the greatest celebration we’ll ever have in The Marriage Supper of the Lamb.
Eric Kleinenberg wrote an article about a decade back. And what he uncovered was how much we have come to make marriage our end all be all in our modern context. And that has, interestingly enough, caused more covenant infidelity and not less. Divorce is something that happens now due to discontentment and unfair expectations. He cites psychotherapist Esther Perel who takes this from a non-western perspective, suggesting that marriage was not something that was meant to fulfill and complete you. Here’s the quote —
Marriage was an economic institution in which you were given a partnership for life in terms of children and social status and succession and companionship. But now we want our partner to still give us all these things, but in addition, I want you to be my best friend and my trusted confidant and my passionate lover to boot, and we live twice as long. So we come to one person, and we basically are asking them to give us what once an entire village used to provide: Give me belonging, give me identity, give me continuity, but give me transcendence and mystery and awe all in one. Give me comfort, give me edge. Give me novelty, give me familiarity. Give me predictability, give me surprise.
And to this modern and western bent, we’re confronted with our passage today. One where we’re told that it’s not a sad thing but actually a really joyful thing that our husband, our wife will not be our husband or wife in the new heavens and new earth. Because truest identity and belonging come when you are both grounded in a relationship to Jesus. Which is why C. S. Lewis notes that the one relationship that will continue to be in the new heavens and new earth is the relationship of (KEY WORD) friendship. And the way Lewis describes it is when two people are gazing at, adoring, and moved by a common object. And as these two are fondly looking upon in appreciation what their eyes are directed toward, they then notice one another and ask — You too? I thought I was the only one. And from this common appreciation and common gaze upon a common object is what develops this affinity toward the other.
Now, from the beginning of our church’s existence, something that I’ve made an analogy of is with the idea of a portal. That the church, and specifically through the source of the gospel and the cross and empty tomb. That these serve as a portal where heaven meets earth. And we, together, as a church commonly gaze and behold and find deep appreciationfor and around the cross and resurrection. And yet, what binds us together is not first our friendship with one another. But rather, it’s Jesus’ friendship with us. And for heaven to meet earth here in this space, it centers around the one who came down. And in experiencing sweat and agony, in experiencing rejection, in experiencing fullest suffering, he looks over at us. And we look over at him, with blood and sweat flowing down his face, and with deep profundity say — You too? You know my suffering, my pain?
Because the whole point of this passage is not to tell us that the relationships we most treasure here in this world will cease to exist. But again, it meets its ultimate telos. And as deeply bonded as we might feel to our spouses, there is a deeper union, a more fulfilling and satiating relationship. And it’s when we gaze together upon this common person, as we behold the lamb of God, that we are able to be transported to that place of ultimate fulfillment, that place of on earth as it is in heaven. And of course, we as a church don’t do this perfectly and sometimes even well. But there are parts of heaven’s culture that we want to bring here in our community and in our doing life together. Tom Wright says, to our common misconception, that heaven isn’t a place we’re taken to. But rather, it’s something that bursts through here and now. Because the kingdom of God is not centered around a place but around a person. And he’s come, he’s drawn near, and he’s reigning here and now. And it’s not fully apparent, it’s only come in shades — what we call the already-not yet. But our (KEY WORD) resurrection identity tells us as a church that we are the place where God isn’t snatching people away from earth to heaven. But in the words of Tom Wright, it’s where the life and ways of heaven is sent here into our fallen soil to colonize this world with the culture of heaven. Something that he notes is that here on this side of glory, there are some things we just won’t see done and portrayed perfectly — and a couple of those are beauty and (KEY WORD) justice. But if the church is to serve as that portal, through the heralding and the cultivating through the gospel, then here is where we get to see that foretaste, that glimpse of what justice is to look like in that place of no more earthly marriage. Because that, the Bible tells us, is the place of no more tears, no more pain, no more suffering, and no more evil.
