Mark 12:38-40 contains sayings on warning against the scribes.[1] However, verses 28-34 has just shown that the relationship was not always negative. In 12:38-44, we encounter two episodes in which Mark starkly contrasts religious practices. In the first (12:38-40), Jesus condemns the vanity and greed of the scribes. He points to ostentatious desire for praise and respect that demonstrates false piety. In the second (12:41-44) he points to the meager offering of a poor widow as a praiseworthy example of personal sacrifice and generosity. This text demonstrates why all those who held traditional positions of religious power find Jesus’ presence and preaching so disturbing. Jesus denies this royal ruler image of the Messiah in verses 35-37. He then declares that based on their complete rejection of the law of love and servanthood toward others, as articulated both by Jesus and the uncommon scribe in verses 29-34, these religious authorities face a future not of greater honor but of greater condemnation.
With very few exceptions (e.g., 12:28‑34), Jesus generally had a prickly relationship with "scribes" in Mark (see 3:22‑30; 7:1‑5; 11:18, 27f.; 12:12). Thus, it is not too surprising to find Jesus using scribes as glass‑case exhibits of ignorant behaviors and arrogant attitudes. Jesus’ denunciation of the scribes in 12:38-40 is only one of a number of instances in which hostility between Jesus and the religious leadership comes to the surface subsequent to his arrival in Jerusalem for the Passover celebration. The “chief priests and the scribes” seek to kill Jesus after his provocative disruption of the activities of the temple merchants, but their plan is frustrated by Jesus’ popularity with the masses (11:15-18). At another time the “chief priests, the scribes, and the elders” question Jesus about the source of his authority, but Jesus thwarts their attempt to interrogate him by refusing to answer their questions until they respond to his question about the source of John the Baptist’s authority (11:27-33). Jesus follows up this exchange with a parable that clearly targets these same religious leaders (12:1-12).
Verses 38-39[2] are an example of ostentation on the part of those seeking the kind of respect paid to the scribes. Jesus advises those in the crowd in the temple to be wary of the arrogance of the scribes. He provides several illustrations of their desire for others to hold them in high esteem. 38 As he taught, he said, “Beware of the scribes. Mark has just collected sayings that attacked the teaching of the scribes. He now has a saying on the behavior of the scribes. Jesus moves from the erroneous theology of the scribes in the previous encounters to their bankrupt ethics. The scribe’s practiced air of superiority is a result of their theology. Kings and their courts steep themselves in hierarchies. Little wonder the scribes felt themselves worthy of respect and admiration. The saying shows how completely Jesus broke with the rabbis. This clash with the scribes and other religious leaders is not limited, however, to Jesus’ visit to Jerusalem. Local officials as well as delegations from Jerusalem had regular confrontations with Jesus during his ministry in Galilee (e.g., 2:1-12; 3:22-30; 7:1-13). Thus, the tension between Jesus and these leaders during the Passover celebration in Jerusalem is the climax of a history of antagonism. So who are the “scribes” that Jesus condemns? They seem to have been important members of the Jewish religious hierarchy in Jerusalem, and as such, they are often associated with chief priests and elders, both of whom were members of the upper echelon of the Jerusalem religious and political establishment (8:31; 10:33; 11:18, 27; 14:1, 43, 53; 15:1, 31). As their name suggests, the scribes were not only literate but also proficient in writing, a relatively uncommon skill in the ancient world. Their role in the religious hierarchy seems to have been akin to modern-day bureaucrats. They would have been experts in Torah and its interpretation, but also involved in the nuts-and-bolts administrative duties essential to the political infrastructure of Roman-controlled Judea.
