Sermon: Children of the Resurrection

Lectionary Proper 27(C)
Text: Luke 20:27-38

The question of the Sadducees,
Harold Copping, 1907

Upon first glance, the question that some Sadducees pose to Jesus seems to be about whether there is a resurrection of the dead. The argument and disagreement about resurrection is attested to by other writers of the same period.

The Sadducees, despite their prominence in Christian thought, appears only briefly in the New Testament. They appear only in the Synoptics, and in Mark and Luke, appear just once when the question about resurrection is brought to Jesus. The term “Sadducee” is derived from the name Zadok. Zadok was the first high priest of Israel in Solomon’s Temple, going way back to the founding years of Israel. The Sadducees of Jesus’ time claimed ancestry to Zadok. Spiritual authority and interpretation of God’s will were given to Aaron and to his descendants, and because of this the Sadducees believed that spiritual authority and interpretation of scripture belonged to them. They were the priests and caretakers of the Jerusalem temple during Jesus’ time.

They accepted only the Torah as authoritative, hence their assertion that there is no resurrection in the Torah. Literarily and historically, it is true that the Torah and nearly the entirety of the Hebrew scripture contains nothing about life after death. Only in post-exilic writings, such as Daniel and Job, do hints appear that there might be a resurrection and life after death. For Israelites and Judahites prior to the Babylonian exile, their life and names were expected to continue through their progeny, particularly sons.

This explains why the Sadducees bring up levirate marriage as the example to refute the resurrection. Their reasoning was, if a resurrection happens, and this woman is married to all these men, they would all be alive and since a woman could only belong to one man, whose would she be? Therefore, it is impossible for a resurrection to happen, because a woman cannot be owned by multiple men. (Note that the reverse is not true: a man can own multiple women.)

Another point that is frequently brought up in sermons and commentaries is that the Sadducee’s question to Jesus is a trap. And given the exaggeration and absurdity of the question, we can conclude that they were not really seeking an answer. Rather, they wanted Jesus to answer yes or no in such a way that he would lose honor and consequently, authority.

If Jesus answered, “There is no resurrection,” he would agree with the Sadducee’s but would conflict with the Pharisees, the scribes, and most of the Jews at that time. His authority and influence with these groups would immediately suffer a blow.

Conversely, if Jesus answered, “There is a resurrection,” the plot was to accuse Jesus of misinterpreting Moses and the Torah, which too would cause people to question his authority in interpreting scripture and influence among them.

Instead, Jesus uses the words of the Torah to reinterpret Moses. Jesus paraphrases Exodus 3:6 which reads, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” (NRSVue) Jesus focuses on the present tense of “I am” to argue that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob could not be dead when God spoke to Moses. If they are alive in some way after they had died physically and was buried, then there must be a resurrection.

But even this is not the most interesting part of today’s text. When we modern people craft arguments, we usually start with premises, the argument, and then a conclusion. In ancient argumentation, the main point frequently shows up in the middle.

In today’s text, Jesus’ argument and the point he is conveying occurs in the middle and focuses on “this age” and “that age” and the concept of marriage. Too often, discussions of this text also revolve on whether there will be marriage and sex in heaven. We will discover that, too, is not the point.

I’ve already hinted at what the point might be when I mentioned earlier about the practice of ownership of women in ancient societies (and yes, still among modern ones).

Let’s read again Jesus’ rejoinder to the Sadducee’s question.

³⁴ Jesus answered and said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. ³⁵ But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; ³⁶ nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. (Luke 20:34-36 NKJV)

Hearing this in English, it sure does sound like there won’t be marriage after resurrection. Moreover, it sounds like Jesus is saying that those who would aspire to resurrected life must refrain from marriage in this life. This text together with texts from some of the epistles have indeed been interpreted in that way – that celibacy is the highest form of Christian spirituality.

But is Jesus speaking about marriage in general? Or is he speaking about something more specific?

Let’s back up a bit more in the text and re-read vv. 28-32 in the NKJV:

²⁸ saying: “Teacher, Moses wrote to us that if a man’s brother dies, having a wife, and he dies without children, his brother should take his wife and raise up offspring for his brother. ²⁹ Now there were seven brothers. And the first took a wife, and died without children. ³⁰ And the second took her as wife, and he died childless. ³¹ Then the third took her, and in like manner the seven also; and they left no children, and died. ³² Last of all the woman died also. (Luke 20:28-32)

Many English versions use “marry” in this text to indicate the obligation of a brother in levirate marriage. But the literal phrase is “take a wife,” a term that implies property and possession.