In our passage, we get back to back occasions where the Pharisees are linking arms with those who would normally be enemies. And these law-abiding and law-adding Pharisees were those who were moralists and thereby bound the consciences of people through the many laws that they were observing. And today, the group that they’re shown to be coming alongside are those known as the Sadducees. And a bad joke, perhaps a dad joke, about the Sadducees that some of you already know where I’m going with. That the Sadducees didn’t believe in the resurrection. And so, they were sad you see. I’m sorry — I just had to sneak that one in there. But these Sadducees didn’t believe in the resurrection, and they didn’t believe that the other books outside of the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament, were the Word of God. And so, here were these liberals who were linking arms with those who were these conservatives in the Pharisees. And the way that Tim Keller teaches on this. That you would assume the way Jesus would navigate their difference is not to side with one side or another but as close to the middle as possible. But Keller notes that this wouldn’t be correct. It’s not that the Pharisees were too conservative and that the Sadducees were too liberal. But it’s that the Pharisees weren’t conservative enough and that the Sadducees weren’t liberal enough. That Jesus was more concerned about law-keeping and law-abiding than the Pharisees. That Jesus was more concerned for the poor and justice for all than the Sadducees were. That he was more moralistically concerned, and yet, inclusive and loving all the same. But in order to bring these together, it would take something that didn’t fit into earthly categories.
And here, against the words and questions of the Sadducees, Jesus actually presents a justice that’s more radical than anything the Sadducees even dreamed of. The thing that the Sadducees are asking has to do with the resurrection — something that they didn’t believe in. Because they wanted to stump him. And thus, they were asking something related to a particular law from the Old Testament, in order to dispute the validity of the doctrine of the resurrection. Kids, this one is a fun for Bible trivia. You ready? It’s something that we know as the Law of Levirate marriage. I know, super fun stuff. Let me explain. It shows up in the words of Deuteronomy 24, and it’s shown in stories in the Old Testamentthrough the likes of Tamar and Ruth, both of whom you find in Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew 1, so you know it was important to Jesus. And what this law said was that because widows were some of society’s most economically vulnerable, God provided means for these widows to be provided for. That he mandated for the brother of the deceased husband to marry the widowed sister in law, in order to provide for her an offspring and an economic future. And so, what they present to Jesus starting in verse 19 is this hypothetical scenario — Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife, but leaves no child, the man must take the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. There were seven brothers; the first took a wife, and when he died left no offspring. And the second took her, and died, leaving no offspring. And the third likewise. And the seven left no offspring. Last of all the woman also died. In the resurrection, when they rise again, whose wife will she be? For the seven had her as wife. It’s a logical question, where they’re trying to stump Jesus, to make him react in a way — Hmm, I haven’t thought about that one before. Let me get back to you. And I think when we’re thinking about marriage in this way, what we’re prone to deduce is to think that these Sadducees are addressing the topic of romance. But note that they bring in this Law of Levirate marriage, which is not so much a romantic arrangement but a provision for justice and equity. This is about protecting the economic welfare of the widow.
And you actually look at this Law of Levirate marriage. Throughout the Old Testament, it’s something mandated but not practiced. And the two women we just mentioned in Jesus’ genealogy — Ruth and Tamar. They experienced this. Ruth loses her husband but finds this miracle man by the name of Boaz, who’s willing to step into her misfortune. But you look at the earlier part of Ruth 4, and by law, he needed to provide this opportunity for a closer kin to be a kinsman redeemer— someone would who step into this role defined by the Law of Levirate marriage and provide for this economically disadvantaged woman. But what does he do? He finds out that this relationship actually comes to no benefit to him. And so, he creates distance. And do you know what this man is literally called in the Hebrew? Something like Mr. So and So. Imagine being known as that for the rest of history. Because he didn’t do what Boaz was willing to do — step into the disadvantage that Ruth was in. And then, you look at the story of Tamar. And how Judah had these sons. Er, his firstborn, died without providing for Tamar an offspring. And then, Onan, his brother, deliberately wanted no part in providing an offspring, as read in Genesis 38:9. And so, he was struck dead. That’s Genesis 38:10. And so, Judah hides Shelah, his last son from her, to distance him from this provision, this Law of Levirate marriage. Because it was dangerous, it was inconvenient, and it would cost him. Of course, he would correct this step later on. But you see the picture — when people see the choice of drawing near toward or creating distance from those who might disadvantageyou, there is a clear preference. We create distance in so much that the disadvantaged person doesn’t impede our space to create disadvantage for us.
