1
GOD OF ABRAHAM, GOD OF THE LIVING
Jesus’ Use of Exodus 3:6 in Mark 12:26-27
by
David B. Sloan
B.S., The OhioStateUniversity, 1999
M.Div., Ashland Theological Seminary, 2004
Currently studying toward a Ph.D. in Theological Studies (New Testament concentration) at TrinityEvangelicalDivinitySchool
A RESEARCH PAPER
Submitted to Professor William Baker for the
2010 ETS Midwest Region Student Paper Competition
Deerfield, IL
February 2010
1
Introduction
It is often thought that the authors of the New Testament place meanings on Old Testament texts that are foreign to those texts and therefore that modern interpreters should not reproduce the hermeneutics of the NT authors.[1] One text that has been taken to support this claim is Mark 12:18-27, where Jesus argues against the Sadducees that Exod 3:6 (“I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”[2]) teaches the resurrection of the dead.[3] So Peter Enns says, “To understand Exod 3:6 as demonstrating that ‘the dead rise’ (Luke 20:37), as Jesus does, violates our hermeneutical sensibilities, and we should not pretend otherwise.”[4] This paper will investigate Jesus’ use of Exod 3:6 in Mark 12:26-27 to determine if this is the case. After beginning with an analysis of the context of Jesus’ argument in Mark, we will explore the two most common understandings of the text: 1) that Jesus is basing his argument on the tense of eivmi, and 2) that progressive revelation adds a meaning to Exod 3:6 that was not initially there. Next we will discuss the possibility that Moses had an afterlife belief, and finally we will interact with other views of Jesus’ line of argumentation here. This analysis will demonstrate that Jesus considered his hermeneutic to be normative, that he did not “go beyond what is written” in the OT text (cf. 1 Cor 4:6), and that by following Jesus’ hermeneutic our own understanding of the OT will be improved.
The Context of Jesus’ Argument in Mark
Studies of Jesus’ use of Exodus 3:6 often neglect to consider the broader context in which the argument occurs. Mark 11:1-13:37 forms a unit that focuses on judgment of the leaders in Jerusalem.[5] These chapters can be diagrammed chiastically as follows:
AJesus curses a fig tree and cleanses the temple as a sign of judgment on the temple (11:12-26);
BThe religious leaders question Jesus’ authority (11:27-33), and Jesus tells a parable condemning the religious leaders (12:1-12);
CThe religious leaders test Jesus’ interpretation of Scripture (12:13-34);
C’Jesus exposes the scribes’ misinterpretation of Scripture (12:35-37);
B’Jesus condemns the scribes (12:38-40) and commends the widow who loves God with all she has (12:41-44);
A’Jesus prophesies the destruction of the temple and uses a fig tree for lesson (13:1-36).
That Mark 12:13-37 is a battle for authority between Jesus and the religious leaders is clear from the surrounding pericopes. That that battle is centered on who is the better interpreter of Scripture is clear from the focus on the law in these verses. In 12:14 the Pharisees and Herodians ask what is “lawful” regarding taxes; in 12:18-27 the Sadducees are condemned for not knowing “the Scriptures nor the power of God”;[6] in 12:28-34 a scribe tests Jesus on what is the most important part of the law. In the last case, Jesus not only answers in a way that satisfies the scribe, but he also places himself as the one judging the scribe as “not far from the kingdom of God” (Mark 12:34). Jesus then discusses Psalm 110 to show that the scribes have misunderstood Scripture and therefore the authority of the Christ. Having demonstrated the failure of the religious leadership and his own superiority, Jesus speaks the verdict: “Beware of the scribes. . . . They will receive the greater condemnation” (12:38, 40). This reveals that the primary purpose of Jesus’ argument in Mark 12:26f is not to give a Scriptural warrant for belief in a resurrection but toexpose the religious leaders as poor interpreters of Scripture and demonstrate Jesus’ superior ability to interpret Scripture.[7]
In Mark 12:24, Jesus says the Sadducees’ problem is that they “know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.” Many scholars argue that Jesus addresses these two problems in reverse order, showing first in 12:25 that God’s power enables a greater transformation in the afterlife than the Sadducees had assumed and second in 12:26f that Scripture does teach that the dead are raised.[8] While there is some truth to this, it should be noted that both of these problems are active in each argument. In verse 25 Jesus refutes the Sadducees’ argument by demonstrating that they misinterpret the Scripture they have presented because they do not know the power of God. In verses 26f, Jesus presents as positive argument fromScripture that demonstrates that God has the power to raise the dead.[9] This will become clearer as we investigate the citation more carefully.