In Jesus’ response, we read “given in marriage.” However, Joel Green, in his commentary explains this phrase and its implications in interpreting this story:

Although typically represented as passive verbs, the instances of the two verbs translated “are given in marriage” (NRSV) actually appear in the middle voice: “to allow oneself to be married.” The focus shifts from a man “taking a wife” (vv 28, 29, 31) to include the woman’s participation in the decision to marry. This is important because the basic concern here is with a reorientation of human relations through a reorientation of eschatological vision. One sort of person is aligned with the needs of the present age; such persons participate in the system envisioned and advocated by the Sadducees, itself rooted in the legislation governing levirate marriage, with women given and taken, even participating in their own objectification as necessary vehicles for the continuation of the family name and heritage. The other draws its ethos from the age to come, where people will resemble angels insofar as they no longer face death. Absent the threat of death, the need for levirate marriage is erased. The undermining of the levirate marriage ordinance is itself a radical critique of marriage as this has been defined around the necessity of procreation. No longer must women find their value in producing children for patrimony. Jesus’ message thus finds its interpretive antecedent in his instruction about family relations of all kinds: Hearing faithfully the good news relativizes all family relationships (cf., e.g., 8:1–3, 19–20).[1]

In other words, Jesus is abrogating marriage as a system of men’s societal control over women to perpetuate and maintain a system in which birth and ancestry determine one’s place and purpose. Jesus is offering a new vision in which all people find their value and purpose in connection with God, rather than societal expectations, gender, and ancestry. Seen in this light, Jesus is not denouncing marriage in general but denouncing the control over women that laws and traditions have place onto them.

The Sadducees meant their question to be a trap. They used the laws of Moses around a certain aspect of marriage to try to disprove the resurrection. Jesus overcomes the challenge posed to him and then goes further. Jesus identifies what motivated the question: desire for control, authority, and domination.

He divides life into “this age” and “that age.” “The sons of this age” are identified with marriage as a metaphor for domination and control, are concerned with things like status and honor, with increasing their power and influence over others. On the other hand, the “sons of the resurrection” are identified with “that age.” They are not concerned with status and honor. They do not pursue power and influence. They give up marriage – that is, marriage as a metaphor of systems of control and domination.

Understanding this, this challenge, posed by the Sadducees to Jesus, becomes pertinent for us. It is no longer an abstract theological discussion about marriage and resurrection. No, it is a choice that we have to make. Do we remain in “this age” and all its implications? Or do we choose to give that up and enter “that age” and become children of the resurrection? Do we choose to let go of benefits that birth and ancestry has conferred on us – benefits we might have merely due to gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, geography, inheritance? Do we choose to use any benefits we might have to improve the lives of those who do not have them? Do we choose not to participate in the systems of status and honor, self-promotion and self-justification? Do we choose not to participate in systems that compare and judge a person’s worth based on appearance, achievements, ancestry, etc.? Do we choose to exit systems of control and domination, and instead enter resurrection life that is characterized by love that frees us from fear and control?

Do we merely celebrate Easter, or do we enter and live Easter?

In the name of God who lives,

In the name of God who resurrects,

And in the name of God who challenges our self-centered inclinations, Amen.

References

Green, J. B. (1997). New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Levine, A.-J., & Brettler, M. Z. (2011, 2017). The Jewish Annotated New Testament, 2nd ed. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

Mohn, K. A. (2025, November 9). Commentary on Luke 20:27-38. Retrieved from Working Preacher: https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/ordinary-32-3/commentary-on-luke-2027-38-6

Talbert, C. H. (2012). Reading the New Testament: Reading Luke. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Incorporated.

Van De Laar, J. (2025, November 2). Lectionary Reflection for Proper 27C on Luke 20:27-38. Retrieved from Sacredise Your Life!: https://sacredise.substack.com/p/lectionary-reflection-for-proper-14c

William B. Eerdmans. (2003). Eerdman's Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans.

 

 

 

---

[1] (Green, 1997)

Sermon: Ecstasy and Awe

The Risen Christ

Lectionary: Easter Sunday (B)

Text: Mark 16:1-8

Introduction

Most current scholars conclude that the gospel of Mark ends at verse 8 (where our reading ends). The two endings that are found added on past verse 8 have very little evidence to suggest that they belong there. But what it shows is the discomfort, even among the early Christians, to have a gospel account end in such a seemingly abrupt manner.

One of the common explanations for accepting the abrupt ending is to describe how the gospel of Jesus spread, and so the ending is not really and ending. After all, the very first sentence of the gospel account explains that what you are about to read and hear is “The beginning of the good news about Jesus Christ, God’s Son…” (Mark 1:1 CEB) And the very fact that you are reading and hearing it means that it didn’t end with the women being silent about the empty tomb.

What do we make of this strange ending then? Did the ending of the gospel get lost, as is sometimes suggested?

Translations

In her commentary on Mark, Reopening the Word: Reading Mark as Theology in the Context of Early Judaism, Marie Noonan Sabin suggest an alternate explanation. She provides details on how many of the words and images found in the final eight verses of Mark have ties that go into the rest of the gospel account. When those earlier themes are used as lenses to read the final verses, a different image appears. One that is both consistent with the gospel’s themes and one which allows the gospel to end at 16:8.

