THE first thing I thought of saying about this gospel might prove awkward to incorporate into a sermon if I were preaching on this Sunday. Verse 32 states that, after having seven husbands, and trying to make babies with all seven of them, “the woman also died.” Well, frankly, I’m not surprised.
The Sadducees were trying to test Jesus on the institution of marriage. This version of it later became known as “levirate” marriage: if a man died without issue, a brother could marry the widow to raise up children for his brother. The word “levirate” does not indicate a role for members of the tribe of Levi: it comes from a Latin word, levir, meaning a husband’s brother.
They weaponised that poor (and, I hope, imaginary) woman with her seven husbands. A modern equivalent might be atheists or secularists trying to trip up a Christian on the problem of evil, or on anthropomorphic depictions of God. The Sadducees knew, in other words, that this conundrum would prove awkward for their religious opponents, the Pharisees. The jury seems still to be out on whether Jesus was himself a Pharisee; but Paul certainly was (Acts 23.6).
This clash of religious beliefs leads us to expect an answer focused on the resurrection. But Jesus holds back part of his response. First, we have something to learn about the institution of marriage.
It would once have been uncontroversial to say that marriage is primarily for the procreation of children. Now we have moved so far from a one-size-fits-all theology of marriage that many people would find such a statement surprising, even shocking.
Selling a romantic vision in which marriage is the fulfilment of every dream takes many forms. Even the simplest marriage token is not immune. A wedding ring may acquire many meanings in the course of a marriage, but one thing it cannot signify is the eternity of that marriage. Christian marriage is not an eternal state. It is dissolved by death.
The rationale behind this is that marriage secures legitimate issue, which matters to human society in historical time. When the world ends, though, and the time for further procreation likewise ends, marriage itself is done with. So it is divinely instituted, but bound to human time. Whatever else that gold band signifies, it cannot be the eternity of the bond between husband and wife.
The unbroken circle of the ring can still signify God’s perpetual love for both parties. One of my favourite moments in the Common Worship Marriage Service comes when the minister prays to God, “You enable us to share in your work of creation: bless this couple in the gift and care of children.” That can be a reminder that everything we do to build up our common life — as a couple or a society; a nation; even the whole human family — binds us more closely to God, in whom is our first beginning and our final end.
Beyond the bickering between religious parties, Jesus is establishing a more significant fact of faith: that the way we make our commitments in this life has consequences for the life of the world to come. He does not rebuke the Sadducees for treating the woman as a pawn in their theological game. He does not need to, because he makes it clear that he does not see her as they do. She is not a baby factory, or a means of massaging the fragile egos of the seven brothers about having legitimate offspring. In the life of the world to come, human sexual dimorphism will have run its course.
We could let this gospel story lead us into a debate about the resurrection of the body versus the immortality of the soul. That is relevant and important, but I doubt that we would get closer to the truth than have our forebears in the faith. Paul says what he can about it in 2 Thessalonians, then moves on, while Job’s cry of faith is notoriously difficult to pin down precisely in the mind of the writer.
Eventually, we may decide that it is enough, for now, to resolve to support marriage as an inclusive institution, embracing commitment, creativity, and community; and not merely as a means of self-expression or self-improvement. That is already quite a lot for “the children of the resurrection” to be getting on with.
