I’ll admit it. I am easily persuaded by a convincing argument. Several years ago I was chosen to be part of a jury in a criminal trial. The evidence was fairly conclusive - there was even a recording of a call the defendant made to a loved one from jail, admitting to the crime. And yet, every time the defense attorney would speak, I would be convinced that he had a point. In the closing arguments, the prosecutor spoke first, followed by the defendant’s attorney. I found myself flip flopping as each lawyer concluded their argument. Because the prosecution has the burden of proof - beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution was allowed a rebuttal, the final word. I followed my fellow jurors back into the deliberation room and there was no doubt in my mind that the defendant was guilty. Did the defense attorney believe in his client’s innocence or was he just highly skilled in the power of debate? In our country, those accused of a crime have the right to representation in a court of law. Could this lawyer have argued just as convincingly for the prosecution?
In today’s reading from Luke, a group of religious leaders we haven’t seen before, the Sadducees, approach Jesus with a topic of debate regarding marriage and the resurrection. If you didn’t understand more about this religious party and their conflicts with the Pharisees, who we are quite familiar with by now, their argument would be convincing. But upon further review, it seems they are simply good debaters. In order to understand their position more clearly, I found a study and comparison of the two Jewish main religious parties - the Pharisees and Sadducees - quite helpful. Perhaps a quick tutorial will serve you as well.
The Sadducees were the party of high priests, aristocratic families, and merchants—the wealthier elements of the Jewish population, formed as the Second Temple was used as the center of Jewish worship, from circa 516 BC until its destruction by the Romans in 70 AD. Central to their view and power was the importance of the temple as the place where God’s presence dwelt with His people. It was here, and only here, where acceptable worship and sacrifice could occur. Though the Sadducees were conservative in religious matters, their wealth, their haughty bearing, and their willingness to compromise with the Roman rulers aroused distrust of the common people, which is where the Pharisees came in. The Pharisees emerged as a party of laymen and scribes; they were not primarily a political party but a society of scholars and pious men. Around 100 BC a long struggle began as the Pharisees tried to democratize the Jewish religion and remove it from the sole control of the temple priests. The Pharisees argued that God should be worshiped regularly, away from the Temple and outside Jerusalem. The people living outside of Jerusalem shouldn’t have to wait for the high holy days and festivals to make the trek to the temple to engage in acceptable worship. To the Pharisees, worship consisted not solely in blood sacrifices but in prayer and in the study of God’s law. The Pharisees were responsible for fostering the synagogue, literally “place of assembly,” as an institution of religious worship, outside and separate from the Temple, giving every Jewish town a central hub for worship and community.
As you can imagine, the Sadducees and Pharisees were in constant conflict with each other, not only over numerous details of ritual and the Law but most importantly over the content and extent of God’s revelation to the Jewish people. The Sadducees refused to accept any precept as binding unless it was based directly on the Torah, as known as the Pentateuch, first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) The Pharisees, on the other hand, believed that the Law God gave to Moses was twofold, consisting of both the Torah and the Oral Law - the teachings of prophets and the oral traditions. Because the afterlife is not explicitly addressed in the Torah, the Sadducees denied the immortality of the soul and bodily resurrection after death.
Why is the Sadducees’ theology on immortality and resurrection important to understand? In today’s reading they attempt to lure Jesus into a theological trap concerning marriage and resurrection and are fairly adept in their argument. I, for one, would have probably been persuaded.
Read Luke 20:27 - 21:4
Remember that the Sadducees leaned exclusively on the Pentateuch for doctrine, so they did not believe in the resurrection, a theme developed more clearly in later Old Testament books, such as Isaiah and Daniel. They wove this elaborate story with unbelievable details and asked Jesus a question in order to trap him theologically. They assumed that those who falsely believe in a resurrection life think it is like the present life, therefore, according to the law of Moses, a woman who has been married more than once will be found guilty of adultery after the resurrection. “Whose wife will the woman be?” (v 33)
Jesus, who clearly understands the trap the Sadducees have set for Him, highlights the fact that, in addition to the hypocrisy of their argument, they are making two significant errors. The first is that they do not know the Scriptures well enough to know that within the whole of Scripture we are taught the reality of the resurrection. Secondly, they do not recognize the power of God to create a more wonderful world than anyone can now imagine. Jesus' proclamation that in heaven people “neither marry nor are given in marriage” (v 35) implies that the present institution of marriage will not continue in heaven. Instead, all God’s children will be like angels in heaven, living without an exclusive lifelong marriage commitment to one person. (from v 36) It is not a stretch to infer then, that there are but two biblical relationships between believing men and women while in this life on earth, brother and sister or husband and wife. But in heaven, we will return to our primary relationship of brothers and sisters.
