Sermon on November 9, 2025, Twenty-Second Sunday After Pentecost. Based on Luke 20:27-38. With apologies to the United Church of Christ, who have used this title as their motto for many years.
Before we seriously discuss today’s lesson, I’d like to take a quick tour through Israelite history. We often think of the ancient Israelites as always being monotheists, but that’s not quite true. In the time of Abraham, they might be described as henotheistic. That means they acknowledged one God, the God that we worship, as supreme over all other gods, but they also acknowledged that other gods exist and are worthy of worship by other people. Think about it: when Jacob and his 12 sons went down to Egypt, they didn’t proclaim their God to be superior to all of the Egyptian gods. They just kept to themselves. In fact, when Moses encountered the burning bush, a scene that Jesus evokes in today’s reading, he had to ask for God’s name.
Over the following centuries, the Israelites slowly progressed towards monotheism, but frequently slid into pagan practices. Over and over again, we hear about a prophet or a king denouncing Baal, Asherah, Molech, and other gods. There would be no need for denouncing unless the Israelite people were actively worshiping those other gods, right?
In 586 BCE, the single most catastrophic event of the Bible took place: Jerusalem was sacked, the Temple was destroyed, and the leaders of Judah were exiled to Babylon. A century later, the Temple was rebuilt and Judah was re-established, but the trauma of the Babylonian conquest lived on in their collective memory.
In the wake of this destruction and exile, the Jewish leaders had to figure out what had gone wrong. They knew that they worshiped the supreme God, the God who is above all others, El Shaddai, God Almighty, El Elyon, God Most High. They were God’s chosen people. How could they have been savaged by the Babylonians, who worshiped some other, lesser gods? Where had things gone horribly awry?
The best explanation anyone could come up with was that they had failed to follow the First Commandment: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.” When the leaders realized that they had broken this covenant with God, they began a series of reforms. They edited their ancient stories and writings into the Hebrew Bible as we know it, making sure to highlight the importance of monotheism and worshiping God alone. They made sure that the Temple stayed “clean,” that is, free of any other gods or idols or unclean practices. They ensured that the people all worshiped God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength, by participating in the Temple sacrifices and festivals and observances.
Thus began the Second Temple period, which ended shortly after Jesus’s resurrection. There was just one problem: No matter what the Jews did, they could not regain their previous stature. Under the Maccabees, they did achieve independence, but in 63 BCE, a couple of generations before Jesus, that independence came to an end. So again, religious leaders were left to wonder where things had gone wrong.
There were many factions in late Second Temple Judaism, but the two we hear the most about in the Gospels were the Pharisees and the Sadducees. In truth, Jesus had a lot in common with the Pharisees. Both were reformers who were trying to make Judaism relevant in a changing world. Jesus’s legacy was Christianity; the Pharisees’ legacy was rabbinic Judaism.
The Sadducees, though, were fundamentalists. They went back to the basics. In fact, they rejected most of the Hebrew Bible. They didn’t acknowledge the authority of the historical books, or the wisdom literature, or even the prophetic books. No, they said that the only true revelation of God’s divine will was in the Torah, the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Everything else, they rejected as too “modern.”
In government and military circles, there’s a truism, termed Miles’ Law: Where you stand depends on where you sit. What that means is, your opinion on some policy or budget or other decision depends on your position in the government. If you work for the National Nuclear Security Administration, you’d better believe in the efficacy of nuclear deterrence. If you work for the State Department, you’d better believe in the efficacy of diplomacy. If you work for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, you’d better advocate for solar, wind, and hydro. If you work for the National Energy Technology Laboratory, deep in the coal country of West Virginia, you’d better advocate for clean coal and other improvements to fossil fuel based energy.
Well, the Pharisees led the synagogues in the villages and small towns far from Jerusalem, so they sought ways to be true to God apart from the Temple. They acknowledged prophetic statements like from Amos:
I hate, I despise your festivals,
and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. …
But let justice roll down like water
and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.
The Sadducees, though, were aligned with the Temple. They were linked to the Temple hierarchy, so their access to power and status depended on the stature of the Temple in the public consciousness. Therefore, they didn’t want anything to do with a prophet like Amos. Instead, they focused on the Torah with its pages of tedious description of the Tabernacle and the proper sacrificial practices. They rejected any reforms that may cut into their power base.
So when a young rabbi from a backwater village like Nazareth came along, the Sadducees had to squelch any of his attempts to modernize Jewish beliefs and practices. Earlier in this chapter of Luke, the chief priests and scribes challenge Jesus’s authority. Then they try to trick him with a question about taxes. Foiled at every turn, they concoct this ridiculous scenario to try to corner Jesus into admitting that there is no hope of resurrection.
But Jesus outwitted them. Like every great reformer, Jesus proclaimed a new Truth about God, but then tied it back to the texts that his adversaries would accept.
Let’s take a quick look at this ridiculous logic puzzle. The Torah established something called “levirate marriage.” The central problem was that if a man died without a son to inherit, then his line would come to an end. In a sense, inheritance functioned like eternal life. This was an era where the only wealth that really mattered was land. In the book of Ruth, we see a little glimpse into how this worked in practice. Ruth’s husband, brother-in-law, and father-in-law all died. In order that the husband’s and father-in-law’s line should survive, Ruth needed to bear a child, who would ultimately inherit her deceased husband’s property.
