Trying to be like Jesus - context

Sometimes it is easy to misinterpret answers.

Right after "Render unto Caesar" Matthew gives us another example of a question asked.

Matthew 22
24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:

26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.

27 And last of all the woman died also.

28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

On my mission a woman used this a proof that Mormons were crazy to believe in eternal marriage. I remember it so strongly because she expressed relief that there wasn't eternal marriage, as sometimes it was hard enough putting up with her husband until death, which I found a little appalling.

I can see why she read it that way, but it did not shake my faith. There have been enough hands on the Bible that there can be things that were captured wrong, things that were translated wrong, and things that modern revelation supersedes. However, I think there is something different going on here, based on right before and right after the text.

Before:
23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,

After:
31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

That's a lot of focus on the resurrection. We know it is a big issue, because Paul once used that point of contention between the Pharisees and Sadducees to get out of a jam (Acts 23).

We also know that based on their traditions, the question doesn't make any sense. In Levirate marriage, the marriage to the brothers was all for the purpose of producing an heir for the deceased brother. The failure to produce heirs through multiple marriages could create some complex inheritance issues, and having the practice at all could create some difficult marital situations and complicated feelings, but it would not really call into question which was the preeminent marriage.

Jesus doesn't waste a lot of time on that. He tells them they are wrong, but quickly goes into testifying of the power of God. He quickly points out that even by their logic, when they reference the God of Abraham that this is not just a reference to the past, and to someone who is no more, but a testimony of God's power over death. That does more to silence them than a legal treatise on marriage and inheritance law.

Taken together, Matthew 22 gives us one easily applicable lesson, one that provides context, and one where hedging about a simple answer gives us a parable, but it starts with a parable too: the marriage of the king's son.

In that parable we find invited and committed guests making excuses, and then others attending but one refusing to follow the bare minimum required of dressing appropriately and answering. That can serve as a reminder that in the end everyone is invited, but we still have to accept that invitation, by our actions and in our hearts.

We see examples of people trying to quibble and test and wiggle their way out of it, and Jesus continually providing more wisdom, more examples, and more opportunities.

At some point we should quit testing his patience.