All translations are interpretations, and some translations are better than others. And not infrequently, the better translations depart from traditional ones as scholars become better informed about literature, history, religion, politics, and social practices of antiquity.

Echoes and Allusions

Mark 16:1

When the gospels were written, they would likely have been read in their entirety in a short span of time such that the audience would have fresh in their minds narrative what came earlier. But with our interrupted readings, we need to take frequent pauses to remind ourselves of what came before. Let’s once again go through Mark 16:1-8, but this time pause to look for major connections to passages that are found earlier in the gospel text.

¹ When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they could go and anoint Jesus’ dead body.

The central characters in all the gospel resurrection accounts are women. A key point to raise is that they are named in these accounts. In a time when women were devalued and literature frequently omits their names, the gospel accounts raise them up to be seen as full human beings.

The next point to note is the stated purpose of the women to go and anoint Jesus’ body. Just a few days earlier, probably about Wednesday in Bethany, Jesus was at the house of Simon. It was here that a woman had poured out outlandishly expensive perfume on Jesus’ head. When others who were there criticized this “waste” Jesus defended the woman and gave the act an interpretation that she had anointed him beforehand in preparation for his death.[1]

There was, then, two anointings that bookend the final four or so days of Jesus’ Passion account in Mark. One was for burial, but the second anointing never takes place. Rather, Sabin writes that this might correspond to the closing of the Jewish Sabbath liturgy “where the distribution of spices accompanies a prayer that the Sabbath-time will continue to hallow and sweeten the ‘ordinary time’ of the week. The liturgy for death has become a liturgy of for hallowing ordinary life.”[2]

Mark 16:2-4

Next, we read 16:2-4.

² Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they came to the tomb. ³ They were saying to each other, “Who’s going to roll the stone away from the entrance for us?” ⁴ When they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away. (And it was a very large stone!)[3]

The presence of the tomb and stone recollects the story of the man possessed by an evil spirit encountered in Mark 5. Here the man is said to be living among the tombs, coming out of the tombs to meet Jesus, and said to cut himself with stones. We will return to this story in just a bit.

Mark 16:5-6

But first, let’s continue to 16:5-6.

⁵ Going into the tomb, they saw a young man in a white robe seated on the right side; and they were startled. ⁶ But he said to them, “Don’t be alarmed! You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised. He isn’t here. Look, here’s the place where they laid him.

There are several points to observe with this verse. First, the mention of a “young man” who is wearing “a white robe”. Sabin notes that in the account of Jesus’ arrest, a young man is specifically mentioned who is almost captured but leaves his linen cloth behind and flees naked.[4] She suggests that although the two are different individuals, this might metaphorically represent the rehabilitation of the disciple(s) that ran away.

The white robes also remind the listener of the appearance of Jesus during the transfiguration event.[5]

We now return to the story of the man possessed by demons. Towards the end of this narrative, he is described as fully dressed, fully sane, and sitting.[6] The kind of transformation seen in the man formerly possessed by a demon but transformed may be representative of the kind of change that occurs when people witness and experience the resurrection.[7]

Finally, we come to the reaction of the women when they see the empty tomb and the young man. They are “startled”. This same word is found in the reaction of the crowd when they witness the first exorcism by Jesus that Mark records in chapter 1. In the CEB, it uses the phrase “everyone was shaken” to describe the reaction.[8] The same word is also found when Jesus comes down from the mount of transfiguration and encounters the crowd below. The CEB uses “overcome with excitement” to translate their reaction.[9] Here the crowd has been witnessing the failure of Jesus’ disciples to deal with an unclean spirit that had possessed a boy. Based on these usages, it might be suggested that this idea of startled, shaken, and excited has something to do with overcoming dark and supernatural powers. There is also, however, a degree of uncertainty about the nature of the power that can exorcise unwanted spirits. Perhaps that is why in 16:6 the young man needs to assure the women that all is well.

Mark 16:7

Moving to verse 7 we read,

⁷ Go, tell his disciples, especially Peter, that he is going ahead of you into Galilee. You will see him there, just as he told you.”

As many recent commentators have noted, it is the women who are the first apostles, the ones sent to bear witness to the resurrection. A key takeaway is that the resurrection affirms the equality of all peoples: in being, in purpose, and in function.

The apostle Paul would later write to the Galatians, “All of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. ²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither slave nor free; nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”[10] This saying may have been a part of a very early baptismal formula.[11]

Mark 16:8

We now reach what is probably the most problematic verse, verse 8.

⁸ Overcome with terror and dread, they fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid. (CEB)

A more literal translation renders it this way.