Jesus begins his polemic. The scribes like to walk around in long robes. Jesus begins by attacking the popular style of scribal dress, an easy target. A successful first‑century scribe wore a long linen robe with a long white mantle decorated with beautiful long fringes. White robes identified the wearer as someone of importance and prestige. Such dress was a universally recognized mark of one who was a teacher or a philosopher in the ancient Mediterranean world.[3] Marcus Aurelius (167 AD) thought it right for the rich and powerful not to wear embroidered dresses, which are only for show. It would be better to dress more like a private or common person. He even shares the concern of Jesus that one could construe such action as arrogant, and thus, one should avoid it. Further, they like to have others greet them with respect in the marketplaces, a fitting honor for someone of their position. Jesus' observation is a reference to the tradition that dictated that common people "in the marketplace" should respectfully rise to their feet when a scribe walked past. Social convention excused only certain skilled trades working in the marketplace from this social gesture of respect. 39 In addition, they like to have the best seats in the synagogues. The scribe's synagogue seat of honor placed him up front with the Torah, facing the congregation. The best seats is the bench before the ark, a desirable location and visible. They prefer places of honor at banquets! Jesus told a parable based on his observation that they liked prominent seats (Luke 14:7-11). Likewise, at banquets and dinner parties, a well‑heeled host would show off his own importance and good taste by having a learned scribe and some of his pupils sitting in the best, most easily viewed seats. They derive honor in public places. The image is people who expect others to pay the greatest deference to them. The saying is an indictment of a certain type of scholar, those whose piety was on parade and who insisted on certain social advantages, such as having others address them properly and receiving the best couches at banquets. We know of this kind of public performance in other societies among the learned who are in situations that deprive them of political power and wealth. The scribal parade of pomp and circumstance is a plausible setting for Jesus’ biting criticism. The problem Jesus pinpoints is not that these scribes receive deference and honor. The problem is they like it too much. They have confused the respect intended for the position they hold with respect for their own abilities and advancements. As with rabbis, scribes in the first century did not receive pay for being scribes. There was no such thing as a "professional" scribe or rabbi in the sense that it was a self‑supporting activity. Thus, despite the honor their positions brought them, many scribes were downright poor.
This desire that others observe what we do is natural. Human beings are deeply social. It becomes a problem in religious life when our sociality masks who we truly are within. Dietrich Bonhoeffer captures this notion in his book The Cost of Discipleship.
Our activity must be visible, but never be done for the sake of making it visible. “Let your light so shine before [others]” . . . and yet: Take care that you hide it! . . . That which is visible must also be hidden. The awareness on which Jesus insists is intended to prevent us from reflecting on our extraordinary position. We have to take heed that we do not take heed of our own righteousness. Otherwise the “extraordinary” which we achieve will not be that which comes from following Christ, but that which springs from our own will and desire. [4]
Jesus goes beyond charges of mere arrogance on the part of the scribes. He continues his polemicizing. 40 They devour widows’ houses. The widow without any male protection was economically threatened. Sometimes religious leaders would manage their affairs supposedly as an act of protection, but often as a way to make themselves richer. The precise nature of the abuse against widows that Jesus alleges here is unclear, but presumably, it refers to some sort of economic exploitation of the personal holdings of Jewish widows. The culture considered it an act of obedience and piety to extend the hospitality of one's goods and services, of one's home and resources, to scribes for their support. Jesus' condemnation of a lifestyle that often found the poorest and least capable further impoverishing themselves and their households as they attempted to support the needs and wants of members of the religious establishment. The Law and the prophets of the Old Testament forbid preying upon the vulnerability of widows.[5] Those who write harsh laws in order to exploit the poor, including widows and orphans, will receive severe punishment. A plausible setting would be that some of the scribes, employed by elites who needed their literacy skills, could have used their position to secure a privileged lifestyle. In that case, they would not have concerned themselves with the plight of widows and their children. Jesus denounces their shameless profiteering at the expense of widows.
Further, Jesus continues his polemic. For the sake of appearance, they say long prayers. Jesus then accuses these same corrupt and heartless officials of offering up long, impressive prayers merely for the sake of appearance. In fact, most risky of all was Jesus' taking issue with the prayer life of these scribes. He accuses them of offering long prayers to God, not as an attempt to seek God's will or praise God's name, but as a means of asserting their superior piety.
