Missing the Point: A Sermon on Luke 20:27-38
I am a fan of asking questions. I firmly believe that all theological concepts are open to discussion and debate. Even if we don't come to a complete agreement, we have so much to learn from those whose theological beliefs differ from us. Listening to others, sharing our deepest beliefs while allowing others to share theirs, enables a deeper connection to one another and to God.
But of course- connection can only occur if the purpose of these discussions is to listen and learn. Oftentimes, however, the purpose is more often to enforce what we believe to be the “correct belief.” We come to theological discussions not with a sense of curiosity but with a desire to trap the other person into saying something we think is heretical, so we can tear them apart. We may ask trick, nonsensical questions, hoping we can bait the other person into saying something that we can then use to “prove” their lack of faith, or to prove that they aren’t “real Christians.”
In a similar way, the Sadducees aren’t asking Jesus this question in good faith. In fact, since they do not believe in a resurrection, the question is a bit nonsensical. But the purpose of the question isn't to plumb the depths of Jesus’ knowledge or for the Sadducees to learn why Jesus believes in resurrection, but to entrap and humiliate Jesus. They ask a nonsensical question, expecting a nonsensical answer. They were probably hoping that Jesus would say something ridiculous so they could tear apart Jesus’ answer.
But Jesus: seeing right through this trap, doesn’t get into a debate about whether the resurrection is real or not. He does affirm the resurrection is true, but does not give a five minute speech arguing his point. Nor does he get bogged down in the details of the particulars of what the life to come will look like. Because one can imagine that the question of who the woman is married to, can lead to all sorts of different tangents: can she then have children in the resurrection? Whose children will she have? These tangents could lead into debates that go on and on for hours and lead to no resolution.
Instead, Jesus simply points out that the life to come, is nothing like this present. The systems of hierarchy and oppression will cease to exist. Remember, back then, marriage wasn't necessarily about romantic feelings and love. It was often about property and socio-economic status. Even the way the question is phrased hints at this understanding of marriage: the woman in the example isn’t treated as a full human, simply as a piece of property passed from one man to another. Her only purpose is to be married and have children, and when she can’t fulfill that with one brother, she is given over to 6 others.
The Enfleshed commentary on this passage explains that Jesus’ response affirms that systems of oppression and hierarchy, will not be found in the new life that God brings. The commentary states:
“No more of this, in the life of God. No more of women as possessions or mere objects of reproduction. No more being “given in marriage” as if property. Only freedom. Only mutuality. Only belovedness, regardless of interest in reproduction or ability or sexuality.”
I can imagine the exacerbated tone as Jesus answers this question because the Sadducees were missing the point of the resurrection. They were so intent on trapping Jesus, on pointing out the foolishness of Jesus’ belief in the resurrection, that they missed the point not only of the resurrection but of Jesus' message in general: the oppressive structures of this world will cease to exist.
It’s easy to pick on the Sadducees, and think that we, in the 21 century, are so much more enlightened and intelligent. It is easy to assume that when it comes to theological discourse, our motives are pure. Part of this sense of superiority can be attributed to pervasive anti-Judaism and antisemitism in western Christianity. Both anti-Judaism and antisemitism, need to be unequivocally condemned. And I would like to remind readers and listeners, that the debate Jesus had with religious leaders of his time, was an intrareligious dialogue and debate. Meaning Jesus, as a Jewish person, was discussing with other Jewish people their beliefs. It was not a case of Jesus demonstrating Christianity was better than Judaism, since Christianity did not exist.
Another reason why we seem to think we are more enlightened, is that we refuse to acknowledge the ways in which we are often so obsessed with being right and proving other people wrong, that we frequently miss the larger picture.
We focus on the minutia, and everyone who doesn’t agree exactly with our theology is someone to be bullied and mocked. The very concepts that are supposed to be tools of liberation and justice, that are supposed to usher in connectedness with God and with each other are often turned into traps to test whether those who are debating with are “orthodox” enough.
And those who don’t meet our standard of orthodoxy are ridiculed, are told they have no place in the Church of God. In other words, we maintain and replicate the very systems of division that are practiced in dominant society. We forget the gospel of Christ and insist on a gospel of exclusion. We miss the point.
The point of the gospel isn't to try and entrap others, whose theological beliefs are different. It isn’t to humiliate them or to prove why their beliefs are foolish. The point is to dismantle systems of oppression and violence. Again, I’m not saying there isn’t room for discussion or even debate. I, for one, love talking theology. But when we become so wrapped up in proving others wrong, in silencing those whose theology differs from ours, we miss the point of the gospel and we replicate systems of harm.
Image: White background. Text: The point of the gospel isn't to try and entrap others, whose theological beliefs are different. It isn’t to humiliate them or to prove why their beliefs are foolish. The point is to dismantle systems of oppression and violence.