Giving all you have . . . to live on
Commas can make a big difference, and I don’t just say that because I’m a former English teacher. As an example, consider the first line of today’s scripture reading: “Beware the scribes [comma] who like to walk around in long robes and to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to have the best seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets.” Now compare that to “Beware the scribes who like to walk around in long robes and to be greeted with respect” etcetera. That comma — and note that commas did not exist in Ancient Greek — makes a difference between a verdict on some specific scribes and on all the scribes of Jesus’ day.
Because of passages like this one, we might sometimes be led to lump together all of the scribes, Pharisees, and temple officials when considering the words of Jesus. But we should avoid that temptation; for instance, just four verses before this passage, Jesus was praising a scribe for correctly identifying the greatest commandment, saying he was not far from the kingdom of God. So even if he did include a comma-length pause in his statement, I don’t think Jesus was condemning all scribes. (Placher, 181)
The scribes to whom Jesus is referring do have issues, though. As Bible scholar Warren Carter writes, “scribes had relatively high social status as part of the powerful and wealthy leadership alliance based in Jerusalem. Here . . . Jesus attacks their love of status and public recognition and deference.” (Carter, 552) Their efforts are focused on their wardrobes rather than clothing others. They are concerned about receiving proper respect in the marketplaces rather than making sure what is sold there is accessible to those in need. They want to secure the places of honor at banquets rather than securing housing for widows. In fact, Jesus cites them for “devouring widows’ houses,” a phrase that leaves space for interpretation but at any rate sounds bad. Carter writes that “in addition to charging them with loving honor and dominance and practicing economic exploitation, the scene constructs them as hypocrites. (Carter, 553–554) No amount of long prayers, regardless of their eloquence, can compensate for exploiting the vulnerable in society.
Jesus often cited the shortcomings of religious leaders of his day. He appeared to hold them to a higher standard, perhaps in part because they were supposed to serve as moral exemplars and offer connection to the God he embodied. He wanted them to do that humbly, rather than from an elite position. He was well-versed in the passages from Deuteronomy and Kings and Psalms and Jeremiah that specified the aid and protection that was to be extended to widows, and he expected the scribes to put that into practice. For instance, widows were to be given access to the temple’s tithe, festival meals, and harvest surplus. (Carter, 552–553) If they were losing their homes, it’s a sure sign they were not receiving the deference God intended. As Bible scholar Donald Juel suggests, “it is a graphic example of Jesus’ charge that the religious leaders live off the poor and the helpless rather than caring for them. A poor widow gives her last penny to an institution that has become a ‘bandit’s den.’” (Juel, 82)
Do you sympathize with the scribes at all? If not, I ask: Aren’t we all occasionally guilty of engaging in some of these behaviors? I’d imagine the enthusiasm the scribes had for their long robes compares to the excitement we might have for a new piece of clothing, whether that be a suit or a coat, a nice pair of pants or an official team jersey. Don’t we also like to be treated with respect, whether in public or at work? Don’t we occasionally strategize in order to wind up with good seats at events? I suspect so — I’ve even seen people almost come to blows over a good parking spot. It seems human nature brings with it a desire to be well-dressed, well-regarded, and well-positioned.
I don’t think Jesus was calling out these scribes due to their having those inclinations; rather, I think he took exception with those being their primary concerns. And more than that, he was bothered by the means through which they secured their robes and respect.
The scribes, Pharisees, and temple officials were not by definition bad people; it seems a lot of them were not adhering to their principles and responsibilities, however. And the presence of the Roman occupiers in Judah didn’t help. In order to operate the temple and continue their practices, the religious leaders had to collaborate with the Romans. In exchange for tempering their message about the one true God in a manner that didn’t threaten the divine status of the emperor, and for helping the Romans to fill their coffers, religious leaders were permitted to set up systems by which they could enrich themselves as well.
Then as now, when there’s an alliance between the church and the state, it’s usually the principles of the church that suffer. That can manifest itself as church members looking like hypocrites, church leaders promoting those who don’t exhibit the values they promote, or religious nationalism. Regardless of how excited we are about a given political candidate and their message, elevating them to a position of God’s Anointed One is an idolatrous endeavor.
It seems to be human nature to throw our weight behind a particular team, whether that be a sports team, a grassroots organization, or a political party. We have a tendency toward tribalism. But any organization formed by humans — be it a religious denomination or corporation or country — is temporary, corruptible, and likely to disappoint us from time to time.
For those invested in U.S. politics, one team got a win last Tuesday, and one team got a loss. The man who will be our next president promises change in the form of lower prices, better jobs, more security, and amplified voice for the working class, particularly those in rural areas who feel disregarded by the elite. For many of those struggling to make ends meet or who otherwise feel the system is working against them, he offered the best option for a way forward.
Those on the losing team are in disbelief, because our next president will be a man who bragged about sexually assaulting women, cheated on all three of his wives, made fun of veterans and people with disabilities, expresses admiration for dictators, and was involved in the January 6 insurrection.
Regardless of where you fall on the ideological spectrum, I’ve probably said something during the last minute that made you bristle. That is valid, and I acknowledge how you feel. I’m going to continue that thread, but first I want to talk about a widow from the first century.
We sometimes do ourselves a disservice when we read Bible passages in isolation. We’ve already seen the value of that earlier, remembering the scribe who Jesus said was near the kingdom of God in contrast to those who enjoy their long robes. If you only read today’s passage, you might think all scribes were irredeemable, and thus we’re reminded of the value of looking beyond an immediate passage to see the greater context.
