2007-11-05 by David Mosser
11 November 2007 (The Sunday between November 6 and 12 inclusive)
Haggai 1:15 b -2:9; Ps 145:1-5, 17-21; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-5, 13-17*Primary Text: Luke 20:27-38
Luke’s Gospel tells readers that Jesus taught in the temple daily. Luke further writes that the religious authorities “kept looking for a way to kill him, but they did not find anything they could do . . .” (Luke 19:47). Who exactly were the Sadducees? The Sadducees were a non-descript group of lay Jewish leaders associated with the temple. They maintained that only the first five books of our Christian Old Testament, the Pentateuch, were authoritative. Finding no mention of life after death in these books, they rejected the doctrine of the resurrection. No doubt they used a doctrine that they did note even believe in to trap Jesus in either a logical fallacy or a legal quagmire. The New Testament itself contains little information about Sadducees except that they frequently come into sight (with the Pharisees) as Jesus’ opponents. This is ironic in the sense that Sadducees and Pharisees have, generally speaking, little in common.Seeking to trap Jesus into speaking against the Jewish ritual law, the Sadducees ask Jesus a question about levirate marriage and a man’s several brothers with relation to the man’s widow. We need to recall the belief in first century Judaism as well as in many parts of the world today that a man’s memory and legacy lived on (in a sense) through his son(s) [For texts concerning “levirate marriage,” see Deuteronomy 25:5; Genesis 38:8.]. If a man died without sons, Jewish law required that his brother marry his widow and bear her a son, thus continuing the dead man’s lineage. Avoiding the theological trap set for him, Jesus tells those gathered that in the “coming age,” when the Messiah reigns, marriage will no longer exist; those who are admitted into eternal life for their faith will all be “children of God” (Luke 20:35). In God’s kingdom this will be their family relationship.
Many people today think that being a modern Christian includes discarding the belief in spiritual beings. Notice that the problem of the Sadducees is not with the why, that is with the reason for the belief in the resurrection, but with the how of things. Does this sound like the argument of modern people who reject the resurrection on the grounds that it is scientifically absurd? Our bodies, these scientific folks observe, are made up of the recycled atoms and molecules that were part of the bodies of people who once lived. At the resurrection, they ask, whose body parts would these atoms and molecules be, ours or theirs? [As they exclaim in Texas, “Do What?”]
Jesus answers the Sadducees by drawing their attention not to “the how” but to the why of the resurrection. God is God of the living. God has created people for life and not for ultimate extinction. God does not blow us into life like soap bubbles—here today gone tomorrow. Rather, God’s providence gives us life even after our earthly existence is finished. Resurrection is the cornerstone of the Christian faith.
Do we understand the details of the how of the resurrection? Of course not! As Paul wrote, “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Corinthians 2:9). But we do believe that the God who raised Jesus Christ from the dead will also give life to our mortal bodies because God cannot be God of the dead. God is God of the living. What Jesus promises is that at the time of death everything will be changed. Life as we know it will be altered completely. When we worry about who is married to whom and such questions like this then we are thinking completely beside the point. Jesus assures us that God at the end of time will take care of everything.
In fact, one might say that the Sadducees’ question is a way to avoid the responsibilities that God has given us for the here and now. Perhaps, if we worry about what happens in the next life we can dodge those troubling questions about what we are to do in this life—now! But for honest believers who want to do the right thing, dodging hard questions and dodging harder answers is never an option.
Jesus’ method of answering these evasive types of questions is to finally reveal how irrelevant they are, especially when we consider the many ways God calls us to serve others here and now!
David N. Mosser, First United Methodist Church, Arlington, Texas 76011
2007-11-05 by David Howell
David Mosser is our guest preaching blogger this week. David is senior pastor of the First United Methodist Church of Graham, Texas. He received his Ph.D. in rhetoric from the University of Texas, Austin. David writes UMPH-produced curriculum for adults. He is currently editor of The Abingdon Preaching Annual.
Safety and Significance, then Love?
2007-11-03 by David von Schlichten
I agree that we humans need to deal with the issues of safety and having significant identity first before love, or maybe it is that the three are interrelated. I can help someone feel safe as part of acting lovingly toward that person, for instance. This insight from that book via you regarding the primacy of safety and identity is profoundly helpful. Thanks many times.
I also agree that love must be understood vis-a-vis the biblical story of covenant, call, commitment to God, etc. So I think I concur that love is not the Bible's main, overarching theme. Thanks for your guidance.
Gratefully yours in Christ,
themes and fruits
2007-11-03 by Tom Steagald
I would say--and this is not original with me, by any means!--that love is the first fruit of the Spirit, and surely an evidence of the way God works in, among and ultimately through those who are called to be disciples of Jesus Christ.
Certainly Paul considers love the "more excellent way" of Christian living--the glue that holds us together, the grease that cools the friction--but his description of love is, in most cases, more aspiration than experience. That is, the way we show and receive love is not usually in the terms he offers in I Cor 13.
In our tradition (United Methodism) there is an historic emphasis placed on "sanctifying grace," the work of the Holy Spirit to help believers "go on to perfection." It has always been my sense that the characteristic mark of "entire sanctification" would be the selfless expressions of love as evidenced in Jesus and described by Paul.
So love as the primary ethical theme... yes, I guess, but I would want to contextualize that within the parameters of a specifically biblical view of love: love that results from hearing/answering/following the summons of God to live for God's glory and the benefit of neighbor. "Loving neighbor," as Jesus said, is a second commandment, though like unto the first commandment of loving God with heart, soul, strength and mind (I might mention that one of my NT professors used to say that the idiom in Matthew 22:18 allowed for a translation that the "second commandment" is a "parable" of the first).
One more thought-- in July I taught a course at Hood Seminary, and one of the texts I assigned was by G. Lloyd Rediger, The Toxic Congregation: How to Heal the Soul of Your Church. He maintains (using some systems theory, developmental psychology and such) that folk in churches (and elsewhere) deal with three basic agendas: survival, identity and relationship. In the first, survival, the basic question is, Am I safe here? In the second, the basic question is, Does who I am matter? In the third, What's in this for us?
"Love" functions at that last level--love as mutuality, cooperation, selflessness, etc, for the sake of the group. But only after the safety and identity questions have been satisfactorily answered can the "love" question become authentic. Rediger maintains that most preachers preach at the third level, preach about love as the answer, when what most parishioners are in fact asking the prior questions--Am I safe? Does who I am matter?
I have found that insight quite provocative across a host of parish issues.
Do not mean to blab on and on.
Good preaching tomorrow! Tom
2007-11-03 by David von Schlichten
Below you will find a conversation between Tom Steagald and me about what the Bible's main, overarching theme is. Feel free to join us!
Also, click on Share It! and then the Sermon Feedback Cafe to provide feedback on Rick Brand's intelligent sermon on Psalm 119 that he will preach on Sunday, November 4. Rick and I have been chatting about the sermon. You can join us.
David von Schlichten, Lectionary Blog Moderator
BIBLE'S MAIN THEME
I'm going to rethink and repray about my thesis that love is the Bible's main theme. Thanks for the challenge.
What about this: Love is the most important ethical lesson of the Bible. Is that more accurate?
As I conclude my sermon series on understanding the Bible tomorrow, I may offer to the congregation this revision, that love is the most important ethical lesson of the Bible.
Yours in Christ,
[First Page] [Prev] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 [Next] [Last Page]
Login - (This login is for administrators and bloggers. Usernames and passwords for GoodPreacher subscribers will not work here.)