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)