In their article, “Should We Get Married? Five “Pre-engagement” Questions to Ask Yourselves,” (The Journal of Biblical Counseling • Volume 14 • Number 3 • Spring 1996) David Powlison and John Yenchko propose that there are only two kinds of loving relationships between men and women. They write, “Almost all members of the opposite sex are to be considered as your ‘family’ and loved in ways appropriate to family; that is, non-sexually. Only one person, your husband or wife, can be in the other category, ‘spouse.’ With this person God delights in calling you to love in ways appropriate to a one-flesh relationship; that is, sexually…In other words, all women except one—your wife—are in the category of mother, grandmother, sister, daughter. Your girlfriend or fiancée is a “sister” first of all and should be treated as such. All men except one—your husband—are in the category of father, grandfather, brother, son. Your boyfriend or fiancé is a “brother.” Anything that sexualizes such familial relationships violates love,” (36) for this is how we shall spend all of eternity!
Whose Son Is the Christ?
The Sadducees had no rebuttal to Jesus’ closing statement. “Some of the scribes answered, ‘Teacher, you have spoken well.’ And they no longer dared to ask him anything.” (vv 39-40) “Since we’re on the topic of family…” Jesus uses this opportunity to ask the experts of the law a question, “How can they say that the Messiah is the son of David?” (v 41) Jesus answers his own question, since Scripture teaches that Jesus is much more than David’s son and cites Ps. 110:1, “The Lord declared to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.’” (vv 42-43) The Christ is, in fact, greater than his father David, and thus David calls him Lord.
Jesus concludes the preceding rounds of debate with a warning about the hypocrisy of the scribes and a ruling on a poor widow woman’s offering. The scribes were lawyers who interpreted Jewish Law. As we saw in the resurrection debate, some of the scribes or lawyers were the ones who commended Jesus’ argument and debate skills. Jesus was not impressed when they gave Him the win; instead He warned, “Beware of the scribes…” (v 46) While not all scribes deserved Jesus' condemnation, the majority of them did. These experts in the Law walked around the temple courts in long ostentatious robes and expected respectful greetings and places of honor everywhere they went, whether it be in the temple, the marketplace or a Passover seder meal. But more criminal was the way they took advantage of widows in their most vulnerable state, after the death of their husbands, serving as executors of their estates. If all of this wasn’t enough, they were also known for their pretentious prayers that went on forever! The verdict would come as quite a shock to them, for they would receive the greater condemnation - “These will receive harsher judgment.” (v 47)
Jesus then pointed to the treasury box where Jewish congregants were presenting their monetary gifts before worship. While the rich patrons’ offerings made a loud noise going down the trumpet-shaped opening, there was a poor widow woman whose two small coins barely made a “kerplink.” Jesus judged the rich givers, because they gave from their abundance, while praising the poor woman’s faith in God to provide all that she needs. God measures gifts not by their size but by the sacrifice by which it was given how sincere and selfless the heart was that gave the gift.
Big Picture Questions for Today:
* Did you learn anything new about the Jewish religious leaders from today’s devotion? If you had lived during this time, which sect would you have been drawn to?
* Can you imagine how frustrating it was to debate with Jesus - the One Who created all things, Who gave the Law to Moses? Sadly, even though He won every argument, cross examination and rebuttal, these opposing sects would lay down their differences and join forces in order to take down this common enemy - Jesus!
Pray to think more deeply about your relationships with the opposite sex. Ask the Lord to give you a brotherly/sisterly love for all who are not your spouse.