⁸ They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. (NASB)

“Seized”

The words “overcome” and “gripped” are found in other translations as “seized”. This same word occurs in the story of the boy possessed by an unclean spirit. He “has a spirit” is how the word is translated. One commentary observes that,

Many readers have written on the Gospel of Mark as a series of exorcisms… Jesus commands demons and spirits and illnesses to “come out” of those they have possessed, but Jesus’ baptism reads like the reverse of an exorcism. At the beginning of his ministry, while he is watching and listening and coming up out of the water, he is possessed by the Spirit and a divine “occupation” begins.[12]

When the entirety of Mark’s gospel account is considered, perhaps one of its messages is that every person is “possessed” or “has” kind of spirit or the other. No one can be entirely free of possession: the choice is of what kind.

“Trembling”

Next let’s briefly consider the word we see as “terror” or as “trembling”. This same word is found in the context of the healing of the woman who had been bleeding for twelve years.[13] It is used in describing the reaction of the woman when Jesus discovers that healing power had gone out from him. She is described as “full of fear and trembling”.

“Ecstasy”

The next word to consider is “dread” or “astonishment”. The Greek here is ekstasis. As you might guess, the English words ecstasy and ecstatic have origins in this Greek term. When we hear “ecstasy” we generally associate somewhat more positive ideas into it than dread or astonishment. The term ekstasis has some of these connotations:

Ecstasis (also spelt ekstasis) is a moment of insight; it is a moment of total immersion in being. Your inner critic goes quiet and you are dissolved in a state of awe and wonder when everything seems to click… We seek ecstasis because it is transformative.[14]

Places in Mark where this word ekstasis or a related word is utilized include: what his family thinks about Jesus, the disciples’ reaction when they see Jesus walking on the water, the crowd’s response after Jesus heals a paralyzed man, and the reaction of the people when Jesus resurrects Jairus’ daughter.[15] It is also the word used in the Greek LXX translation of Genesis 2:21 where it reads that God put Adam into a “deep sleep”. How interesting to think of the creation of woman as occurring in an ecstatic state!

“Awe”

The final word to examine is what is translated to “they were afraid”. This same word is found in the reaction of the disciples after Jesus calms a storm, the reaction of the woman who is healed from twelve years of bleeding, and the reaction of the disciples when they see Jesus transfigured. “Awe” is probably a better translation to convey the meaning of this word in these places, including in 16:8. It is not terror, but a kind of fear that inspires awe, reverence, and even silence as one tries to apprehend and comprehend what they have just witnessed.

Conclusion

Mark 16:8 combines all these ideas, which are rationally indescribable, but still tries to describe them. And I think that is one reason why literal translations have difficulties making sense of the words here. The resurrection is beyond anything that can be described rationally, using human words.

Sabin takes a stab at translating it using her own words: “And going out they fled the tomb, for trembling and ecstasy possessed them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were filled with awe.”[16]

She continues with an explanation,

So translated, this verse represents a climax in the motif of transformation. Each part of it, in fact, bears symbolic weight. The women’s fleeing from the tomb not only mirrors the change in the healed demoniac but also Jesus’ own release from the tomb. Their sense of being possessed by holy ecstasy is the reverse of possession by the devil. The word ekstasis points to the trance-like state of a new creation. Their silence is not a dumb of fearful silence; their speechlessness comes from being “filled with awe”.[17]

The gospel account is “the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ”. The resurrection ushers in the beginning of a group of transformed believers of Jesus Christ. Mark’s gospel doesn’t have a strong closure because the gospel story is still ongoing. With every celebration of Easter, we are reminded that resurrection and transformation is an ongoing process. We can be possessed by divine ecstasy yet simultaneously be silent in divine awe. The empty tomb is just that: empty. It is not where we are meant to be. We are to flee from the power of death and embrace the living Christ.

Christ is risen!

He is risen!

In the name of God who Creates,

In the name of God who Lives,

And in the name of God who Breathes life into us,

Amen.

References

Cussen, J. (n.d.). Ecstasis & Catharsis: The Makers of Meaning. Retrieved from The Living Philosophy: https://www.thelivingphilosophy.com/ecstasis-and-catharsis/

Garcia Bashaw, J. (2022). Scapegoats: The Gospel through the Eyes of Victims. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Jarvis, C. A., & Johnson, E. E. (2014). Feasting on the Gospels: Mark (A Feasting on the Word Commentary). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Sabin, M. N. (2002). Reopening the Word: Reading Mark as Theology in the Context of Early Judaism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

 

 

---

[1] Mark 14:3-9.

[2] (Sabin, 2002, p. Kindle location approximately 3219)

[3] I find it quite curious that this observation was left in the text. Just so future readers know that three women could not have possibly moved it by themselves…?

[4] Mark 14:50-52.

[5] Mark 9:2-3.

[6] Mark 5:15.

[7] (Sabin, 2002, p. Kindle location approximately 3227)

[8] Mark 1:27.

[9] Mark 9:15.