Which is to say, the whole point of marriage in ancient Israel was economic. Sure, we hear about loving couples in the Old Testament, but always as a little bonus on what is ultimately a financial transaction that aims to produce heirs. Over and over again, we hear admonitions about caring for widows, because the widow didn’t inherit—her children did.
The Sadducees clung tightly to the Torah, and so they embraced whatever it might say, relevant or not. Under Roman occupation, most of the Jews were dispossessed. There was little to no property to inherit. So even during that era, levirate marriage was mostly irrelevant. Jesus knew that, as did his followers.
And certainly, in the kingdom of God, inheritance is irrelevant. The kingdom of God is universal human flourishing. Eternal flourishing. So as Jesus said, there is no point in maintaining the ancient traditions around marriage. In the resurrection, death has been conquered, so there is no need for an heir. There is certainly need for LOVE, but not for the possessiveness of marriage. Levirate marriage, to ensure an heir for your brother, was essential in an ancient agrarian society. In the age to come, when death has been banished forever, transactional marriage is irrelevant.
Jesus then makes an argument that seems a little specious on its face. He says that God’s message to Moses demonstrated that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are alive to God. I have to say, that’s a pretty weak argument in favor of the resurrection. Truthfully, throughout the New Testament, the authors use Hebrew Bible texts similarly—re-interpreting, re-contextualizing, and re-framing the old words in new ways to speak to the new circumstances of Jesus’s coming as the Messiah they weren’t expecting.
This is both necessary and possible because the Bible is not the Word of God. Jesus Christ is the Word. The Bible is just a collection of words about an ancient people’s encounters with God. The Bible is God-breathed, meaning that its words speak to us only through the power of the Holy Spirit. Each new generation receives the Torah, the Prophets, the Wisdom literature, the Gospels, the Epistles, everything—we receive it along with the interpretations our forerunners made in their contexts. And then we have the freedom and the obligation to re-interpret it for our modern circumstances.
Consider this: during the Reformation, people like John Knox made biblical arguments against the Roman Catholic Church. Today, Presbyterians, who descend from Knox and include his writings in our Book of Confessions, have positive ecumenical relationships with the Roman Catholic Church. We have our differences, sure, but we no longer treat the Pope like the antichrist. In fact, a lot of us have pretty positive things to say about “our” Pope.
Or consider the unbelievable advances in technology. Consider that Jesus and his disciples mostly traveled on foot, while we travel in planes, trains, and automobiles. Consider that Paul’s epistles had to be hand-delivered by someone who could read them aloud to the illiterate receiving congregation, while we can all read them on our smartphones. Can we really say that the Bible’s teachings to a Bronze Age, agrarian society are relevant to a modern industrialized world without the guidance of the Holy Spirit?
I believe that God reveals Godself to humanity in the way that humanity can understand, given the level of understanding that a society has at the time. Remember ten minutes ago when I said that Abraham was henotheist rather than monotheist? That’s because Abraham was surrounded by other cultures with other gods, and so he was not yet ready to believe that our God is the only god. Then when the Israelites were wandering in the wilderness with Moses, they needed the Tabernacle to centralize their worship. But later when they were settled in Canaan, the Israelites needed guidance about maintaining their unique identity. Then when the Temple was destroyed and they were exiled to Babylon, they needed a way to continue worshiping God in a foreign land.
Throughout history, God has revealed God’s nature more and more to each generation, in ways that generation could understand. God’s most complete revelation was the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Even that was limited by Jesus’s context, though. Jesus could not teach his disciples, say, how to vote in a democratic society because such a thing did not exist. Instead, he held up general principles as absolutes, then gave some examples. Jesus taught that the kingdom of God is at hand! And the kingdom of God is universal human flourishing. It is up to us to determine how to pursue that flourishing in this generation, in this community and nation and culture.
But even that is insufficient. Look around: the people in this congregation are mostly of a different generation from, say, the students on campus or young working families. We are one expression of the Church (with a capital C), Christ’s body. But we are not the only valid expression of the Church. We are just one particular expression of it, with one way of being God’s people according to our understanding. As our understanding changes, and as our community and culture change, we must remain open to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and pursue new ways of being the Church.
At the little church up the street from me, across from Casey’s, there’s a sign board that usually has something that makes me angry. Well, not this past week. The message read, “Don’t put a period where God puts a comma.” I’m not sure what their pastor means, but here’s what I take away from it. Don’t exclude the possibility that God is still speaking. Don’t hold so tightly to your beliefs, or your way of expressing those beliefs in the choices you make and the actions you take, that God can’t change you. Don’t feel so bound by history that you are afraid to create a beautiful new future. And don’t prevent others from going where God is leading them.
God is still speaking! God speaks through the Bible, yes, but also through the gentle nudges of the Holy Spirit. God speaks through the people you encounter, whether they are strangers that you meet or the people that you love the most. God is still speaking. Let anyone with ears to hear listen! Amen!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
