Author: henry

Translation and Notes

Note: These notes accompany my podcast on this passage, Angels and Marriage.

¹⁸Some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him and asked him, ¹⁹“Teacher, Moses wrote for us: ‘If a man’s brother dies, and leaves a wife, but no child, then his brother must take the wife, and raise up descendants for his brother.’

The command here comes from Deuteronomy 25:5-10, though it is not quoted precisely. The situation, however exaggerated, was a realistic one under the Mosaic law. Having everyone alive at once who ever has lived would produce some significant practical complications, and this was just one of those possibilities.

²⁰There were seven brothers, and the first one took a wife and died without leaving a descendant. ²¹The second took her, and died, not leaving a descendant, and the third did the same thing. ²²And all seven did so, but left no descendant. Finally the woman also died. ²³In the resurrection, when they rise, to which of them does that woman belong? For they all had her!”

It’s easy for us to laugh at the Sadducees, but they are not alone in trying to understand the spiritual and the supernatural based on common logic. Try answering the question yourself. How do you think such a situation could be handled?

At the same time God is not nearly so limited in his ability to solve problems as we are. The bottom line here would be that we simply do not know how things will be done in the kingdom, or how relationships will operate.

²⁴Jesus said to them, “Here’s why you’re wrong: You don’t know the scriptures nor the power of God.

Notice that Jesus does not merely tell them that they don’t know the scriptures. It is not a direct scriptural quote that will solve this problem for them, but rather an understanding of the power of God. The resolution is well beyond the level of discussion at which they are operating.

²⁵For when the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but they will be like the angels in heaven.”

Now frequently people take this text as giving a definitive answer to how we’ll live in heaven. But I would suggest that this also results from not knowing the scriptures nor God’s power. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, but they also did not believe in angels. So Jesus points them to their own logic. Those raised from the dead live like the angels—whom the Sadducees also denied—making the whole discussion rather silly.

But God who could make a resurrection happen can also provide a life for those so raised. This doesn’t mean, by the way, that there will be marriage in the kingdom of heaven. It means that the same God who can raise the dead (as the Sadducees denied) can also provide a new life for those who have been raised. “But just as it has been written, Eye has not seen, neither ears heard, nor have entered the heart of any person, the things which God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Corinthians 2:9).

Without due consideration for the power of God, the scriptures will not make sense.

²⁶But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read in the book of Moses at the bush, how God spoke to him and said, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? ²⁷God is not the God of the dead, but of the living! You are very deceived!” — Mark 12:18-27

It’s quite possible that this latter portion was not part of the same confrontation with the Sadducees, simply because the story ends so effectively with verse 25. Verses 26 and 27 may well have come from another answer to a question about the resurrection of the dead. In any case, they provide a very different response, in this case owing to the interpretation of the Torah. Since the Sadducees accepted only the Torah, or Pentateuch, as authoritative, it was important that the argument Jesus made for the resurrection come from that source (Exodus 3:6).

It’s an interesting piece of interpretation, because we modern folks usually assume that when God identified himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he meant that he was they God they worshiped, not that he was continuing to be their God in present time. That is, however, the sense in which Jesus takes the passage.

“God is the God of the living” suggests that we are not as ephemeral as it may appear.

These notes accompany my podcast Caesar’s Stuff.

Translation and Notes

It’s important in reading any of these challenge stories to consider the challengers, the situation in which Jesus finds himself, and the goals he is trying to accomplish. For example, here he needs to respond to the questioners in such a way as to keep from taking the focus off of the kingdom. If he starts talking about the legality of the Roman tax, the topic will become temporal rule, and people will no longer be interested in talking about the type of people they are to become.

¹³Some Pharisees and Herodians were sent to trap him with a controversial issue.

This was not a usual alliance, but it was an alliance of two groups who would want Jesus to fail. His agenda of compassion as the guiding principle of holiness would challenge either of their agendas. For this particular mixed group it would be likely that no matter what Jesus said somebody would be happy and many people would be angry, and for them that would be a good thing.

¹⁴When they got there they said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are honest, and you don’t concern yourself with what others think, because you don’t look at a person’s face, but you sincerely teach God’s way of life. Is it proper to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay them or not?”

Flattery is a dangerous thing. If they had really believed that Jesus didn’t care what other people thought, however, they might have realized that flattery would not work for him. I have seen this type of flattery used on a visiting speaker. In his introduction he may be praised for certain views that the leadership certainly hope he has, and which they desire him to emphasize. Those who speak the truth must have the discernment to recognize flattery.

¹⁵But knowing their trickery he said to them, “Why do you test me? Bring me a denarius so I can look at it.” ¹⁶So they brought him one. Then he asked them, “Whose image and inscription is this?” They said, “Caesar’s.”

Caesar made the money, and Caesar gave the money value. Even coinage gains value through the authority of the person who mints it. The metal itself may have value, but it’s not the same as a coin. The better question was which kingdom would get allegiance. For Jesus, the importance of paying the Roman tax was of less importance, because he was not so much challenging the earthly kingdom with an alternate form of government. He was challenging it with a way of life and an allegiance to God and his principles.

¹⁷So he said to them, “Give Caesar’s things to Caesar and God’s things to God.” And they were amazed at him. — Mark 12:13-17

A less satisfactory answer, from the point of view of those who asked the question, can hardly be imagined. No wonder they were amazed! Jesus had really told them nothing. Those who try to make theologies of Christian involvement or non-involvement in politics out of this passage seem not to realize that Jesus intended NOT to answer the question.

One point we might take from this incident is that Jesus kept the focus on his mission, and not on temporal things. It was more important to him to help make holy people than it was to solve their political problems. This doesn’t mean that, under the right circumstances, Jesus might not have given a clearer and more precise answer. It does mean that he subordinated this issue the the more pressing things he was trying to teach. Note the definite answer he gives to the question in verses 28-34. I’ve often heard folks say that the reason the scribe got a straightforward answer was that his was a sincere question. I don’t know how sincere it was, but I would note that it was centered on Jesus’ primary agenda.