Jesus charged them with exaction and hypocrisy. For these offenses, they will receive the greater condemnation.Jesus first denies this royal ruler image of the Messiah. He then declares that based on their complete rejection of the law of love and servanthood toward others, as articulated both by Jesus and the uncommon scribe in v. 29-34, these religious authorities face a future not of greater honor but of greater condemnation. Divine judgment awaits sham and shame. This haunting, threatening comment is Jesus' final public word in Mark's gospel. The next segment will show that the disciples remain impressed with the Temple, but Jesus says it will soon all be gone. From this point on, Jesus directs words and lessons only at the closed populations of his disciples or accusers. It is not surprising that, after this public condemnation of scribal behavior, the next time Jesus makes a public appearance is as a prisoner before the court of the Jewish establishment. The animosity between Jesus and the religious authorities almost hums. The scribes demanded support for the temple and its worship, considered by Jesus as the equivalent of devouring the houses of widows.
What impresses God and what impresses people seem so much at odds at times. We construct large and beautiful buildings and homes. We want to work in nice physical structures. Pastors want the church they serve to have beauty and dignity that anyone can observe. We also have ways of showing respect to certain people on the social ladder. We naturally give some people respect because of their authority, education, wealth, position in the community, and power. We also expect others to recognize our importance and treat us with the respect we deserve. Yet, such things do not seem quite so impressive to God, for God elevates the last, the least, and the lost. God grants significance and worth to what we ignore. God seems more concerned with those to whom we relate who are, from that standpoint of human convention, beneath us. How do we treat those who serve us? How do we treat those less impressive than us, poorer than us, less educated than us, less respectable than us? That is the test of character. In the presence of God, each person receives the same dignity and respect as a child of God.
Mark 12:41-44 is a pronouncement story concerning the offering of the widow. We also find the story in Luke 21:1-4.
There are parallels to the story in Jewish, Indian, and Buddhist literature. Note the story of a rabbi who rejected the offering of a widow, but in a dream was warned to accept it: “It is as if she offered her life.” See Leviticus Rabba iii, 107a.
The story of the widow’s mite that follows Jesus’ exhortation against the scribes is not an illustration of rich versus poor. The woman’s poverty does not make her gift significant. 41 He sat down opposite the treasury. The “treasury” could have been a special room in the temple or a collection box in the outer courts. The setting of verses 41‑44 is apparently within easy sight of this temple depository. According to the Mishnah (Shekalim VI.6), 13 trumpet‑shaped receptacles stood up against the wall of the Court of Women that functioned to gather the gifts of the faithful for the temple treasury. For some Old Testament background, in the temple Solomon built, we find an incident II Kings 12, occurring during the reign of Jehoash in Judah, from 835-796 BC.
Then the priest Jehoiada took a chest, made a hole in its lid, and set it beside the altar on the right side as one entered the house of the Lord; the priests who guarded the threshold put in it all the money that was brought into the house of the Lord. (II Kings 12:9)
For some New Testament background, in John 8:20, we read that Jesus taught that he spoke to the people “in the temple area near the place where the coffers were put.” Jesus watched the crowd putting money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. 42 A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which are worth a penny. The story refers to the “small copper coin,” sixty-four of which equaled the wage for a day. The worth of a lepton, as Mark himself notes in the text, is minuscule, variously estimated as one‑half a Roman quadran, one‑eighth of a cent, one‑four‑hundredth of a shekel, one‑one‑hundred‑twenty‑eighth of a denarius, or one‑seventh of a chalkous. One made a lepton by casting it from bronze. It was the lowest denomination Greek coin in circulation at the time. Perhaps the best estimate of what the lepton represented for Jesus' day comes from its literal meaning ‑‑ "a tiny thing." As tiny as this pittance was, it is significant that the woman did have two of these coins. Note that she does not give one and hold the other back for herself. She gives both. Since the denarius was the normal wage for a day’s work by a menial laborer, one can calculate how small an amount the widow contributed by converting it to a modern-day value. If we estimate the average American laborer’s daily wages to be about $70, then the widow’s two lepta (one quadrans) would equal $1.09. Next to the hefty contributions Jesus apparently witnessed, such a pittance might seem laughable. 43 Then he called his disciples and said to them, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. 44 For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on.” What struck Jesus was the percentage of the widow’s total savings represented by the two small coins. While the rich donors offered generous gifts from their “abundance,” the widow from her “poverty” gave everything she had; her whole “life” here does not mean “life” in the sense of being alive but rather refers to the material possessions that sustain human life. In this case, the widow’s life refers to her savings or livelihood. Although the amount was small, in Jesus’ eyes her gift exceeded that of the rich patrons. Given the previous reference to the scribes devouring the income of widows, is the comment of Jesus a good thing in that from one perspective she gave more than the wealthy, or a bad thing in that she has nothing more on which to live. The story appears to have its point in the statement of Jesus about almsgiving. The small sacrifices of the poor are more pleasing to God or the gods than are the extravagant contributions of the rich. As Paul put it:
For if the eagerness is there, the gift is acceptable according to what one has—not according to what one does not have. (II Corinthians 8:12)
The poor widow gave her all. This widow stands alone as the one who has turned over to God’s uses all that she has to offer. The widow who comes to the temple, then, does not only the disadvantage of her poverty but also of her vulnerability. She is invisible to the legal, religious, political, and social eyes of her society, the object of abuse at worst, pity at best. Jesus’ saying also underlies the ultimate or total nature of the financial sacrifice made by the widow. The small sacrifices of the poor are more pleasing to God or the gods than are the extravagant contributions of the rich.
