728x90
The Sadducees Ask About the Resurrection
18 And kSadducees came to him, lwho say that there is no resurrection. And they asked him a question, saying, 19 “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that mif a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife, but leaves no child, the man5 must take the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. 20 There were seven brothers; the first took a wife, and when he died left no offspring. 21 And the second took her, and died, leaving no offspring. And the third likewise. 22 And the seven left no offspring. Last of all the woman also died. 23 In the resurrection, when they rise again, whose wife will she be? For the seven had her as wife.”
24 Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because nyou know neither the Scriptures nor othe power of God? 25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither pmarry nor pare given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 26 And as for the dead being raised, qhave you not read in rthe book of Moses, in sthe passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, t‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? 27 He is not God of the dead, but of the living. You are quite wrong.”
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Mk 12:18–27.
18절) 사두개인들은 부활을 인정하지 않았다.(행 23:8; 마 22:29-30) 그들은 부활도, 천사도, 영도 없다라고 했다. 이런 사두개인이 지금 예수님께 나아와 부활에 대해서 묻고 있는 것이다.
-
Sadducees. Comprised of mostly aristocrats and prominent priestly families (8:31; 11:18) who dominated Israel’s ruling council, the Sanhedrin (see note on 14:55). Religiously conservative, they recognized only the five books of Moses (Genesis–Deuteronomy) as divinely authoritative and rejected the idea of resurrection since, on their reading, it did not support resurrection.
D. A. Carson, “The Gospels and Acts,” in NIV Zondervan Study Bible: Built on the Truth of Scripture and Centered on the Gospel Message, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 2043.
사두개인에 대한 기록은 거의 남아있지 않다. 단지 그들의 적대자들이 남긴 기록만이 남아있는데 그 이름은 다윗 시대의 대제사장인 사독에서 유래한 것으로 보인다. 사두개인들은 기원전 2세기경 마카비왕조 말이나 하스모니안 왕조초기에 등장했는데 그들은 정치적으로 진보적이었고 자신의 지위를 지키기 위해서 로마와 손을 잡았다. 그들은 종교적이라기보다는 정치적인 집단에 가까왔다. 신학적으로는 매우 보수적이었는데 성전과 밀접하게 관계되어있고 대제사장직을 중시했다. 모세 오경만을 중시했던 것으로 보이고 서기관들과 바리새인들의 구전 전통을 거부했다.
- The Sadducees are mentioned explicitly only here in Mark’s Gospel. Comparatively little is known about them, and there is uncertainty about several items. None of their own literature has survived, and all references to them are in the writings of their enemies (the New Testament, Josephus, rabbinic literature). The name is thought to be derived from that of Zadok, a high priest in David’s time (2 Sam 20:25).
The Sadducees seem to have emerged as an identifiable party during late Maccabean or early Hasmonean times, i.e., the second century b.c. They were wealthy aristocrats and were probably among the absentee estate owners alluded to in 12:1. Politically they were very liberal and were quite willing to cooperate with the authorities of the Roman occupation in order to preserve their favored position. In fact, they were more of a political than a religious party, despite the following considerations. Theologically they were quite conservative. They usually were associated with the temple, the high priesthood itself, and the high priestly officialdom, although only one high priest was explicitly identified as a Sadducee.13 It is uncertain whether they accepted only the Pentateuch as Scripture, as was claimed by later Christian writers, or whether they merely ascribed more authority to it than the Prophets and the Writings. What is certain is that they rejected the oral tradition of the scribes (“teachers of the law,” NIV) and Pharisees. Very important for the present passage is their denial of resurrection of the body.14 According to Acts 23:8 they also denied the existence of angels and other spirits, but this claim has been questioned because references to angels are in the Pentateuch (e.g., Gen 19:1; Deut 33:2). The Sadducees perished in the debacle of a.d. 70.
James A. Brooks, Mark, vol. 23, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 194–195.
19절) 사두개인들의 질문은 형사취수 제도에 대한 것이었다. 이 제도는 구약의 전통으로 형제가 자손을 잇지 못하고 죽으면 그의 형제가 대신 형의 아내와 결혼하여 자녀를 낳음으로 형의 이름이 이어지도록 또한 그의 기업이 그의 부족과 가족안에 유지되도록 한 것이다.