[10] Galatians 3:27-28.

[11] (Garcia Bashaw, 2022, p. 267)

[12] (Jarvis & Johnson, 2014, p. 42)

[13] Mark 5:25-34, specifically v. 33.

[14] (Cussen, n.d.)

[15] Mark 3:21, 6:51, 2:12, 5:42.

[16]  (Sabin, 2002, p. Kindle location approximately 3272)

[17] Ibid.

Sermon: Victory and Vindication

 

Texts: Acts 10:34-43; Psalm 118:1-2, 14-24; Matthew 28:1-10

Lectionary: Easter Sunday Year A

It was mid-morning on Friday.[1] Acceding to the demands of religious rulers, Roman soldiers had secured Jesus on the cross and driven spikes through his hands and feet. The cross was raised and then dropped into a hole in the ground.

Any hope and joy that was present earlier in the week had long since evaporated. From his entry into Jerusalem, followed by the overturning of tables at the Temple, and his apparent victories in honor contests with religious leaders all seemed like something from a long-distant dream of another world. What was left was a sense of utter defeat and hopelessness.

The leaders who had demanded Jesus’ crucifixion now joined with the soldiers to mock him. They had secured victory over Jesus. The honor they had been losing to Jesus for the past few years had now been recovered. They had finally shamed and defeated Jesus.

Nearly all Jesus’ disciples had fled and gone into hiding. There was only shame left to be associated with Jesus. And the disciples may have thought that the leaders, perhaps sensing blood and also a potential threat from not completely eradicating Jesus’ movement, they would be coming after the disciples, too.

But many of the women followers and disciples of Jesus remained at Calvary, taking it all in. Perhaps they held out hope that Jesus still might get delivered somehow. But the hours passed, and mid-afternoon, around 3 o’clock, Jesus cried out and died. Simultaneously, a great earthquake shook the earth.

Even so, the women stayed and continued to watch. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons, James and John. This was the same mother who had not too long ago asked for Jesus to allow her sons to sit on either side of Jesus in his kingdom.[2] At that time the two, James and John, had said that they could drink from Jesus’ cup, yet they were nowhere to be seen at the cross.[3] It was, ironically, their mother who remained to bear witness.

As the sun began to make its way toward the western horizon and darkness began to creep in from the east, the women saw Joseph of Arimathea arrive with some of his servants, tools, and supplies. They went up to where Jesus’ now lifeless body still hung. They took the cross, lifted it up out of the ground, and laid it gently back down on the ground. They pried out the spikes and untied the cords that were holding Jesus in place. One of the servants unrolled a brand new, linen cloth. They gently lifted Jesus’ broken, bruised, battered, and blood soaked body up from the cross and onto the cloth. They carefully wrapped the cloth around Jesus, and then carried him off the hill.

Mary Magdalene and the other Mary followed the men down the hill and watched as the body was laid in Joseph’s tomb. They watched as a large stone was rolled in front to seal it. There was a sense of finality about this. Jesus was dead. Jesus was buried. Jesus was gone.

Yet, there was something that these women had heard from Jesus’ mouth that nagged at the back of their minds. It was something about a resurrection on the third day.[4] Amidst their grief and sorrow, there was a pinpoint of hope. Yet, they had seen Jesus die. They saw Jesus get placed into the tomb. They remained silent, and sat down on rocks near the tomb. With tear-filled eyes and heaving sobs, they looked at the large stone covering the tomb and then at one another and back.

It was now getting dark and they would have to return to where they were staying; perhaps the home of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus in Bethany. They thought about Lazarus, and how Jesus commanded the stone covering Lazarus’ tomb to be moved. They could still hear Jesus’ voice as he called for Lazarus to come out of the tomb. Could something similar happen again? But Jesus was dead. It just didn’t seem possible that Jesus could be resurrected. Who could call Jesus out of the tomb?

Now back in Bethany, the Sabbath had begun. They wanted to return to the tomb, to take care of Jesus’ body as they would have, if they had had time. But that would have to wait until after the Sabbath.

In the meantime, the Temple leaders decided that the priority of the institution, and maintaining their authority and honor superseded that of keeping to the traditions of Sabbath observance that they themselves taught. They went to Pilate and asked for guards to seal the tomb until after the third day. Pilate granted their request, sending a group of soldiers with them, and they ensured that the tomb would be secure.

On the First Day, as the first morning twilight began to pierce through the darkness, Mary and the other Mary quickly exited where they were staying to make their way back to the tomb. Neither had slept. As the first rays of dawn began to rise up over the horizon, they arrived at the tomb. They saw that a large group of Roman soldiers had sprouted next to the tomb, sometime during their absence.

Before they could try to make sense of it, an extremely bright light, much brighter than the sun, seemed to zip down from the still-dark sky, strike next to the stone covering the tomb, and in that same instant a great earthquake shook the ground. From the location where the light struck, a figure emerged and quickly rolled away the stone and sat on it.