Is Jesus Making a Grammatical Argument?
The most common understanding of Jesus’ argument is that he is making a grammatical point based on the present tense verbeivmi,. So Morris argues, “The present tense [eivmi,] is important. . . . If there is no afterlife, they should have said [‘God was the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’] when they referred to the patriarchs and their God.”[10] There are a number of reasons, however, to conclude that this is not what Jesus is arguing.
First, unlike Matthew, Mark and Luke do not even include the verb in their quotation of Exod 3:6. This suggests that they understood Jesus’ argument to rest on a different point.[11] Second, this would make for a weak argument that is unlikely to silence the Sadducees (cf. Mark 12:34). B. Sanh. 90b records a debate between Rabbi Gamaliel and the Sadducees in which Gamaliel argues from texts in the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings, and the Sadducees repeatedly refute him. If this is an accurate portrayal of how the Sadducees responded to Scriptural arguments for the resurrection – and one would expect that they would respond in such a way – then if Jesus’ argument is simply an easily-refuted grammatical point, it is highly unlikely that the Sadducees would have been silenced.[12] Third, a number of aspect theorists have argued that the present tense does not communicate time at all,[13] and even if it does, eivmi, is an aspectually vague verb that never occurs in an aorist tense. Fourth, we have already demonstrated that Mark is portraying Jesus as the superior interpreter of Scripture. We would expect Mark in this context to give Jesus at his best rather than exploiting an ambiguity in wording using logic that is questionable.[14]
The final reason for rejecting the view that Jesus is making a grammatical argument is Jesus’ choice of text. There are many texts he could have selected in support of the resurrection. Even if he was confining himself to the Torah,[15] he could have argued, as did other rabbis, based on Num 18:28 or Deut 31:16.[16] But Jesus did not choose an obscure passage; he chose to cite a central biblical text that involves God’s self-revelation, displays God’s covenantal loyalty, and anticipates one of the greatest displays of “the power of God” in the history of the world.[17]
The words of Exod 3:6 were central to Jews of Jesus’ day. The Amidah (a.k.a. the Eighteen Benedictions) was likely spoken in some form in late Second Temple Judaism, and it begins with a blessing of “the Lord our God and God of our fathers, God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob.” Notably the second benediction repeatedly uses the words, “You revive the dead.”[18] In addition to this text, Dreyfus points to a number of others (Pr Man 1; As. Mos. 3:9; Jub. 45:3) that use this formula to draw attention to God as “le protecteur, le sauveur (bouclier, rocher, puissant) des trois Patriarches”[19] Similarly, the many passages that use the expression “God of the fathers” “presque toujours” express the same idea, calling for “la protection accordée par Dieu aux Peres, . . . qui est le gage d’une protection identique pour la génération presente.”[20] In addition, Dreyfus points to three New Testament texts that use similar expressions to communicate God’s faithfulness to the covenant (Heb 11:16; Acts 3:13; 5:30).[21] If this expression is so closely tied in Jewish thought to God’s faithfulness to the covenant, it is unlikely that Jesus quoted it merely to make a grammatical point.
