Different family values here - Twenty fourth Sunday after Pentecost

LUKE 20: 27-40

I wonder how many of you watched "The Vicar of Dibley." It was a great series even if being told by a former District Chairman that I was fast on the path to becoming a Father Jack sort of character, made me more of a "Father Ted" fan. Anyhow Anglican priest, Joy Carroll Wallis is reputedly the inspiration for Dawn French’s wonderful creation, Geraldine Grainger in “The Vicar of Dibley.” She tells a story of how back in the days when she was serving in Brixton, a woman in her congregation underwent surgery that was life threatening. Fortunately the woman survived. Coming round, she saw the blurred image of her doctor dressed in the typical doctor’s white coat. With a contented smile, she spoke to the apparition saying;

“Hello God! My name is Mary!”

Clearly Mary was a woman with a real faith that she would meet with God after her death.

This evening, however, we have met with a group of people who had no such belief in resurrection. These people were the Sadducees, a party with influence amongst the wealthy elite. Well represented amongst the Sanhedrin who would condemn Jesus at a show trial, they were greatly influenced by Greek culture and all too aware when it came to the Romans that accommodation was in their interests. Yes, these Sadducees were at the top of the pile. And Jesus certainly had a rocky relationship with them, his parable about Dives (who had all the hallmarks of a Sadducee) and Lazarus showing just what Jesus made of these people.

Now the issue of the Resurrection was one which emphasised their distance from those other antagonists of Jesus, the Pharisees. The Pharisees were strong believers in the concept of the resurrection of the dead. To them, it was a reason for hope. After all life would seem to be full of injustices. Only resurrection accompanied by judgement would seem to put wrongs right. Whilst those who perpetuated injustice would be brought to account, those who had lived righteously would be rewarded. It all made sense and could be reconciled with their understanding of a God who offers a hope that is just.

But for the Sadducees, things looked different. From their perspective, a belief in resurrection was linked to a belief that the present age was in the grip of dark powers which necessitated a vindication of the righteous who suffered in this world. But this would imply that the present age was corrupted and in the view of Sadducees would put the continued existence of the covenant between God and Israel in question. So this group of society’s winners rejected the resurrection, suggesting that Jews were free to influence their own destiny by right actions. To paraphrase Many Rice Davies;

“They would say that wouldn’t they?”

Anyhow, the Sadducees ridiculed both the idea of resurrection and those who propagated it. And so it is that we find in our Gospel Reading an approach to Jesus in which they sought to expose what they saw as the absurdity of resurrection.

In the scenario which the Sadducees put to Jesus, a man who is married to a woman from whom he has had no children, dies. In accordance with what was known as the levirate rule, she was married to the next brother whop die. And so the story goes on until all seven of the brothers have died leaving the woman with no children. It is as if marrying this woman is the kiss of death. Anyhow at this point, they come to the big moment, the question that they have been building up to;

“Whose wife will she be since the seven were married to her?”

Can’t you imagine the self satisfied smile son their faces? Can’t you imagine their joy that they have just asked the unanswerable question? Surely the trick question will silence the Galilean!

But the tables are about to be turned. And they are turned in two ways. Firstly, Jesus makes a contrast between this age and that age. Let’s look at it in terms of the levirate rule. The rule which dates back to the time of Moses had reason behind it. It certainly protected widows to a degree but more than that, it also fitted in with the ancient Israelite’s understanding of eternal life as being about producing heirs who would continue the family’s ownership of the land through sons. It may have had validity in its time but I suggest that it is not quite what we mean today when we speak of “family values.” And in this we find a good reference point in how we should do our theology today. Just quoting scriptures is an unsatisfactory way of addressing God’s revelation. That is precisely what we find the Sadducees doing here. Surely, if we are to take Scripture seriously rather than doing violence to it, we need to seek the reason for the revelation in question. This means the context of its time needs to be considered and how the principles might best be applied to the in many ways different world in which we live today - for otherwise whilst being true to the literal word we may depart from the spirit of a given scripture.

But when Jesus talks in terms of different ages, he means more than that. We can like the Sadducees only see things in the light of this world but there are the times when we need to see things in the light of eternity. That which is beyond this world is hardly to be seen as a mere continuance of what we know in this life. And in this encounter we find that in the suggestion that marriage as we know it may not be for the age that is to come.

If for a moment I may stop here on this one, there will be some of us who are uncomfortable with this scripture. Many of us have happy attitudes to marriage and we want to see it in the beyond. Certainly, I have to confess that I am less than enamoured with the last Pope’s suggestion of a celibate Heaven. Of course we do not fully know the picture on these things. After all, marriage as known at the time of Jesus was less about love than it was about an exchange of two rights - the rights of a man to a woman and a woman’s right to a man’s support. How different is marriage at its best in today’s world even though today in our country marriage is all too often about control. That there is love in the beyond is not in question. How it is, is something that belongs to the realm of speculation. For us to try to know all the answers is an arrogance that is best avoided.

But finally, Jesus uses Scripture to make his second response. He reminds them that Moses has spoken of God as the God of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Long dead were these men yet God reveals himself to Moses as their God. Surely God can not be the God of what is no more. They must surely still be for God to speak of being their God. As Jesus puts it;

“He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”

Do you get it? God goes on being our God when our earthly life comes to an end. As Paul recognised in his letter to the church in Rome, no extremity separates us from the love of God, not even death itself. God goes on being committed to us and so we continue to have life.

Tonight, we have encountered the world of speculation and petty points scoring. We need to move from that place. Like the woman from Joy Carroll Wallis’ church we do well to simply trust that God’s purpose of love is unending. And as for the details, let us not waste time in the here and now. After all we have all eternity for that.


This sermon was preached at Alverdiscott Methodist Church on Sunday November 11th 2007