I think the interpretation just given is an important aspect of the story. Yet, one can move a different direction. After standing for centuries as an example of both great piety and genuine sacrifice, the story of the "widow's mites" has now received some new and rather startling exegetical twists. Among the more recent hermeneutic tacks are those that cast a wider eye on the context of this story. In these interpretations, the scribes and their self‑serving ways that "devour widows' houses" (as Jesus puts it) are seen not just as bad examples but also as exemplars of a bad system ‑‑ a system that abuses and exploits the poor. Those with the least work hard to support the lifestyles and privileges of those with the most. The somewhat startling conclusion reached by these interpreters is that when Jesus observes the poor woman putting all she has into the temple treasury, she is an unwitting pawn of an abusive system. His declaration of "Truly I tell you" in verse 43 sounds to them as more of a lament than a call to take notice. Here is a "widow's house" being devoured before their very eyes. Unless he calls attention to it, his disciples will not even see it. As further contextual evidence to support this interpretation, scholars look to the verses immediately following this text. The flow of Mark's text from 12:44 to 13:1‑2 suggests that readers are to view these events as consecutive. In 13:1‑2, Jesus declares an ominous ending for the great temple, the religious‑cultic center of Judaism. Thus, the destruction of the temple and the religious establishment that depends on it has a link to Jesus' observation of the widow's sacrificial gift. The widow may give out of obedience, but she has chosen the wrong recipients for her devotion. She has given her all to a lost cause.[6] The conclusion of such interpreters is that Jesus was lamenting what happened, based on the previous attack and on the following admiration of the Temple by the disciples. He has condemned the scribes for devouring the estates of widows, and now he witnesses a widow surrendering her entire estate to the very institution that was supposed to protect her. Certainly, her faithfulness is noteworthy, yet the position of her story is not incidental. Her story fulfills Jesus' condemnation of the scribes in verse 40 and immediately precedes his prediction of the temple's destruction in 13:1-2. Yet, her gift to the temple also echoes Jesus' charge that the temple had become a "den of robbers" in 11:17.
Taken together the two episodes in 12:38-40 and 41-44 provide a study in contrasts. On the one hand are the scribes, respected members of the religious community, whom Jesus condemns for their arrogance and exploitation, while on the other is a marginalized member of the community whom he praises for a poignant example of faithfulness and generosity. As is the case at so many points in the gospels, here we find Jesus inverting societal expectations of what one is to value and esteem, depreciating the values associated with prestige and upward mobility and holding in honor humility and selflessness.
All too often in history, the poor become the object of abuse. Others in society take advantage of them and consume the little they have. Yet, God takes the little that they offer and honors what they can give of themselves and their possessions. God elevates to high esteem what we tend to demote.
From the narrative of the widow and her pennies, several themes emerge that we should consider today.
First, we should consider that abundance is subtle.
Jewish religious leaders were not a horridly corrupt lot -- we must be fair. They were religiously zealous in an increasingly pluralistic culture. However, it is possible they came to enjoy their position of power and privilege to such a degree that they lost a sense of religious and spiritual purpose. Jesus' indictment of them shows that they loved abundant status, abundant comfort and abundant deference from those around them. This story begs us to look thoughtfully for abundance in our lives. We must start from awareness, and then talk to God and others about what to do about the abundance we inevitably discover.