That the covenant plays a significant role in Exod 3:6 is clear. Exod 3:6f purposefully echoes the language of Exod 2:24f, which is tied to the covenant.[22] The theme of Exodus 3 is God’s faithfulness to the covenant, which is loudly proclaimed after centuries of reason to doubt that truth. When God identifies himself in Exod 3:6, he is saying in effect, “The God whom you’ve heard about as present in the lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is here now. I have come down to deliver because I always remain faithful to those I have entered into a covenant with.” Somehow Jesus sees in this truth a proof of the resurrection.
Is Jesus’ Arguing from Progressive Revelation?
Among those who see the covenant as having a significant role there are still a variety of ways of understanding Jesus’ argument. After showing the significance of God’s self-identification as God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Dreyfus argues that “dans l’esprit du rédacteur de l’Exode” the divine guarantee of protection and relief “était pleinement réalisée si les Patriarches mouraient centenaires, heureux et rassasiés de jours.”[23] This then would be a case of sensus plenior, where the redactor of Exodus did not perceive the depth of the text “bien qu’elle y fût implicitement contenue.”[24]
Similarly, Schwankl argues that in the time of Moses, life was so “kollektiv verankert und verstanden” that people felt that a person’s death did not destroy his life but that he “weiterlebte” in his descendents. Therefore in that time “konnte man lange darauf verzichten, ein persönliches Fortleben des einzelnen nach dem Tod zu postulieren.”[25] In the time of the exile, however, “die Eskalation der Todeserfahrung . . . und die gleichzeitige Entwicklung des Individualismus” would have made “die Integration dieser Erfahrungen in die Glaubensüberzeugung nach bisherigem Muster unmöglich.”[26] Therefore the deep-rooted convictions of faith in Yahweh, which are rooted in the Exodus experience, would have led to a new belief in the resurrection.
Because this view sees the significance of Jesus’ choice of an OT text it is likely a better understanding of Jesus’ argument than the view that Jesus’ argument rests entirely on the tense of eivmi,. Nevertheless, there are some problems with this view. Most notably, Schwankl’s theory that people did not need to consider a personal afterlife in the time of Moses is highly questionable. If there is any truth at all to the claim that Israel came out of Egypt in the time of Moses, one needs to consider how profoundly the Israelites would have been confronted with views of a personal afterlife. Egyptian belief in the afterlife goes back to at least the fourth millennium BC.[27] By the First Intermediate Period (ca. 2190-2050 BC), the belief had become widespread that common Egyptians would be individually identified with Osiris, the God of the Resurrection. In order for a person to survive death, however, Egyptians believed that the physical body needed to be preserved because it would serve as a home for the ka and the ba until the body took on a different form at the resurrection.[28] The fact that Genesis mentions both Jacob and Joseph being mummified suggests that the early Israelites shared with the Egyptians a belief in some form of an afterlife.
In addition to this hint of a belief in an afterlife in the Torah, there are other evidences that point that direction. The fact that Moses needed to command against necromancy (Lev 19:31; 20:6; Deut 18:11) suggests that some form of personal afterlife was not a foreign concept to early Israelites. On the contrary, there are a number of reasons to believe that resurrection hope was a part of Israel’s covenantal expectations from the earliest stages.
Israel’s Early Expectation of an Afterlife
The Torah begins with answers to man’s questions: Where do we come from? What is our purpose? How does God view us? Why was man created male and female? Why is the seventh day different from the others? Why is work difficult? Why is childbearing difficult? Why do people die? The answer to this last question is of particular interest for our study. According to Gen 2:17; 3:19, 22-24, death is the result of Adam and Eve’s first sin. Before sin entered the world, humans had access to the tree of life. Once man took on the knowledge of good and evil God drove man out of the garden so that he would no longer have access to the tree of life. We see in this that God’s intention was for life to be eternal but man’s sin became the obstacle to that.
