Must I Believe in the Resurrection?
Notes
Transcript
Introduction
Introduction
Turn with me to Mark ch 12 v 18. If you’re not normally here with us, I’ve been preaching through Mark’s gospel. And if I had planned it all out, we’d be in Mark ch 16 today, talking about what happened on that first Easter Sunday
But we’re not. In the providence of God, we’re in Mark ch 12, where Jesus is being questioned by the Sad
But what are Christians celebrating today? The resurrection of Jesus from the dead. And guess what the Sad are asking about: why should we believe in the resurrection?
Now I think that’s a good question to consider on Easter Sunday, don’t you? So let’s join them
Read
And Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection. And they asked him a question, saying, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife, but leaves no child, the man must take the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. There were seven brothers; the first took a wife, and when he died left no offspring. And the second took her, and died, leaving no offspring. And the third likewise. And the seven left no offspring. Last of all the woman also died. In the resurrection, when they rise again, whose wife will she be? For the seven had her as wife.”
Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living. You are quite wrong.”
Look Who’s Asking
Look Who’s Asking
Sadducees—familiar, but first appearance in Mark
Again, like Herodians, Sadducees and Pharisees normally enemies, but working together here. Unlike Herodians, Sad were very religiously conservative
Both Phar & Sad committed to the law of Moses. But there was an important difference: Pharisees concerned with obeying the law as interpreted by the traditions of the elders and rabbis. Sad were not
Considered the first 5 books of Moses the supreme authority, trumps other OT books and all the writings of the rabbis
Did the first 5 books of Moses speak of a resurrection or an afterlife? No, not explicitly. The idea of an afterlife was relatively new in Judaism. Therefore, as Mark says, the Sad said there is no resurrection. Phar convinced resur was a reality. Sad did not believe in a resurrection or any kind of life after death. That’s why they’re sad, you see?
A Ridiculous Scenario (Or Is It?)
A Ridiculous Scenario (Or Is It?)
Their question begins with the now-standard flattery: “rabbi,” teacher
Then they launch this question that can seem ridiculous to us:
There were seven brothers; the first took a wife, and when he died left no offspring. And the second took her, and died, leaving no offspring. And the third likewise. And the seven left no offspring. Last of all the woman also died.
What is going on? Does this woman just really like this family? No. What’s going on in this hypothetical case is actually obedience to God’s command of what’s called levirate marriage. Here’s how Moses laid it down:
“If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.
Why? Why would a man be required to marry his dead brother’s wife? Sounds weird to us, almost creepy. But it had a very important purpose
You remember that God alloted the land of Israel to the various tribes, down to individual families. And God intended for that land to stay in that family in perpetuity
Remember that even if it was sold, God prescribed a year of Jubilee, when land ownership would revert to the original owning family
What happened if a man died with no heir? His family doesn’t inherit the land, and it winds up with another family
So God provided a solution: if he dies with no heir, his brother was to marry the widow. In that way, as Moses continued,
And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.
You probably know about this practice from its most famous practicing couple: Boaz, who married his relative Elimelech’s widowed d-i-l, Ruth
So the Sad just extend the idea past 2 brothers to 7 brothers. Why?
Because they think Jesus agrees with the Pharisees that the resurrection is real, and they want Jesus to have to defend it with this situation that shows how ridiculous the whole idea is
“Look what a mess there would be if we obeyed God and the resurrection actually happened. Whose wife would she even be?”
Now, before you write this off as a situation that only matters to 1st century Jews: Do we ever have a situation where someone is married to a person, the spouse dies, and that person remarries?
Or more commonly in our culture, we have “serial monogamy” with marriage, divorce, remarriage, divorce—how would you sort all that out in the resurrection?
What the Sadducees Don’t Know
What the Sadducees Don’t Know
I see endless encouragement these days for Christians to be “winsome.” We need to be nice, seek not to offend, be careful to phrase things in a way that won’t offend our hearer
Now, there are times we should be wise and cautious in our speech and seek to be winsome. But apparently when confronting false teachers, Jesus didn’t think that was one of those times:
Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God?
Now that is blunt. He accuses one of the two most fastidious and observant and knowledgeable groups in all of Israel of not knowing the Scriptures. He accuses a group at the top of the ladder of most religious in Israel of not knowing the power of God
And more than just not knowing: most commentators point out that, the way his statement is structured grammatically, he’s not just saying they *don’t* know, he’s suggesting the *won’t* know—they’re unwilling to understand the Scriptures
So what, specifically, do they refuse to understand? Point out just 3: First,
Things aren’t the same
Things aren’t the same
Here’s what I mean: in their question about marriage after resurrection, what are they assuming?
That things in the resurrection work exactly how things work in this life
Why would you assume that? We know there is some continuity—for example, you are still “you” in the resurrection. But we have no reason to assume that everything about this life and that life are the same. For example, here’s a key difference that Jesus points out:
There is no marriage
There is no marriage
For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
Now, does the OT *say* that somewhere? Is it spelled out? No. So how could the Sadducees be expected to know it?