Pennies From Heaven is a 1936 film starring Bing Crosby (not to be confused with the 1981 Steve Martin film that shares only the title). The story of the film is one of flawed but well-meaning people trying to do the right thing and stick together amid adversity. People have largely forgotten it. However, the title song, emblematic of the Depression Era, has endured as a jazz standard. Pennies From Heaven is also of historical significance because it became one of the first films in which an African-American -- jazz musician Louis Armstrong -- received major billing. This was at the insistence of Crosby.
The song's lyrics reflect on how the pre-Depression world had forgotten how "the best things in life were absolutely free." Because no one appreciated marvels like the blue sky and the new moon, "it was planned" (presumably by God) "that they would vanish now and then. "You had to buy them back -- but with what? "Pennies from heaven" is the answer:
That's what storms were made for
And you shouldn't be afraid for
Every time it rains, it rains,
Pennies from heaven.
Don't you know each cloud contains
Pennies from heaven?
You'll find your fortune's falling
All over town.
Be sure that your umbrella is upside down.
Sure, the song's message sounds Polyanna-ish, but in the darkest days of the Depression, it was comforting to think that God might still send the occasional penny our way -- a small, but tangible blessing, symbolic of much more significant blessings yet to come. (A penny was still worth a little something back in that day, but still it was not very much.)
The whole idea is reminiscent of a biblical story, that of the manna that sustained the Israelites in the wilderness. They could not hoard the stuff, because it would spoil. They had to depend on its daily arrival (with double portions graciously provided on the day before the Sabbath, so they would not have to work picking it up).
If God's daily blessings are indeed waiting for people to harvest them, there is something to say for "keeping your umbrella upside down."
Ironically, one is more likely to discover unclaimed pennies on the sidewalk these days than they were in the 1930s. Are we really so wealthy that we can afford to just pass them by, hoping for a hundred-dollar windfall instead? Alternatively, have we forgotten the simple wonder of finding happiness in the little things in life?
Second, we should consider that money is a barometer.
Mark wants us to see a deeper agenda than money we put in the offering plate; hence, his attention to comparisons. He wants us to see giving as a barometer of our internal devotion to God and God's kingdom.
As a parallel issue, consider Jesus' words on words: "It is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks" (Luke 6:45). How should we apply this -- avoid slander, stop cussing and do not gossip about others, or examine the broken desires of the heart that give rise to these behaviors? Tend to the latter, and the former will change.
Giving is the same way. Jesus contrasts the abundance of the religious with the abundance of the widow. Giving is simply an external demonstration of internal brokenness or virtue. A few people make counterfeit money. Yet, I think we can admit that more often, money makes counterfeit people (Sydney J. Harris). The true measure of who we are may well be in what we give.[7] It may well be that if we give what we do not need, it is not really giving (Mother Teresa). Giving moves against the rule of money and profanes it, for money encourages us to get more of it.[8] When we give to the church, the intent is to grow people in their relationship with God and with others. The world will tend to use people to make money (Anonymous).
The point here is not necessarily to give more. Maybe we need to give less and provide for family or radically reduce personal debt so we can give more, healthier and for a longer time. Maybe we do need to give more and give creatively. Nevertheless, those issues are secondary, not primary. What Jesus seeks is heart transformation. Become the widow. As one pastor puts it, "Change your money and it may change your heart. Change your heart and it will change your money."
Money will buy —
A bed but not sleep,
Books but not brains,
Food but not appetite,
Finery but not beauty,
A house but not a home,
Medicine but not health,
Amusements but not happiness,
Religion but not salvation
—Anonymous
Third, we should consider that attitude trumps appearances.
The comparisons among the three "characters" of this passage are striking. The religious leaders and rich givers look great on the outside -- they possess the cultural appearance of importance and standing. Nevertheless, their heart conditions show their true appearance to be thin and wanting. In that light, they were not much different from the Israel of the Prophets. "These people draw near with their mouths and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their worship of me is a human commandment learned by rote" (Isaiah 29:13).