Mary and Mary quickly grabbed onto some olive trees that were nearby to keep from falling to the ground. The soldiers were not quite so fortunate, as they tried to steady themselves against the rocks and against one another. But like dominoes, they tumbled to the ground and remained stunned.

The figure on the stone called out to the women, “Don’t be afraid. I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He isn’t here, because he’s been raised from the dead, just as he said. Come, see the place where they laid him.”[5]

Could it be true? They quickly glanced at one another. With fear but also a glimmer of hope, they cautiously approached the now-open entry to the tomb. And then they went in. As their eyes adjusted to the dimmer light, they searched for Jesus’ body. On Friday they witnessed him being placed inside. And yet they saw nothing coming out of the tomb just now.[6] They had seen the soldiers outside. Why would they be here if the body had somehow been moved the day prior?

Jesus’ body was not inside. How could that be? It doesn’t make any sense. Except… What Jesus had said was true, and what this being outside said is also true, confirming what Jesus said.

They exited the tomb. The being spoke to the women once more. “Now hurry, go and tell his disciples, ‘He’s been raised from the dead. He’s going on ahead of you to Galilee. You will see him there.’ I’ve given the message to you.”[7]

Mary and Mary were given the first message of the resurrection and commissioned to relay the message to all the other disciples! They looked at one another again, and no words had to be spoken. With great excitement but also great fear, they began to run. They were about to head into full sprint, something they hadn’t done since they were little girls. That’s when they suddenly realized they were about to run into a man who seemed to appear out of nowhere. They tried to put on the brakes. They stumbled around. They grabbed onto each other to keep from falling headfirst to the ground.

“Greetings!” said the man they had almost run into.

The two women immediately recognized the voice and having had a chance to look into his face, they realized it was Jesus! It was true. Jesus was raised from the dead. Jesus is alive! Now they fell to the ground and took hold of Jesus’ feet. They worshiped him.

The military power and might of Rome could not keep Jesus in the tomb. In fact, his resurrection has turned the soldiers, who were there to keep Jesus in the tomb, almost like dead men. All of the plotting by the temple and religious authorities to keep Jesus shamed through death had been turned upside down. Now it would be they who were shamed for their treatment of Jesus and it was they who would have to find some way to explain their actions.

The political state might look to its ability to use violence and death, and the threat to use them, as the ultimate projection of its power and strength. Power and control are the world’s means of maintaining authority over its subjects. But Jesus’ resurrection is a reversal of the world’s systems. Jesus’ resurrection is victory over all the world’s domination systems. Jesus’ resurrection is vindication that his way and his kingdom is the only way to life.

Jesus’ way and his kingdom is a reversal: instead of amassing power, it gives it away. Instead of looking out primarily for oneself, it looks out for the well-being of all. Instead of force and compulsion, freedom. Instead of coercion, persuasion. Instead of violence and its promotion, peace and its tools. Instead of death and the tools of death, life. Instead of fear; hope, love and compassion.

Then Jesus said to the two women, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers and sisters to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”[8]

They resumed their running. It was as if supernatural strength and endurance carried them on wings.  Praising God, rejoicing, and laughing with excitement, they sprinted toward the place where they knew the other disciples were still hiding, cowering in grief and fear.

The rest of the story is, in part, found with us. We are the beneficiaries and inheritors of that original message, entrusted to two Marys.

Jesus is alive! Christ is risen!

May the God who creates, raise us to new life again.

May the God who accepts, raise our capacity for love and compassion.

May the God who unsettles, raise our discomfort with the ways of this world.

---

[1] Most of the imagined narrative given here is based on Matthew’s account of Good Friday through Resurrection Day. Other accounts occasionally fill in a few details and some creative license has been taken to flesh out the narrative. However, I have done my best to stay close to the Matthean text while providing for continuity.

[2] Matthew 20:20-23.

[3] Traditionally, John 19:26-27, where “disciple whom he loved” is found is taken as referring to the disciple John. If that is the case, then it would mean that at least one male disciple remained near the cross. But there is debate as to whom the phrase refers to. It may be an editorial addition by the author of the gospel according to John (whose authorship we do not know) for this gospel’s own theological reasons. The Synoptics only mention women as remaining near the cross. Other individuals whom scholars suggest might be the “disciple whom Jesus loved” include Lazarus and John Mark. C.f., Who Was John the Apostle? The Beginner's Guide - OverviewBible (https://overviewbible.com/john-the-apostle/)

[4] Matthew 20:17-19. C.f., Borg and Crossan, The Last Week (chapter 4), discussion of the unnamed woman who anointed Jesus in Mark 14:3-9 where among the many women disciples who followed Jesus, this woman appears to have understood Jesus’ predictions of his suffering, death, and resurrection. Thus, it may be that other women disciples may have also had some degree of understanding that Jesus would be resurrected in some manner.

