Tough Questions – Round Three

February 10, 2008

The questions just keep coming, don’t they? Jesus’ enemies can’t pin him down. They’ve tried and failed with two no-win questions. Now, they’re back again. This time they try what I’ll call a dishonest, hypothetical, legalistic, nonsensical question. Got that? Here it is.

Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man’s brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed. And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise. And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also. In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err. Mark 12:18-27

Have you ever heard such a convoluted mess? This reminds me of similar questions asked my by pastors over the years. I remember one pastor in Central America going on at length to explain to me how he met a couple in his church that had been living together in a common law marriage for 14 years and had several children. He described how they had both put their faith in Christ and showed signs of wanting to grow in their faith. Then, in the course of counseling them, he discovered that the man, in his youth, had a previous marriage in a different part of the country that had ended in divorce. With great detail he told how he was able to determine that there were no biblical grounds for divorce in that first marriage. Therefore, he had counseled the man to leave the woman by whom he had the children, return to the other part of the country, search for his first wife, remarry her, since they never should have been divorced, and then send money back to support the kids of the other woman. (Remember, this is the very condensed version).

“That was the right thing to tell him, right?”

My head hurt by that time. I wanted to grab him by the ankles and hang him upside down from the ceiling until all the stupidity leaked out. But, I quickly decided that wouldn’t be the Christ-like thing to do. The Christ-like thing was to say, as Jesus did, “You do err because you know not the scriptures or the power of God!” That really is what I told him, followed by a effort to explain to him the real issues that he never did grasp.

In the passage from Mark, notice that the ones who ask Jesus this question about whose wife would the seven-time married woman be in the resurrection were Sadducees. What did they care about whose wife she would be in the resurrection? They did not even believe in a resurrection! They had merely devised a hypothetical question to try and embarrass Jesus, attempting to show how absurd the law would be if there was really a resurrection. They, too, were trying to trap Jesus.

Jesus shut them down quickly and decisively. He exposed their fraud by accusing them of ignorance of the true meaning of scripture and the power of God. This would have been embarrassing indeed for the highly-educated, sophisticated Sadducees. Jesus looked to the underlying principles rather than hypothetical nonsense. He pointed out that the resurrection is the entrance to life in a totally different sphere and that the question as to whose wife she would be is irrelevant and senseless. Having slapped down their silly speculation, he pressed on to leave them pinned to the mat. Jesus knew that they were fond of speaking of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but how could he be the God of living, if Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were simply dead and had no part in the resurrection?

Here’s what I take away from this passage.

Stay away from silly hypothetical questions. Stick to the facts of reality. Don’t allow someone to lead you into involved discussions that are based on nothing more than speculation, even when scripture is jerked out of context in an attempt to give legitimacy to their nonsensical hypotheses.
Consider the source. I’ve mentioned this before, but this is so important. Who is asking the question, and what is their true motive? If the person is a new believer and just full of questions, be gentle. But, quite often people ask questions to embarrass you, trip you up, or demonstrate what they consider to be their superior intellect.
Don’t get caught up debating details. Look for the undying principles – not whose wife this woman will be in the resurrection, but that God is the God of the living, not the dead.

Thanks to those of you who have contributed to this discussion with good insight. Anyone else care to weigh in with some advice on facing tough questions?

http://TimHowey.com Tim Howey

I remember one time years ago when I was doing the “email-ping-pong-thing” with a cowardly…errr…anonymous emailer (whom I guessed correctly that I knew personally). Anyway, we were debating some topic and finally Titus 3:10 came to my mind. (I think it’s called “conviction.”) Ever since, I’ve set a range of 0-2 discussions with someone who clearly does not want to explore/learn.
Brandon

Thanks for the insight. Of course I have never heard the “mad at God” take on Freud so that helps me put him and this writing in better context. About Pharaoh’s daughter naming Moses, Freud says:

“What first attracts our interest in the person of Moses is his name, which is written Mosche in Hebrew. One may well ask: Where does it come from? What does it mean? As is well known, the story in Exodus, Chapter ii, already answers this question. There we learn that the Egyptian princess who saved the babe from the waters of the Nile gave him his name, adding the etymological explanation is obviously inadequate. The Biblical interpretation of the name: ‘He that is drawn from the water’ thus author in the Judisches Lexikon is folk etymology; the active Hebrew form itself of the name (Mosche can at best mean only ‘the drawer out’) cannot be reconciled with this solution. This argument can be supported by two further reflections: first, that it is nonsensical to credit an Egyptian princess with a knowledge of Hebrew etymology, and, secondly, that the water from which the child was drawn was most probably not the water of the Nile”

He goes on to make the claims famous for the book that Moses was actually an Egyptian name because Freud claims that he was actually an Egyptian. He cites one historian to substantiate this. So yes you are right, Freud has to, at least on an implicit level, deny the historical validity of the Biblical Exodus account as evidence by his leaning to call some of the writings folk and the information contained as coming from the collective subconcious of a guilty people.

