(possibly) good news for the single person
got into a discussion in Sunday School class today about marriage and resurrection. the teacher was saying there was no marriage in the resurrection based on matt. 22:23-33. i challenged the interpretation and followed up our conversation via email. my thoughts are below. will there be marriage in the resurrection? not sure. matt. 22:23-33 doesn't address it, though, and Jesus lack of addressing it here may hold a sherlock holmes' "curious episode of the dog in the night" type thing. also, since the command to be fruitful and multiply is pre-fall, while immortality was still possible by eating from the tree (cf. the expulsion, Gen. 3:24), procreation is not simply a safe-guard, but could hold a kingdom reality. we'll see. these thoughts are birthed from n.t. wright. it's been a while since i read him on this, so i'm not sure how accurate i am to him; his thoughts are better than mine!
here are my thoughts on the issue from the email:
"The Sadducees, who don't believe there is a resurrection, come to Jesus with a question to disprove the resurrection. They try to show the absurdity of the resurrection by giving a far-fetched, but possible, situation. The situation they highlight, seven brothers marrying one woman, is a custom that is to continue the line of the first brother (v. 24) in order to fulfill the command to be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28). Jesus answers their question by undercutting it--not answering it directly. "You are in error because you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like hte angels in heaven." He's not yet referring to the fact of the resurrection ("But about the resurrection...." shows how he answers that), but to the error of their question--the issue they raise is not pertinent--namely, death. The purpose of marriage they have highlighted, to continue a family and procreation, is not one that needs to be worried about because people will be like the angels--not in not marrying, but in not dying. This is why they "do not understand the power of God." If they understood the power of God, the problem of death would not need the custom they highlighted, nor would they doubt the resurrection. Jesus is not answering the question of marriage in the resurrection, but the question of death. He attacks their question right at its root. He then goes on to address the fact of the resurrection... ."
of course, i'm hardly in an "objective" spot on this.....
here are my thoughts on the issue from the email:
"The Sadducees, who don't believe there is a resurrection, come to Jesus with a question to disprove the resurrection. They try to show the absurdity of the resurrection by giving a far-fetched, but possible, situation. The situation they highlight, seven brothers marrying one woman, is a custom that is to continue the line of the first brother (v. 24) in order to fulfill the command to be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28). Jesus answers their question by undercutting it--not answering it directly. "You are in error because you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like hte angels in heaven." He's not yet referring to the fact of the resurrection ("But about the resurrection...." shows how he answers that), but to the error of their question--the issue they raise is not pertinent--namely, death. The purpose of marriage they have highlighted, to continue a family and procreation, is not one that needs to be worried about because people will be like the angels--not in not marrying, but in not dying. This is why they "do not understand the power of God." If they understood the power of God, the problem of death would not need the custom they highlighted, nor would they doubt the resurrection. Jesus is not answering the question of marriage in the resurrection, but the question of death. He attacks their question right at its root. He then goes on to address the fact of the resurrection... ."
of course, i'm hardly in an "objective" spot on this.....
posted by Aaron Perry at
1:29 AM
9 Comments:
well good!
because right now I have no shot in hell
lol..funny Matthew. Single, single, single!! whoohooo ;) Oh and for all you gals (or guys) who think you could never bein single...YOU COULD! I've been doing it for..hmm 4 or 5 years now. Yepp, that's right that long without even a date! So awesome... (hope you sense the sarcasm). There's hope in being single..cause you're still like, "I wonder who it is". Once you're dating or married, its like, "hmm I'm stuck with this retard".hehe. Peace
I temporarily rescind my self imposed do-not-post-order to observe that your remarks look suspiciously like a recent Faith Today column by some guy you know, who in turn, borrowed (with due acknowledgement) from N. T. Wright. Will you acknolwedge the intermediary source?
hey some guy in mb...
i didn't read the article written in FT. i wish i had. would've let me defend this most certainly wrightian position better. i haven't read wright on this for a while, so i'm not sure how accurate i am to his thought, but it is birthed by him.
since we think alike, i'm not surprised that our discussions are similar.
AP,
Looking at the passage in different translations/versions, the phrase "but now about the resurrection of the dead" or "but regarding to the resurrection of the dead" is used in verse 31. This would make me think he doesn't shift the conversation to the resurrection until verse 31 and the previous verses are actually addressing the issue of marriage in heaven. So it seems before he attackes the root he deals with the issue at hand.
I'm no N.T. Wright or even a Purkiser, so feel free to help me see things from Wright's perspective
hey dave. good question. but if what you think is true, then i have to ask why he tells the Sadducees that they don't know the power of God. it is a strange way to answer the question of marriage--if it's about marriage. this cuts their question off from the get go. they have no room to ask the question because it's stupid.
but about the resurrection then goes on to say why they should believe in the resurrection. the resurrection is a two stage event for Pharisees (Jesus thought like Pharisees in many, many ways). in saying that God is hte God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and they are alive in his presence somehow, is also to imply they will also be raised. his first is a dismissal of their question on the grounds of what resurrection means (immortality); the second is a defense of resurrection itself.
hope that helps.
I figured he was saying, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God" as a two-fold statement to both marriage and the resurrection. It seems like the verse could refer to both. Meaning Jesus could have been sayin, "Because you really don't get what Scripture says about marriage and you don't beleive in God's power to raise people from the dead, you don't understand that marriage is a mute point.
Btw, I found the opening address to my comment amusing, "good point (let him think he has something, but....(you're a moron)"
hey dave, if i thought you were a moron, i would say something much closer to that. i think your interpretation is wrong because the Sadducees did know the Scripture. they are giving an example from a command Deut. 25 (i think Deut 25). marriage is indeed a moot point, and that's why Jesus does not address it--but hte reason for hte Levirate marriage (to continue families) by saying they will be like angels (immortal).
AP, I'd like to continue this thought because I find it interesting and...I wanna make sure I'm, understandin' u clearly. So till I see you on MSN.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home