-
The allusion is to the law of levirate15 marriage, as recorded in Deut 25:5–10. Actually the practice preceded the time of Moses, as can be seen in Gen 38, especially v. 8. Ruth 3–4 exemplifies the application of this law. The law provided that if a man died without a male heir, his brother was to marry his wife and impregnate her so that his brother’s name might be preserved and his property kept within the tribe and family.
James A. Brooks, Mark, vol. 23, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 195.
20-23절) 좀더 구체적인 질문은 이렇다. 일곱 형제가 있었는데 첫째가 아내를 취했는데 아들을 낳지 못해서 죽고 둘째도 그 형수를 취했다가 아들을 얻지 못하고 죽고 그렇게 일곱이 모두 여인을 취했지만 아들을 낳아 상속자를 얻지 못하고 죽었다면 과연 부활이 있다면 그때에 이 여인은 누구의 아내인지를 묻고 있는 것이다.
바리새인들의 일반적인 대답은 부활시에 첫째의 아내다일것이다. 왜냐하면 그의 동생들이 자녀를 낳지 못했기 때문이다. 하지만 지금 주님께서는 대화를 더 높은 차원으로 올리고 계신다.
24-25절) 이들의 질문에 대해서 예수님께서는 너희가 성경도 하나님의 능력도 알지 못하기 때문이다라고 말씀하신다. 주님의 핵심은 부활때에는 하늘의 천사와 같이 장가도 가지 않고 시집도 가지 않는다는 것이다. 어떤 사람들은 천국에, 부활 후에 자신들의 배우자가 없음으로 행복하지 않을 것을 두려워한다. 하지만 분명한 것은 그날에 그곳에서는 어떤 의미있는 관계도 없어지지는 않을 것이다. 상실에 대한 슬픔이 아니라 새로운 하나님안에서의 의미있는 관계들로 인한 놀라운 기쁨이 있을 것이기 때문이다.
- Twice before, Jesus revalued family relationships (3:31–35; 10:29–30). Here Jesus taught that resurrection life will be different from earthly life. People will not marry and have children but in some sense will be like angels, either sexless or concerned only with serving and worshiping God. Some persons have feared that a future life without their spouses will not be happy. As a result some have argued that Jesus meant only that there will be no further marriages in heaven. Probably the best understanding is that no Christian will be deprived of any meaningful relationship with believing family members and friends. Not the grief of loss but the surpassing joy of new and equally meaningful relationships marks life in God’s family, whether now in the church or in the future.
James A. Brooks, Mark, vol. 23, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 196.
예수님께서는 장가가고 시집가는 것을 말씀하시면서 부활 후에는 이러한 역할이 적용되지 않는다고 말씀하신다. 남자와 여자는 모두 하늘에서 천사들과 같아질 것이다. 우리가 일반적으로 생각하는 것들이 하늘에서는 존재하지 않는 세상의 것이라는 것이다. 사두개인들은 미래가 과거와 같을 것으로 여겼다. 하지만 예수님께서는 부활 이후의 미래는 과거와 같지 않을 것을 선언하고 계신 것이다. 형사취수와 같은 제도는 더이상 적용되지 않을 것이다.
-Jesus began by asserting that there would be no marriage after the resurrection. His choice of words is particularly interesting. To marry was a male role. To be given in marriage was a female role. According to Jesus neither role is to apply after the resurrection. Both men and women will be like the angels in heaven, he affirmed. Apparently, then, neither marriage nor the sexual stereotyping that is so much a part of this world has any place in the next. Beneath that assertion lay a very serious issue. The Sadducees’ expected the future to be like the past. That expectation was the premise for the vexing little problem they had invented. Jesus maintained, however, that the future would not be like the past. It would be so different that the levirate law could not apply.
Ronald J. Kernaghan, Mark, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 232–233.
26-27절) 예수님께서는 출 3:6을 인용하시면서 죽은자가 살아나는 것에 대해서 말씀하셨다. 가시나무 떨기가운데 하나님께서 모세에게 나타나셔서 나는 아브라함의 하나님이요 이삭의 하나님이요 야곱의 하나님이다라고 선언하셨다. 이는 하나님이 죽은자의 하나님이 아니라 산자의 하나님이라는 것이다. 모세는 아브라하미 이후 수세기 이후의 인물이다. 그런데 하나님께서 모세에게 나타나셔서 마치 아브라함과 이삭과 야곱이 살아있는 것처럼 말씀하시는 것이다. 그리스도인들에게 있어서 미래의 삶과 부활에 대한 확신은 다른 것이 아니라 바로 하나님과의 관계속에서 나오는 것이다. 이러한 고백은 언약의 신실성을 보여준다. 그런데 지금 바리새인들은 하나님의 언약의 신실성이 아니라 지엽적인 문제에 관심을 가지고 있었던 것이고 예수님께서는 중요한 것은 그것이 아니다라고 지적하고 계신 것이다. 바로 중요한 것은 우리 하나님은 죽은자의 하나님이 아니라 산자의 하나님이시라는 것이다.