And so, how does that last statement bring of Jesus saying — I AM the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob. How does that bring any resolution to this situation? Because you see, when Jesus brings up this Old Testament text from Exodus 3, we know it as the burning bush. And him saying I AM the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob actually brings us the seminal statement of the story. That the reason he could say this was because of an earlier I AM statement he made — I AM who I AM. And this is the ultimate self-definition — that nothing outside of God could define who God. Now, we noted that this I AM is in the Hebrew imperfect. And this is important, because it could be translated as I was or I am or I will be. And so, this is saying nine things at the same time — I was who I was, I was who I am, I was who I will be. I am who I was, I am who I am, I am who I will be. I will be who I was, I will be who I am, I will be who I will be. And these were all things to say in essence that God doesn’t change and is eternal — he doesn’t cease to be. That he is completely sufficient and self-defined. But what happens with the Story of Jesus? This self-defined and sufficient God comes into our world. And to be our kinsman redeemer, he wears our flesh, our skin, our filth. And this I AM who I AM, this self-defined God. What does he do when he sees our sins, our danger, our inconveniences. He didn’t draw back, he didn’t create distance. But rather, he drew near. Where we’re told that the wages of sin is death, and he comes as our kinsman redeemer and says — I’ll pay for that, put that on my account. Because when he would come as our kinsman redeemer, this self-defined God who is thrice holy comes and bridges that distance from us by not only wearing our sin but by revealing himself to be in solidarity with us. Where he not only says I AM who I AM — one who is self-defined. But actually, seven times in the Gospel of John uses this I AM name to identify with his people — as the bread of life, as the light of the world, as the door, as the good shepherd, as the resurrection and the life, as the way, the truth, and the life, as the true vine.
And here’s how we’ll begin closing our time. I’m reminded of a friend who shared her testimony with the church, which has always deeply resonated with me. She shared about how Jesus changed her life, because she knew that he was different. That growing up, she had experienced hurt from all of these so-called friendships, because the closer she drew, the more she would get hurt and hurt the other. And so, she learned to create distance from people, and friendship became difficult — until she met Jesus. Because she knew that for the first time in her life, she knew someone who would become her friend knowing fully well that befriending her came not just at the possibility of but with the certainty of hurting him, putting him to be disadvantaged. That befriending her actually meant that he would lay down his life and lose everything. And yet, he did. Because this self-defined and all-sufficient God came into her mess and into her world of sin, to redeem her, to befriend her. Saying not just I AM who I AM — the perfect God who never changes, who never breaks his promises. But drawing near to us, in saying — I AM the good shepherd. Because the shepherd hears the cries of his sheep, and he hears the cries of hurts, of pains, of suffering because we live in a world full of sin. And as the good shepherd, he comes to identify himself with his people and lays down his life for his sheep. He tells us I AM the light of the world, because we live in a dark world. But when Jesus is with us, he is the light to our path. He tells us I AM the bread of life. Because all of us are hungry, not just in our stomachs but deep in our hearts. And Jesus promises that when we have him, we’ll always have enough. He tells us I AM the door. Because he promises to protect us from the wolves and the things that want to hurt us most. That goes for the hurtful things out there, and it goes for the toxic things in here. He told us I AM the way, the truth, and the life. Because it’s only through the outstretched arms of Jesus that we can get to the loving arms of our Father. He told us I AM the true vine. Because it’s only through Jesus that we can bear fruit and have life. But to bear fruit, we need to draw from the life of the vine and from the blood of his ransom. He told us I AM the resurrection and the life. Because Jesus will not only rise from the dead, he will teach us not to be afraid of death. For our hearts belong in that place of perfect beauty and justice. For Christ Our Redeemer, we are his resurrection gallery. We are snapshots of how he’s making all things new. We are individually parts of that museum, where visitors come and wonder at the artistry of the one who is making all things new and shaping us into his image. But there’s one painting that all of our paintings direct attention to. It’s the one that’s gathered a diversity of people together. Where for all of eternity, we can behold and behold. And look left and look right and say — You too? I thought I was the only one. Look at all that our God is doing in Christ Jesus, our Lord, in this wonderful resurrection gallery with the people here at Christ Our Redeemer. Because of his friendship to us, and how he’s teaching us to be friends to one another.
