Gospel: Luke 20:27-38
Context. Jesus has now entered
Jerusalem. The lectionary skips the
account of his triumphal entry (which we read on Palm Sunday). Once in the Jerusalem, he seems to go
straight to the Temple to clear out the merchants and start teaching. The people are enraptured by his teaching. The temple is reclaimed for the true
revelation of God’s will. Various
powerful groups (priests, Pharisees, scribes, Sadducees) oppose Jesus. His teaching is mainly presented as a series
of controversies, initiated by one or another of these groups. It all ultimately revolves around questions
of authority: who has it and how should it be exercised?
Interpretation. The Sadducees were a Jewish group
in Jerusalem (explaining why we haven’t encountered them before in the
narrative) who had many very wealthy adherents.
In Catholic terms, we could think of them like a lay sodality. They rejected anything they saw as a
post-Torah innovation, so opposed belief in the resurrection and in angels. Their question seems designed to test Jesus,
reducing the resurrection to ridiculousness, and theology to a riddle. The rabbis had to answer similar
objections. The remarriage principle
they rely on is found in Deut 25:5. Its
purpose was to guarantee offspring for a dead man (and a livelihood for his
widow). If you don’t believe in true
eternal life, progeny can provide something close, perpetuation of your genes
(they wouldn’t know the science, but the idea was common in the ancient
world). Jesus dismisses all this
speculative thought as nonsense: there is eternal life! Death is no real threat, so levirate marriage
is not needed. We could go further and
say: in heaven there are no sacraments (including marriage) as God’s love is
present unmediated. Finally, Jesus shows
that belief in the resurrection is scriptural, following from a passage in
Exodus. God stands in covenantal
relationship with living people.
1st
Reading: 2 Macc 7:1-2, 9-14
Context. 2
Maccabees is an abridged version of the (now lost) 5 volume history of the Jews
by Simon of Cyrene. It is what’s called
‘rhetorical history,’ what we might call ‘popular history’ today, telling its
story in a very narrative form with attention to the dramatic. The epitomist did not seek to entertain for
its own sake though, but to promote proper piety, trust in the God whose
providential aims for Jewish freedom from Pagan oppression are realized by
prayerful Jews. In a time when Jews had
little political power, the epitomist often refers to God as King, whose Temple
is the greatest palace and whose Torah is the greatest law. At a time when this is controversial, it
strongly promotes belief in resurrection from the dead. The work spans the period 180-160 and the
epitome was completed in 124.
Interpretation. This reading rounds out a
series of responses to King Antiochus’ attempt to homogenize religious practice
throughout his empire, wiping out Judaism in the process. In the full story, a mother and her seven
sons all face martyrdom for refusing to eat pork. Between them, they develop a full theology of
suffering and redemption. They are clear
about the reality of the afterlife, and that their bodies will be perfectly
restored, but their tormentors will be punished. A later son tells us that the reason they are
suffering is because of their own sins.
After this story, follows the story of the military campaign which
brought relief to the Jews and ended in the Chanukah miracle.
Questions
1.
What’s your reaction to the idea of God
punishing? We looked at this last time
with regards to Wisdom. How is it
different here? What difference does
Christ make?
2.
The brothers (and their mother, about whom we
don’t read) model non-violent resistance.
How might that play out in our lives?
How does Christ help us understand that?
3.
What difference does believing in eternal life
make to how we live our lives now?
4.
Jesus’ words should lead us away from
speculative puzzles to worship of the God of life. What can distract us from this, and how does
Jesus lead us back?
No comments:
Post a Comment