[5] Matthew 28:5b-6 (CEB)

[6] Matthew’s account comes closest to where any description of the actual event of the resurrection takes place. If Jesus’ body had appeared from the tomb, it should be found here. But it is not. The other gospel accounts only note that the tomb is already open and empty.

[7] Matthew 28:7 (CEB)

[8] Matthew 28:10 (CEB)

Sermon: Honor Among Friends

 

Lectionary Year B, Easter 6

Text: John 15:9-17

Also: Luke11:5-8

Introduction

What is a friend? I supposedly have 756 “friends” on Facebook. But clearly, most of these don’t fit even a very broad or loose definition of friend.

A definition from the Oxford Dictionaries via Bing reads, “A person whom one knows and with whom one has a bond of mutual affection, typically exclusive of sexual or family relations.” Some synonyms from the same source includes words such as: companion, confidante, schoolmate, workmate, pal, and buddy. I think that for most of us, friend is certainly someone that we know well and share some commonalities and can often include those that we know somewhat superficially but do spend some occasional time with. We typically include in our category of friend many with whom we share group membership: this might include workplaces, organizations, school, and church.

An acquaintance, by comparison, seems to be a far more restricted term, applied to those that we know just enough about to not fit the category of strangers.

In our culture, most of the people that we have in our regular circle of contact, if not family members and not pure business contacts, they tend to fall into the category of friends. We also tend to think of friends as not too different from us in socio-economic status. Friends are relationships based on mutual choice. We might call on friends for assistance, but we generally accept that they are free to help or not help. We might expect more from our close and closest friends, but even then, we allow them the choice to offer assistance or not.

We make these assumptions when seeing “friend” in the text of the Bible. And that can potentially limit what we get from reading it or can even mislead us. We can miss the rich layers of meaning in the biblical text when we project our own cultural readings onto it.

Patronage and Friendship

Today’s reading is steeped in the patronage systems that was the air that Jesus and his disciples lived in daily. It was part of the Roman society and systems that the writer of this gospel and its audience lived in.[1]

We see this at work in the first two sentences of today’s reading:

⁹ “As the Father loved me, I too have loved you. Remain in my love. ¹⁰ If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I kept my Father’s commandments and remain in his love.  

The Father is the patron. He offers love to Jesus, the broker or mediator. And in turn, Jesus loves his disciples, the client. Through Jesus, the broker, the Father offers love to the disciples.

In a patronage system, there are always strings attached. We, in the Western world might think this to be a negative, but the collectivists see this as a primary reason for patronage: it establishes, builds, and strengthens relationships. Independence is not a highly thought-of value; mutual dependence is. Efficiency is far less valuable than working with a large web of relationships.

The string attached to God’s love is for the clients to keep Jesus’ commandments, which can be understood to be the same as God’s commandments, when we read this text as Jesus brokering communication between the Father and Jesus’ disciples.

Another point that those of us who are not familiar with the patronage system is that the term friend can be used of any of these relationships just described. It certainly can be a term used among the clients, but friend can be used to describe the client-broker, broker-patron, and even the patron-client relationships. Equality in status is not assumed by the usage of friend and we should not assume it when we see it in the Bible.

What the word friend, when used in collectivist societies means, is loyalty and interdependency. It certainly can include affection, closeness, and mutually shared interests, but these are secondary. A friend is not as close as kin, but almost as close. And they are a part of the common community in which they all should have a vested interest in maintaining and upholding the shared honor. Here too, is something we might often miss when discussing honor: although individuals have honor, it is derived from relationship with a community.

Parable of the Friend at Midnight

Some of these ideas can be found in a parable Jesus told, found in the Lucan gospel, chapter 11.

⁵ He also said to them, “Imagine that one of you has a friend and you go to that friend in the middle of the night. Imagine saying, ‘Friend, loan me three loaves of bread ⁶ because a friend of mine on a journey has arrived and I have nothing to set before him.’ ⁷ Imagine further that he answers from within the house, ‘Don’t bother me. The door is already locked, and my children and I are in bed. I can’t get up to give you anything.’ ⁸ I assure you, even if he wouldn’t get up and help because of his friendship, he will get up and give his friend whatever he needs because of his friend’s brashness.  

Jesus uses the term friend ironically in this parable. When Jesus asks his audience to imagine that one of the listeners’ friends might refuse an inconvenient request, particularly in the middle of a night, their response is, “No, they cannot imagine a friend refusing a request.” Especially when it involves another friend and hospitality.