On the other hand, a widow was a cultural outcast in the first century. Widows shared a marginalized standing with lepers, the poor, tax collectors and prostitutes. Yet with a heart devoted fully to God, the widow has a lot to teach us. This nameless, penny-less woman without a family has become an historical metaphor for generosity, dependence, sacrifice and priority.
[1] The collection of sayings shows the strong anti-Jewish flavor of the church at Rome. In Matthew 23:1-36 and Luke 20:45-47 we see other examples of Jesus presenting the behavior of the scribes as an example others should avoid.
[2] Also found in Matthew 24:6-7 (addressed to scribes and Pharisees) and Luke 11:43 (addressed to Pharisees). The indictment against the Pharisees may reflect the later controversies between Christians and emerging Pharisaic Judaism.
[3] An interesting parallel to this phrase and concern of Jesus is a comment by Marcus Aurelius(167 AD).
… it is possible for a man to live in a palace without wanting either guards or embroidered dresses, or torches and statues, and such-like show; but that it is in such a man's power to bring himself very near to the fashion of a private person, without being for this reason either meaner in thought, or more remiss in action, with respect to the things which must be done for the public interest in a manner that befits a ruler. (Meditations, 1.7)
[4] (Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, R. H. Fuller and Irmgard Both, trans. [New York: Touchstone Books, Simon and Schuster, 1995], p. 157.)
[5] "Cursed be anyone who deprives the alien, the orphan, and the widow of justice." All the people shall say, "Amen!" (Deuteronomy 27:19)
1 Ah, you who make iniquitous decrees,
who write oppressive statutes,
2 to turn aside the needy from justice
and to rob the poor of my people of their right,
that widows may be your spoil,
and that you may make the orphans your prey! (Isaiah 10:1-2)
You shall not abuse any widow or orphan. (Exodus 22:22)
who executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and who loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing. (Deuteronomy 10:18)
the Levites, because they have no allotment or inheritance with you, as well as the resident aliens, the orphans, and the widows in your towns, may come and eat their fill so that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work that you undertake. (Deuteronomy 14:29)
You shall not deprive a resident alien or an orphan of justice; you shall not take a widow's garment in pledge. (Deuteronomy 24:17)
19 When you reap your harvest in your field and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be left for the alien, the orphan, and the widow, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all your undertakings. 20 When you beat your olive trees, do not strip what is left; it shall be for the alien, the orphan, and the widow. 21 When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, do not glean what is left; it shall be for the alien, the orphan, and the widow. (Deuteronomy 24:19-21)
12 When you have finished paying all the tithe of your produce in the third year (which is the year of the tithe), giving it to the Levites, the aliens, the orphans, and the widows, so that they may eat their fill within your towns, 13 then you shall say before the Lord your God: "I have removed the sacred portion from the house, and I have given it to the Levites, the resident aliens, the orphans, and the widows, in accordance with your entire commandment that you commanded me; I have neither transgressed nor forgotten any of your commandments: (Deuteronomy 26:12-13)
if you do not oppress the alien, the orphan, and the widow,
or shed innocent blood in this place,
and if you do not go after other gods to your own hurt, (Jeremiah 7:6)
do not oppress the widow, the orphan, the alien, or the poor;
and do not devise evil in your hearts against one another. (Zechariah 7:10)
Then I will draw near to you for judgment;
I will be swift to bear witness against the sorcerers,
against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely,
against those who oppress the hired workers in their wages,
the widow and the orphan, against those who thrust aside the alien,
and do not fear me, says the Lord of hosts. (Malachi 3:5)
[6] (For some intriguing discussions of this rather trendy interpretation, see Addison G. Wright, S.S., "The Widow's Mites: Praise or Lament ‑‑ A Matter of Context" CBQ, 44, 1982, 256‑265; Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, "The Poor Widow in Mark and Her Poor Rich Readers," CBQ, 53, 1991, 589‑604; R.S. Sugirtharajah, "The Widow's Mites Revalued," The Expository Times, 103, 1991, 42‑43.)
[7] If there be any truer measure of a man than by what he does, it must be by what he gives. —Robert South.
[8] Jacques Ellul says in Money and Power (InterVarsity Press, 1984):
“There is one act par excellence which profanes money by going directly against the law of money, an act for which money is not made. This act is giving.”
No comments:
Post a Comment