Commentary on Luke 20:27-38

Other commentaries on this site do a nice job of contextualizing Levirate marriage, resurrection beliefs, and the historical and theological context of the debates between Jesus and the Jewish leadership. With these important issues in view, it is also interesting to consider how the text lands for those who hear it later, specifically Christians who already have a semantic field for and commitment to the idea of resurrection precisely because of how the story of Jesus plays out. 

For these hearers, the question arises as to whether the text is about life or death, now or later. Like other texts, including the recent Lukan text about Lazarus and the rich man, the latter is meant to inform, shape, influence, or change the former. Assuming Jesus’ claims about resurrection (as well as the claims about Jesus’ resurrection) are true, what difference does it make? 

A whole new world

The Sadducees seek to force Jesus to expose how ludicrous the idea of resurrection is. In his rebuke, Jesus demonstrates how it is, in fact, ludicrous to try to understand the resurrection in terms of this life. He asserts that the rules we put in place to navigate this world are not important, or even relevant, in the next one, because it is so fundamentally different from what we normally experience. 

Here, with the limitations of time, space, and human sin, we rely on practices to keep things orderly. Traditions like the one mentioned in this text protected the women, heirs, and the legacy of the man who has died. According to Jesus, such concerns do not translate to the life to come, certainly not in a way that negates the concept of a resurrection. We will need new language, new imagination, to grasp the meaning of resurrection. 

My kids and I have talked several times about what life was like before media and entertainment were available on demand. It’s challenging for them to imagine “Must-See TV,” having to be in front of a machine at a certain time in a certain place in order to experience a particular piece of content. In addition to the logistics, it’s hard to convey the kind of urgency that accompanied certain media events. The kind of scarcity mindset (or FOMO—Fear Of Missing Out) often associated with premieres, finales, or “very special episodes” is not easily imagined now that it is irrelevant. 

The feelings around missing those cultural milestones were strong, even about something as trivial as television shows. In this text, which is literally about life and death, Jesus tries to address the challenge of the Sadducees and also to expand the conversation beyond the constraints of the present to a future not yet imagined. 

Jesus first highlights the gap between understanding and imagination by talking about those who belong to “this age” versus those who are “considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead.” Marriage is appropriate for those in “this” age but not in “that” one. But he points to something bigger here. It’s not just that people don’t need to be married in heaven, but that those who are children of the resurrection cannot die anymore. It’s like telling someone from this world about one where they are not constrained by money, or health concerns, or gravity. 

Can we really imagine this? What is it like to live without the threat of death? It’s the threat of death that drives so much of life, including the realities that signal that death is close by: suffering, lack, fear, not having or being enough. What would it be like to live without these things? The juxtaposition of those in “this” age and those in “that” age pushes the reader to desire further understanding of how to be a part of “that” one, to not be limited by “this” one. Jesus’ response shows how compelling the idea of resurrection actually is, as it leaves behind the limits and assumptions of this world.

Collective hope

Such imaginings are challenging for us on our own. The preaching event gives an opportunity for this kind of collective vision that can transcend individual circumstances, even as it honors and acknowledges them. It can speak to the power of the body of Christ to 

1) provide glimpses of a community where all are welcomed and there is enough, 

2) articulate the value of each human being, and

3) give other sources of motivation for action than simply fear or protection.

Part of the good news is that once we have experienced this kind of hope, even for just a moment, we might forget what that fear was like, or it might recede in importance and cease to be the dominant narrative. Now that I have been living in a streaming world for years, I can recall—but not feel—those emotions I’ve described to my kids surrounding TV and scarcity and urgency. (Now my urgency is directed elsewhere, which is another sermon.) I no longer catch myself worried that I’ve missed anything on a show, as I know I can probably find anything I need with a few clicks or a few dollars. My kids will never know what that felt like; for me, it is now a distant memory.

Jesus is calling us to imagine what it is like to live without the fear of death so that we can approach our lives differently. If all of this is true, if through Jesus we are all children of the resurrection, then how does that free us? How do we spend our time? Our money? Our energy? The collective imagination guided by the preacher can open up space for the hearers to view this life differently, perhaps loosening or lessening anxiety and fearful urgency in order to free up energy for hopeful action on behalf of the gospel.