The parable doesn’t state the social statuses of each of the individuals. They might be equal, but they don’t have to be. If so, who might be of higher status? We can imagine different scenarios. Perhaps the friend asking is of higher status, perhaps a patron asking his baker client. Or perhaps the friend is the client, asking his patron for extra bread that he might have that the client, being of lower economic status, might not have at the end of each day. But the point that the audience of Jesus would have understood is that no one in the community possesses everything that might be necessary for any given day or night. Mutual dependence is key to their survival. In fact, as another parable of Jesus – the parable of the Rich Man’s Barn [Luke 12:15-20] – shows how not wanting to depend on and contribute to his community is considered a curse and the one seen as cursed.

But this so-called “friend” that is asked for some bread does fulfill the request. Not because of the so-called “friendship” that clearly is being ignored or does not exist. But because of the word at the end of the parable. The CEB translated it as brashness, but others translations include importunity, shamelessness, and boldness. The traditional interpretation is that it is because the friend asking is bold and persistent, that the request is finally fulfilled.

But Kenneth E. Bailey in Poet and Peasant and in many translation notes that are often supplied with Bibles suggest that a better interpretation is to see this as affecting the honor of the friend being asked, and for him to refuse it is to cast aspersion on the honor of the entire community. So, in order to avoid shame, the so-called friend gives the requestor not just bread but everything else needed to fulfill the hospitality duties expected of a host.

The point of the parable is that if a mere person who might not behave with loyalty that a friend relationship expects, will still fulfill requests in order to avoid shame, how much more will God, who is far more loyal and honorable, grant requests of those who ask.

What Does It Mean to Be Called Jesus’ Friend?

When Jesus, in the gospel of John (today’s reading), declares that he no longer calls his disciples servants but friends, all of this comes into play. Jesus laid down his life for his friends. Therefore, those who are in a friend-relationship with Jesus are also expected to lay down their lives for their friends. And just in case someone didn’t quite get it the first go around, Jesus states the expectation explicitly:

¹² This is my commandment: love each other just as I have loved you. ¹³ No one has greater love than to give up one’s life [Gk., psyche] for one’s friends. ¹⁴ You are my friends if you do what I command you. 

To do what Jesus commands is to love as Jesus loved. To love as Jesus loved is to be willing to give up one’s life for another friend. Now, life, as used here does not necessarily refer to physical life, although it may. There are at least three Greek words that are translated as “life” in English: bios, zoe, and psyche. The one used here is psyche and generally is used for what we would think of as being critical to a person’s identity: thoughts, emotions, motivations, and one’s worldview.[2] One way of applying this may be in my willingness to not assert or even relinquish my rights in order to bring equity and justice to another.

We also read here how Jesus was the broker for the Father’s message. Through Jesus, the disciples have come to know God’s will. It is for this reason that they are no longer servants but friends. Friends understand how their community operates: its values and its principles. Friends are able to behave and act in ways that honor the community, even if no direct command is given as would be the case from a master to a servant. And because the loyalty that friends have to the patron is expected, and because that loyalty means friends will only ask of the patron what brings honor to the entire community, all of those requests will be granted through Jesus, who is the broker. (We should note, however, that Jesus promised “another broker”, or mediator, just minutes before – John 14.)

We’ve discussed what the disciples hearing Jesus’ words might have understood. But why did this gospel writer include this text? What did it mean to his community?

Conclusion: How Do We Remain in Jesus’ Love?

I think that John’s community might have had some questions about what it means to “abide in Jesus’ love.” How does a community remain in Jesus’ love when Jesus is no longer physically around? This gospel’s answer, through Jesus’ words, is that the community loves one another as Jesus loved the disciples: by not insisting on one’s rights and privileges, or by using these for the benefit of another, or by willing to relinquish them so others can be given equity and justice, or perhaps in some cases giving one’s own physical life. When all members of the community love in this way, there should be no need unmet.

Mutual interdependence is not about “me giving to you, and you giving to me,” but “we giving to we.”[3] In this type of society, resources are not used up, they are not hoarded; they are continuously recycled and renewed. And in this way, this becomes a type of resurrection and life that Jesus embodies and offers.

We live in a vastly different culture than when these words were spoken and written. I don’t think that becoming collectivist is expected or desirable. But do we as a culture overvalue independence and individualism? Do we, consciously or not, look down on those who need assistance? Is it possible to elevate the value of dependence upon one another? Can we eliminate the stigma and shame often accompanying asking for help? I think that these might be a few ways in which we might think of better loving one another. By doing so, we keep Jesus’ command, remain in his love and bear fruit, which then honors and brings glory to God.

---

[1] The concepts of patronage and how it works and how it might be applied to biblical texts taken from Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes: Patronage, Honor, and Shame in the Biblical World, by E. Randolph Richards and Richard James. Also Feasting on the Gospels: John, Volume 2, “John 15:11-17, Exegetical Perspective” section.

[2] I am indebted to Liberation Lectionary on Facebook for a discussion on this week’s reading and pointing out the particular use of psyche as the term translated as “life”.

[3] Misreading Scripture with Individualist Eyes, page 67.