“Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter” (Isa. 5:20).
Perhaps the reader has heard about the salesman who, it was thought, was so smooth that he could sell refrigerators to Eskimos. Max Lucado is that smooth; he must be, for who else could take a passage of Scripture and convince his readers that it means the exact opposite of what it says?
In And the Angels Were Silent, published in 1992, Max surveys the final week of Jesus’ earthly existence. When he comes to a passage of Scripture that stresses Truth and correct interpretation, what does he do with it? He turns the point on its ear, telling the reader that Truth is not important and that insisting upon correct “interpretation” is divisive.
If you want the long version of their question read Matthew 22:24-28. If you want the short version and my interpretation, here it is. “Teacher, Moses said if a married man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. Once there were seven brothers among us, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. . . .” (94).
Apparently, Max did not consider the problem brought to Jesus even important enough to delineate.
Most people commenting on this passage point out that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection and that they were trying to trap Jesus with a scenario that had undoubtedly dumbfounded the Pharisees. Their question to Jesus, after explaining that she had been married to all seven (rather luckless) brothers, is: “Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her” (Matt. 22:28).
The Sadducees thought they had developed an unanswerable question. Some might contend that she is the wife of the first husband and that all the others were just stand-ins to try to produce children. Some might affirm that she belongs to the last husband, since they were together at the time of his death. But Jesus pulls the rug out from under his questioners by answering that she will not be any man’s wife in the resurrection! They had assumed (as do the Mormons) that if life continues after death, so must marriage.
Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken [Ye do err, KJV], not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels of God in heaven” (Matt. 22:29-30).
In other words, the theology of the Sadducees was wrong because they did not understand the Scriptures properly. They failed to comprehend correctly the Truth taught in the Old Testament. They were, in other words, doctrinally wrong. Now how does Max treat this crucial point? Will he point out the importance of Truth and doctrine and the correct understanding of the Scriptures?
Jesus’ response is worth underlining. “You are way off.” Now, your translation doesn’t use those words and neither does mine. But it could. A fair translation of the Greek would be: “You are off-base. You are missing the point. You are chasing a rabbit down a dead-end trail” (94).
Although it is doubtful that the Greek connotes chasing rabbits (isn’t that Alice in Wonderland?), this answer is adequate as far as it goes, but this is as far as it goes. Max next quotes a song which stresses the absurdity of futile fighting. The poem trivializes Truth and then concludes with this comment by Max: “As long as Christians split hairs [or is it hares? gws], Christians will split churches” (95).
Could some rational person explain what splitting hairs has to do with Matthew 22:23-33? Does Max think that denying the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead (the problem of the Sadducees) is equivalent to disputing a frivolous opinion as to whether or not Adam and Eve had navels (the subject of the song he quoted)?
Not only does Max not record the full question of the Sadducees, he purposely omits Jesus’ complete answer, giving only His initial response and lopping off Jesus’ use of Old Testament Scriptures that expose the Sadducean fallacy. All that Max derives from this entire episode is that people are wrong for holding on to doctrines that are not worth fighting over.
Although these comments were sufficient to answer their question, Jesus went deeper–into the heart of their problem.
“But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Matt. 22:31-32).
Their theology had been wrong for decades, perhaps even centuries. Their doctrine which denied the resurrection constituted religious error. Paul dealt with it in 1 Corinthians 15 and pointed out that if the dead are not raised, neither is Christ raised (16). Is this what Max Lucado regards as “splitting hairs”?
To Jesus, it was important to teach the Truth with respect to the resurrection. But He felt it was necessary to do more than merely tell the Sadducees that they were “off-base”; He chided them for not knowing the Scriptures because the answer to their error was there in the Word of God all the time. God did not say, “I WAS Abraham’s God”; He said, “I AM the God of Abraham.” The use of the present tense means He currently is Abraham’s God. Therefore, Abraham still exists and has a relationship with Him. He has not passed into unconsciousness (psychopannychy) nor become extinct. Abraham still exists, and (by implication) he is married to neither Sarah nor Keturah.
Did Max mention the importance of Truth (he didn’t)? Can he bring himself to discuss doctrine, as Jesus did (he can’t)? Will he emphasize the need to interpret accurately the Scriptures (he won’t)? No, all he can do is provide his readers with a song that includes the words: “I’m splittin’ hairs for Jesus,” which has no relevance to Jesus’ confrontation with the Sadducees.
Max does not even take the trouble to state the question asked by the Sadducees, nor why they asked it. He gives only part of Jesus’ answer and overlooks the key points being made. Then he quotes from a song to make a point EXACTLY OPPOSITE from the one that Jesus makes.
Remember that Jesus teaches the importance of reading and studying the Scriptures so that we can learn Truth. Jesus would have all people know that there is a correct way to interpret the Scriptures and that correct doctrine is crucial to our salvation.
Max, on the other hand, considers those lofty principles as nothing more than “hairsplitting.” Hear his mockery about these things.
The way to be made right with God? Doctrine. Dead-center interpretation of the truth. Air-tight theology which explains every mystery. The Millennium simplified. Inspiration clarified. The role of women defined once and for all. God has to save us–we know more than he does (105).
He then affirms that this approach (of God through correct doctrine) is not from God. In other words, “Doctrine doesn’t matter.” Since he holds this view, it is no wonder that he hesitates not to take a plain passage of Scripture, which upholds correct doctrine, and twist it into saying its antithesis. Light into Darkness.