I would suggest they could have figured out by reasoning from the purpose of marriage
What’s the purpose of marriage? Boil it down to 2 from Gen 1-2: relationship, and babies
Relationship: Gen 2:18
Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”
Now, will we still be designed for relationship in the resurrection? Of course! But 2 things to note:
1) there will be lots of us there, and every relationship we have with every other child of God will be how good? perfect
I would happily say that I have a great marriage. But even I would have to admit: our relationship is not *perfect* My wife is married to a child of God who still lives in sinful flesh. And so is her husband. Not so in eternity. Every glorified saint will dwell with every other glorified saint in perfect love, perfect peace, perfect enjoyment of each other
And of course, the marriage relationship isn’t just about enjoying relationship; it’s about complementing (with an “e”), completing each other
It wasn’t good for the man to be alone, because he wasn’t complete in himself; he needed the woman to complement him, and vice versa
In the resurrection, every person will be perfect and complete, forever. No need to complement each other
and that’s not even to mention the second point to note:
2) we will be in the direct presence of God, who will be more than enough—it doesn’t get less “alone”
What was the other primary purpose of marriage? Babies. When God made the first couple in Gen 1, the first command He gave them was:
Genesis 1:28 (ESV)
And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth
Will we still need babies in the resurrection? No. Why?
First, God wants the earth full. Guess what? In the resurrection, the new earth will be full.
Not only will it be full, it will be full of people, who, like the angels, never die:
for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
Why don’t angels marry and procreate? Because there’s no need
Why won’t humans in the resurrection marry and procreate? Because there’s no need
But there’s one more key thing the Sad refused to see:
Followers of God are not dead
Followers of God are not dead
Look again at what Jesus says in v. 26:
And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?
What is Jesus’ point here? Exactly what He says in the next verse:
He is not God of the dead, but of the living. You are quite wrong.”
Now: I’ve heard this explained, by Bible teachers I respect, as Jesus hanging his argument on the tense of one verb: God said I am, not I was, the God of these patriarchs
They go on to point out what a clear case Jesus makes for the inerrancy of Scripture: He’s so confident in the Scriptures that He can make a whole argument from the tense of one verb
Now, I think you can make that argument from Matthew, but not from Mark. Know why? Because Matthew includes the verb, “to be,” in God’s statement.
But Mark doesn’t. There’s no verb there. It literally says, “I the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”
So I’m not willing to say he’s arguing from the verb tense, when the verb isn’t there
So what is His argument? If the OT doesn’t clearly speak of resurrection, and there’s no verb here to argue past vs present tense, then what is His point?
I think it’s pretty simple: you cannot read your OT and come away thinking that “the God of the dead” is an accurate way to describe Yahweh
As Jesus says, “he is not the God of the dead, but of the living”
Maybe we can express it this way:
There is no intelligent, understanding way to read the OT and conclude that there is nothing after this life
The God who makes an everlasting covenant with His worshipers, whom He knows to be mortal, must have something in mind for them beyond the grave
There are really only 2 passages in the OT that speak clearly of resurrection:
Your dead shall live; their bodies shall rise.
You who dwell in the dust, awake and sing for joy!
For your dew is a dew of light,
and the earth will give birth to the dead.
and
And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
And remember: those aren’t in the 5 books of Moses, so Sadducees don’t give them much weight
Jesus knew that, so he doesn’t draw on Isa or Dan; he draws on Moses, in Exo 3, the passage about the burning bush
And in that passage, God claims to be the God of three specific men who were, at that point, long since dead
If he claims to be their God, then they aren’t dead and gone forever. If He claims to be their God, then they must not have ceased to exist
So here’s the point to the Sadducees: if you can study Moses and come away thinking that God is the God of people who have died and no longer exist, then you are willfully misunderstanding you Scriptures
He is not the God of the dead, but of the living
And since they still exist, then what Isa said is nec. true:
Isaiah 26:19 (ESV)
Your dead shall live; their bodies shall rise.
You who dwell in the dust, awake and sing for joy!
So the Sadducees were, shall we say, dead wrong
But they’re not the only ones. I believe we should note in closing, there are
Two Kinds of Resurrection Unbelief
Two Kinds of Resurrection Unbelief
The first kind is represented by the Sad. Let’s call them theoretical resurrection-deniers. They explicitly claimed they did not believe in the resurrection
The second kind I would call, not theoretical, but practical election-deniers
These are people who would say they believe in the resurrection, but who live as if it will never happen
They may say they believe in life after death, but they live as if this life is all there is
Is that you? Because whether you live like it or not, you will be resurrected. As Paul said in his trial before Felix,
But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets,
having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust.
Friend, I have news: you will be resurrected and will live forever
Notice I didn’t say I had good news. That depends on whether you are in the resurrection of the just or the res of the unjust
You say, how do I make it into the res of the just? Because I’m not just, because I have sinned
I’m glad you asked. You’re right, you’re not just, because you are a sinner
Only one man in history was just before God: the man Christ Jesus
And as we just observed on Good Friday, God put that one righteous, sinless man to death. Why?
Because in Him, God was judging the sins of all who would have faith in Him, so that they might be justified, declared righteous by God
If you are trusting in being good enough on your own, then you will die in your sins, and you will be raised in the resurrection of the unjust, to face the lake of fire, which is the second death
But if you are trusting in Jesus Christ as your substitute, then you are justified, and you will be raised in the resurrection of the just, to face eternal perfect glorious life in the presence of God
For He is not the God of the dead, but of the living
Pray
Our Father who is in heaven, what a glorious exchange: I can trade my sinful works for the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ
And because of Christ, I can trade my mortal life of sin for eternal life of resurrected glory
Father, if anyone here is trusting in his own works to gain resurrection life, grant that he or she would repent and trust in the work of Christ instead
And Father, for those of us who do believe in Him, grant us boldness to tell others about Jesus, the bread of life, so that they may eat and live forever
Invitation
Something connected to sermon
Someone down front