This narrative episode begins in 19:45 and carries through to
21:38. It is thus important to hold
together the various scenes and how they are related to one another, and not
isolate them from the narrative co-text or episode in which they occur. So let us take a brief look at the scenes
before our episode and establish the contextual features that may shape the way
we understand the rest of this section. An overview of the chapter with its various narrative scenes looks something like this:
Conflict with the
Jerusalem Leadership (19:45-21:4)
- The Prophetic Demonstration in the Temple (19:45-48)
- The Question of Jesus’ Authority (20:1-8). See especially 20:8.
- Jerusalem’s Unfaithful Leadership (20:9-19). See especially 20:19.
- The Question of Caesar’s Authority (and the Priority of the Temple) (20:20-26).
- The Question of Moses’ Authority (20:27-40).
- The Question of the Messiah’s Authority (20:41-44).
- Warning to the Disciples (20:45-21:4)
- Prophecy of Judgement on the Temple (21:5-6)
We are now ready to take a closer look at 20:45-21:6
Vs. 45 In the hearing of all the people he said to the disciples:
Vs. 46 “Beware of the scribes, who
like to walk around in long robes, and love to be greeted with respect in the
marketplaces, and to have the best seats in the synagogues and places of honour
at banquets.
The teaching is directed specifically at the disciples
because they are not to emulate fellow teachers in certain respects. They provide a counter-example for what Jesus
is advocating. This is seen in Jesus’
stringent critique of their quest for status and honour in the community at the
expense of faithfulness to the heart of Torah.
“Long robes,” like refers to “the outer garment by which a
person is noted for his or her status.”[1] This is in keeping with a Lukan theme where
clothes note social status (cf. 7:25; 8:26-35; 16:19).
“‘Best seats’ [πρωτοκαθεδρία] and ‘places of honour’ [πρωτοκλισία] translate parallel Greek terms, both
signifying the location of the seats reserved for the “first” among the
gathered assembly.”[2] This teaching is echoed in other places of
Luke’s gospel (11:43; 14:7-11), suggesting an emphasis on religious leaders who
want to be treated as wealthy benefactors.[3]
The four phrases used in 20:46 to
characterise the teachers of the law are all ways of indicating claims to
advanced social position through nonverbal behaviour. Each illuminates the attempt of the teachers
of the law to lay claim to exalted social status.
Vs. 47 They devour widows’ houses and
for the sake of appearance say long prayers. They will receive the greater
condemnation.
The scribes have been shown to be inadequate interpreters of
scripture (20:41-44).[4] This failure of interpretation is now
illustrated in their lives as they engage in activities that are not faithful
to the scriptures.
a)
Scribes accepted payment for legal aid to
widows, even though such payment was forbidden.
b)
Scribes cheated widows of what was rightly
theirs; as lawyers, they were acting as guardians appointed by a husband’s will
to care for the widow’s estate.[6]
c)
Scribes sponged on the hospitality of these
women of limited means, like the gluttons and gourmands mentioned in Ass. Mos.
7:6.
d)
Scribes mismanaged the property of widows like
Anna who had dedicated themselves to the service of the Temple.
e)
Scribes took large sums of money from credulous
old women as a reward for the prolonged prayer which they professed to make on
their behalf.
f)
Scribes took the houses as pledges for debts
which could not be paid.
Jesus has gone on the offensive
against them, and the ultimate charge he can lay against them is their
participation in behaviours and their perpetuation of a system that victimizes
widows, counted among the weakest members of society, whom both the law and
leadership were to protect.[7]
Vs. 1 He looked up and saw rich people putting their gifts into the treasury;
Vs. 2 he also saw a poor widow put
in two small copper coins.
A λεπτός was a small copper coin. A usual day’s wages was 120 lepta. The offering was insignificant. The widow is
described as “poor” but this is not the usual word πτωχοί (Lk. 4:18; 6:20; 7:22; 14:13, 21; 16:20, 22; 18:22;
19:8; 21:3) but another rare word, πενιχρός (Exod. 22:24; Prov. 28:15;
29:7; Lk. 21:2). BDAG defines the word
as “pertaining to being in need of things relating to livelihood).[8] This women therefore has no income. She is destitute. What happens to her now that she has given all that she has? How will she support herself? Where will she get money for food, shelter and other necessities? What are her options? Slavery? Prostitution? Death?