I meant to send you a link with a synopsis. So here it is: http://www.bris.ac.uk/researchreview/2006/11557411546.html

When you think about it, the whole thing doesn’t deserve a second thought; past today’s lecture I am not going to worry about it. About the futher schooling, I think that you are right that I am crazy. My time would have probably been better spent taking ShepSch distance learning courses. But I am too deep to turn back now. My best friend from college, Charlie Bailey, is doing the distance thing with you guys and seems to be really getting a lot out of it. Again, thanks for taking the time to give me your thoughts. The idea that I, and more importantly the KCBT folks, can have a direct line to ya concerning Biblical issues is such an awesome thing.
http://www.kcbt.org Jeff Adams

Brandon, Glad you found something here you could use. Speaking of Freud, I remember a comment from when I was doing my PhD — PhD student? You need counseling!

Seriously, I am reasonably familiar with Freud, but I have not read this particular book. I think you are right on target with “consider the source.” Freud was mad at God. For a man to whom everything had significance, he hung out his shingle on Easter Sunday and thought of his psychiatric theories as having a religious connotation and envisioned replacing Christianity with the “secular priesthood” of the psychiatrist. So, his views on Moses and monotheism are very likely to have a fairly high level of bias.

Interestingly enough, Exodus states that Moses was the Egyptian name given to him by Pharaoh’s daughter. So, any research on the etymology of the name Moses as relates to Hebrew monotheism seems a bit tainted if one accepts the Bible even as a legitimate historical document as it relates to the Exodus story.

The Proverbs passage you are thinking of is the one mentioned by Jackie above, Proverbs 26:4-5. So, I wouldn’t raise a fuss, but might think of some good probing questions of your own to ask! That might be fun.
Brandon

I really appreciate that. I was coming over to your blog to ask you a question about a book I am reading in my PhD program at LSU and this day’s blog seemed to answer it. I am a communication theory major and through all of my schooling I slipped through with very little exposure to Freud, thankfully. But, I have been reading “Moses and Monotheism” for a class on comm and trauma. I was coming over to ask your take on the book, but I think that it is right there in the realm of the questions posited by the Sadducees, senseless. Dying from caner of the Jaw and fleeing Nazis Freud wrote this book that seems to be alot of conjecture. I have been researching what other people have said about it and it is funny how people can establish their view of Moses from a speculative at best and very loosely substantiated historical take on the origin of his name. And of course from there he just goes wild with the Jewish people’s collective unconcious creating and perpetuating the hero myth to get the Moese they needed/wanted. I was coming over to ask you how to answer these assertions and there the answer was. Is it in Proverbs where we are not to try to correct a foolish person? Knowing that, no need to raise any kind of fuss in class tommorow huh? I am not trying to dodge, just asking I would still like any of your thoughts if you are familiar with the book.
http://www.kcbt.org Jeff Adams

Matt, thanks for asking about that man. That was the last time I saw that pastor and he clearly got the message that I was impressed with his idea. I can’t imagine anyone following that advice. It would be far easier to just find a new church to attend!

Jackie, thanks for the Proverbs 26:4-5 reference. That’s a great passage to apply to this discussion.
Jackie

this reminds me of the wisdom found in Prov 26:4-5 (although its taken a long time for the Holy Spirit to unravel this riddle for me). If I understand it, DON’T answer a fool according to his folly as in hypothetical questions and silly debates, because you will just end up looking like a fool too! DO answer a fool according to, or fully aware of his folly by considering the source, answering the real issue or according to the underlying principle so that he or she won’t be confirmed in their foolishness. That’s my paraphrase of course but when I manage to recall these principles it helps me avoid some silly conversations, deceitful traps, and saves me a lot of time too!
Matt

Did that guy do what that Pastor told him to do? I can’t imagine the heart break of hearing that counsel!

Jeff Adams

Tough Questions – Round Three