The Torah, however, is designed to remove sin, the ideal being a return to the garden. So the promise land is depicted as being “like the garden of the LORD” (Gen 13:10; cf. Isa 51:3; Joel 2:3; Ezek 36:35) and Israel’s Exodus was in some ways a journey to a new Eden.[29] The tabernacle was a place where God could dwell with man again as in the garden The parallels between the tabernacle and the garden have been pointed out by G. K. Beale: just as God “walked about” (מִתְהַלֵּךְ) in the garden, so he will “walk about” among them as they “reverence [his] sanctuary” (Lev 26:2, 12); just as Adam was to “work” (עָבַד) and “keep” (שָׁמַר) the garden, the Levites were to “work” and “keep” the tabernacle (Num 3:7-8; 8:25-26; 18:5-6; cf. 1 Chr 23:32; Ezek 44:14); just as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil could not be touched, so too the ark of the covenant, which contained the Law, could not be touched; just as the garden had a tree of life that would cause man to live forever, the tabernacle had the golden lampstand, patterned after a tree with trunk and branches,which was perpetually lit.[30]
What are we to conclude from this? That sin had separated man from the tree of life but by obeying Torah man could get as close to having a tree of life as possible, though he still could not live forever? It does not seem that this is what the Torah suggests. Rather, Enoch is given as an example of someone who could “walk with God” and therefore be taken. Sailhamer points out that the genealogy of Seth in Gen 5 differs from other genealogies in Genesis by the addition of the repeated phrase, “and he died.” According to Sailhamer, this is the author’s attempt “to highlight and focus the reader’s attention to the exceptional case of Enoch.”[31]
Why emphasize Enoch? Notice the repetition of the phrase “Enoch walked with God” (Gen 5:22, 24). The clear implication is that Enoch was able to walk with God in such a way that enabled him to return to the Eden ideal. And if so, could this be possible for others? Notably, the Torah itself is an invitation to walk with God (Lev 18:4; 26:3; Deut 5:33; 8:6; 10:12; 11:22; 13:4; 19:9; 26:17; 28:9; 30:16) “that you may live” (Deut 5:33), with Enoch being the premier example. At the same time there is a tension placed in the text by the author: even though walking with God was the path to eternal life for Enoch, it did not accomplish that goal for Noah, Abraham, or Isaac, who are all also said to have “walked with God” (Gen 6:9; 24:40; 48:15).[32] This is not just a historical coincidence that what earned Enoch eternal life and is the calling of all who enter into a covenant with God did not accomplish the same goal for Abraham and likely will not do so for future members of the covenant. Rather Enoch is given as the type so the expectation from the beginning is that walking with God leads to eternal life.
Another text to consider is the so-called “protoevangelium” of Gen 3:15. While most scholars reject a messianic reading of this verse as foreign to the intention of the author of the Gen 3 narrative, there are a few scholars who are suggesting that the verse is rightly read as an announcement that a particular seed of the woman will ultimately defeat the serpent, bringing an end to the curse that plagues mankind. T. D. Alexander argues that our failure to read the verse this wayis rooted in the fact that we do not read Genesis as a unity: “The importance of [the] genealogical framework [in Genesis] and the book’s special interest in tracing a specific line of descent . . . beginning with Eve and ending with Judah” point in the direction of reading Gen 3:15 as referring to an individual who would end the curse.[33] Gordon Wenham argues that the Genesis 2-3 narrative is so highly symbolic throughout that we would expect the serpent to be the anti-God symbol here.[34] James Hamilton traces the references in Genesis to a seed who would reverse the curses:
Genesis 3:15 points to a seed of the woman who will crush the serpent’s head. Genesis 5:29 indicates that the godly line traced in the genealogies expected a seed of the woman who would reverse the curses (cf. Gen 5:29 with Gen 3:17–19). Genesis 12:1–3 announces that all the families of the earth will be blessed by Abraham, and 22:18 adds that the blessing will come through the seed of Abraham. Genesis 17:6 and 16 say kings will come from Abraham, and a natural conclusion to draw is that the seed of Abraham through whom the nations will be blessed will be a king.[35]