The scene deliberately contrasts the giving of the wealthy
verses the giving of the poor. The
wealthy give with no consequence, but this poor widow has now sacrificed
everything she has. The wealthy thus give to a corrupt system, but with no real negative consequence to themselves. The poor give to a corrupt system, but at great negative cost to themselves.
Vs. 3 He said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them;
Vs. 4 for all of them have
contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in all
she had to live on.”
Is Jesus’ offering this widow’s giving as an exemplary paradigm
to be embraced and imitated? Or, is
Jesus offering a decisive and lament worthy illustration of the result of
crooked scribes “devouring widows’ houses”?
The inner disposition and outward
bearing of the widow are not described or hinted at in the text, and nothing is
said about divine vs. human measuring of gifts, because those are not the point
of the story. And finally there is no praise of the widow in the passage and no
invitation to imitate her, precisely because she ought not to be imitated.[9]
Thus, it is contextually more appropriate to read this narrative as specifically related to the warning Jesus is giving to the disciples. Here, as so often in the gospels, we have a real illustration of the teaching/warning Jesus has just given concerning the scribes and those associated with the templ.
The poverty of the widow, who
gave her last pennies to the temple, illustrates what Jesus meant when he said
that the teachers devour widows’ houses.
The poor are robbed, and the oppressive deeds are covered up with a show
of prayer and religiosity.[10]
Vs. 5 And they were speaking about
the temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and gifts dedicated to
God, he said
Vs. 6 “As for these things that you
see, the days will come when not one stone will be left upon another; all will
be thrown down.”
If, indeed, Jesus is opposed to
the devouring of widows’ houses, how could he possibly be pleased with what he
sees here?[11]
And the evidence that Jesus is not pleased with what has
happened to the widow, is seen here in his pronouncement of judgement. This beautiful temple, dedicated to God, has
become a symbol of oppression and abuse, and therefore does not represent God faithfully.
And thus does Luke draw attention
to a system, the temple treasury itself, set up in in such a way that it feeds
off those who cannot fend for themselves.
What is worse, because it is the temple treasury, it has an inherent
claim to divine legitimation. How could
it be involved in injustice? It is God’s
own house! This widespread assumption
about the temple only highlights the necessity of Jesus’ criticism of the
temple, a criticism already began in 19:41-48.
Because it has fallen into the hands of those who use it for injustice,
Jesus must comport himself and his message over against the temple and its
leadership in prophetic judgement.[12]
Many, including myself, have been guilty of using this text
in a manner not faithful to the context and intent of Jesus. With this passage we have a stark indication
that sometimes our traditional understandings of Scripture are utterly
misguided and mistaken, and perhaps driven by pragmatic or contemporary
concerns.
Critical exegesis is supposed to inform preaching, piety, and church
thinking; but one wonders to what extent preaching, piety, and church interests
have affected critical exegesis in the history of the interpretation of this
text.[13]
This is why it is so important to always examine the narrative context in which we read specific stories. The context must help us determine the intent of the author.
What is the
significance of this story for Churches and Christians today?
[1] Joel Green,
The Gospel of Luke, 726. See E.g., Gen 41:14, 41-42; Esth
6:8; 1 Chr. 15:27; 2 Chr 5:12; 1 Macc 6:15.
[5]
Fitzmyer, Luke X-XXIV, 1318.[6] See J. D. M. Derrett, “‘Eating Up the Houses of Widows’: Jesus’s Comment on Lawyers?” NovT 14 (1972): 1-9.
[7] Green, 725.
[8] BDAG #5776.
[9] A. G. Wright, “The Widow’s Mite: Praise or Lament? – A Matter of Context,” CBQ 44 (1982): 256-65, here, 262-63.
[10] Evans, Luke, 302.
[11] Wright, The Widow’s Mite,” 262.
[12] Green, 728-29.
[13] Wright, “The Widow’s Mite,” 65.