The second part of today’s passage is sometimes read on its own. It might have its own heading, such as “The Widow’s Offering,” in your Bible. It speaks of a widow, a woman whose position in society made her vulnerable in many ways, contributing the last of her money to the temple’s treasury. Her action has been interpreted in a few different ways by Bible scholars over the years.
For those who view this passage through the gospel theme of self-sacrifice, the widow’s offering represents her giving all she has to the church. When told in the context of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem, this anticipates his giving all he has on the cross. Reading this passage in isolation encourages this interpretation.
But what about the verses that precede her offering, which tell us what her two small copper coins will finance? In analyzing the comments of Jesus, Carter asks “Does Jesus commend the widow for her agency in giving her all, or does he lament her action because she is a victim of the scribes and oppressive practices of giving to the temple?” (Carter, 556) Jesus has just made the point that the temple system is corrupt, which favors the latter explanation. (Placher, 182)
Something I recently learned is that “the temple also functioned as a bank where people stored funds for safekeeping. The walls of the inner court were lined with treasury chambers for deposits of money, expensive garments, and valuable objects.” (Carter, 554) So the temple was not only treasured as the center of worship, but it was also treasured in a worldly sense due to the riches it contained. That might have been an added motivator for the Romans, who destroyed it just a few decades later. It’s notable that Jesus predicts that destruction in the verses that follow the widow’s offering.
So what was the value of her sacrifice, considering all in the temple would be lost? Carter writes that “While the Gospel holds up self-giving, this scene raises a question about that to which one gives one’s whole existence. The widow provides a negative example of giving everything to something that is not worthy.” (Carter, 557) Any system that expects or requires the most vulnerable to sacrifice everything they have to keep the privileged in place will not prove sustainable.
Perhaps we should look beyond the widow’s position in society when considering her offering. Perhaps her giving up her last two coins to the system that minted those coins represents something more: Carter suggests “she is an agent of her own destiny, refusing oppression and living intentionally for liberation between Rome’s empire and God’s. . . . She has thrown out what belonged to Caesar as not being needed for the new world and given herself to God’s coming reign.” (Carter, 558)
Some of our neighbors are pleased by the results of last week’s election, and others are disappointed. It’s likely that in two or four years, those sentiments will be reversed. What won’t change between now and then is that those who are in power — regardless of their party — will do what they can to stay in power. One of their strategies for doing so is to convince us that our time and energy is best expended in quarreling with our peers from the other side of the political spectrum. They’ve convinced blue-collar working-class people that white-collar working-class people are benefiting from the system at their expense, and vice-versa. Similarly, they’ve convinced the urban poor that the rural poor are getting a leg up that they themselves don’t enjoy, and vice-versa. Thus both sides believe the money that seems to be disappearing from their pockets over the past few years is going into the pockets of those on “the other side.”
Meanwhile, the percentage of our country’s wealth possessed by the ultra-rich continues to grow, and the policy changes that actually make it through the legislative process only contribute to that inequity. Sure, they’ll throw a bone to the working class once in a while, but the bones are increasingly small, and their cost will be paid — with interest — by future generations of working-class people.
Through my work with the Poor People’s Campaign and other groups, I’ve had a front-row seat from which to witness the corruption that takes place in our state capital. Pennsylvania is one of three states in the U.S. where bribery of legislators and our governor is legal, so lobbyists enjoy the influence that comes with being able to offer our elected officials tickets to sporting events, exotic vacations, and other luxuries. Representatives from large corporations have some of the best parking spaces at the capital complex, and they are able to funnel money — even money from foreign interests — into political campaigns. Meanwhile, it’s a struggle for those advocating for the poor or other marginalized groups to even get an appointment with many of our legislators.
This is an issue across party lines, and has taught me that mindlessly aligning myself with the party I like best (or detest the least) is unlikely to affect change.
That brings me back to the words of Jesus from today’s passage. When Jesus called out the scribes, he was calling out people from his own tribe. His position wasn’t “at least they’re better than the Romans;” instead, he was trying to remind his fellow Jews who they were meant to be, and what principles should rule their actions.
Maybe it’s time we concentrate our energy on policies and principles rather than on parties. Maybe it’s time to hold those in power accountable for what they do rather than what they promise. Maybe it’s time to give what we have in a different way.
At the same time, I also want to allow space for those who aren’t ready to move on yet, or whose life experiences don’t allow for it right now. Some feel no different about their circumstances than they did a week ago, but for many the shift in power represents increased danger to young women, to those in the LGBTQ community, and to the livability of the planet for future generations. Until we see policies put in place that suggest otherwise, those fears are justified.
We don’t know what happened to the widow in today’s story. Perhaps a scribe or Pharisee heard the words of Jesus, remembered why they became a faith leader in the first place, and gave the widow some of the temple’s treasure so she could buy food and shelter. Maybe the hearts of those immersed in unjust systems can be reoriented with urging from some in their tribe. As people of faith, we need to remember that the widows, orphans, and other marginalized people in our midst do not have many lobbyists working on their behalf; thus, we should give what we have to offer so they can live on. The question we ask each election day shouldn’t be, “Are you better off than you were four years ago.” It should be, “Are they better off than they were four years ago.”
Thanks be to God.
Amen.
Works Referenced
Carter, Warren. Mark (Wisdom Commentary Series Book 42). Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2019. Kindle Edition.
Juel, Donald H. A Master of Surprise: Mark Interpreted. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 1994.
Placher, William C. Mark. (BELIEF: A Theological Commentary on the Bible). Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010. Kindle edition.