- The crux of the argument is the use of the present tense in Exod 3:6. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had been dead for centuries at the time God spoke to Moses. Yet God told Moses that he was still their God at the time he spoke—thus implying that, from the perspective of the resurrection, they were still alive. In making the statement Jesus made no distinction between life after death and resurrection, which elsewhere is a future event.
Jesus’ line of reasoning has not commended itself to many modern interpreters, but it was quite acceptable in his own day. The matter must be judged in part on that basis. The reasoning, however, is not as superficial as some have thought. One of the most important reasons for a Christian’s assurance of future life and resurrection is the nature of his or her relationship to God. The fact that the phrase “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” carried with it the idea of the covenant faithfulness of God emphasizes the central truth of Jesus’ words for Mark’s original readers and for believers today: God is faithful, and we can rely on his promises.
James A. Brooks, Mark, vol. 23, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 196.
- The Pharisees whom the chief priests, elders and scribes sent to trap Jesus might very well have applauded this policy. They were ardent nationalists who nurtured the hope that God would send a messiah to defeat the foreign powers and expel them from the land. The Herodians who accompanied them lived at the other end of the political spectrum. They were in many ways collaborators with Rome. They were not an official political or religious party. Herodians is a loose term that designated a range of Jewish people attached to Herod’s court. In the world of first-century Judea it is difficult to imagine a stranger political alliance than the ad hoc committee of Pharisees and Herodians sent to Jesus. It was the same strange pairing that first plotted to destroy him in 3:6.
They came to trap him in his own words, and despite their flattery they posed a particularly thorny question: Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay or shouldn’t we? If Jesus had said that Caesar had a right to collect taxes in Judah, the Herodians would have been satisfied, but the Pharisees would have denounced him to the crowd as a man who sided with their oppressors. If, on the other hand, he had denied Rome’s right of taxation, the Herodians would have had everything they need to denounce him to the Roman authorities in Judea. That was an interesting dilemma, but it was only the tip of the iceberg.
Ronald J. Kernaghan, Mark, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 229–230.
- This was a stunning interpretation of an Old Testament text that was a cornerstone of first-century Judaism. While it did not deny that God promised the land to Abraham’s descendants, it did open a much broader vision of the future. The traditional reading, which focused so narrowly on the question of land, did not have much room for other peoples. The Gentiles had to be expelled from the land for those promises to be realized. Jesus had already made his differences with that ideology quite clear, and precisely here in one of the definitive texts of that dogma Jesus opened up a vision of the future that could be large enough to include the nations. His vision was not tied to a piece of real estate that only one people could possess. It was not tied to the hope that Israel would reemerge as a major political and military power. His vision was inclusive, and nothing in his teaching in Mark supports the idea that the nations would be subjugated to Israel.
Does the resurrection replace the land as the focal point for the future? And if it does not, how are the two ideas related? Mark leaves these two questions unresolved at this point. He has, however, given us an important clue and invited us to pursue it. In the previous controversy the Pharisees hypocritically said that Jesus taught the way of God in accordance with the truth (12:14). Despite their hypocrisy they were right. That is a form of irony that appears increasingly in the second half of Mark. Unfounded accusations, hypocritical testimony and the mockery to which Jesus was subjected often unintentionally contained a great deal of truth. In the final analysis even hypocrisy and unfaithfulness may confirm the sovereignty of God.
Ronald J. Kernaghan, Mark, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 234.
'성경묵상 > 마가복음' 카테고리의 다른 글
| 막 12:35-40 다윗의 자손 예수 그리스도 (0) | 2018.01.05 |
|---|---|
| 막 12:28-34 가장 첫째 되는 계명은? (0) | 2018.01.04 |
| 막 12:13-17 가이사의 것은 가이사에게... (0) | 2018.01.02 |
| 막 12:1-12 포도원 주인과 농부의 비유 (0) | 2017.12.28 |
| 막 11:27-33 도전받는 예수님의 권위 (0) | 2017.12.27 |