As you can tell, our format is a little different today. In our remaining time, I want to briefly share some thoughts from our passage today in Luke, and then we will open up into a sharing time. I would like the first part of our sharing time to be a discussion of this passage, so as I share, don’t just take notes, but also write down any questions that occur to you or any thoughts you have that relate to this passage.
I want to start by giving a brief recap of where we have been in the past several weeks in Luke. The second half of Luke 19 commences with Jesus’ final entrance into Jerusalem, an entrance marked with contrasts – proclaimed with shouts of Hosannas to be a conquering King, and yet riding on a humble colt of a donkey. From here on, He is not going to leave the Jerusalem area – He has come here to fulfill His purpose; He has come here to die. Recall that He wept over Jerusalem because its people were blind to the truth of the things of God, and He wept because He foresaw the total destruction of Jerusalem.
Then He entered the Temple area and drove out the moneychangers and sellers of sacrificial animals, calling the place a “den of robbers.” I believe it is important to remember this as we look at the passage today.
Last week we saw the priests, teachers and elders all get together (a rare thing, that) to demand Jesus explain what authority He had to do these things. This question was meant to trap Jesus into saying something that they could use to have Him stoned, but Jesus didn’t fall for the trap. From there Jesus went into the parable of the tenants, a thinly veiled allegory that had the point that these people wanted to kill Jesus and would even succeed, but their days were also numbered. Then they tried to trap Jesus with a question whether one should pay taxes to Caesar, but Jesus also dodged this question. This brings us to today’s passage.
Some of the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus with a question. "Teacher," they said, "Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his brother. Now there were seven brothers. The first one married a woman and died childless. The second and then the third married her, and in the same way the seven died, leaving no children. Finally, the woman died too. Now then, at the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?" – Luke 20:27-33
Probably the first thing to know about this passage is what “Moses” actually wrote (really, Moses was just the transcriber – God was the author):
If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. – Deut. 25:5
Now then, at the resurrection whose wife will she be? Is this another trick question? Yes, but in a different way than the other two questions from last week. I don’t believe this question was meant to get Jesus killed, but to show Him to be yet another ridiculous religious fanatic who can’t think clearly, like all the rest of the Pharisees. The Sadducees thought the Pharisees’ “traditions of the elders” and the “hedges” around the Law were foolish inventions of man. They didn’t keep kosher, they didn’t go bonkers over ritual hand washing, and they certainly didn’t tithe their spices. But on the other hand, they didn’t seem to have a problem with taking part in these “inventions” when it suited them; the high priests’ own families were Sadducees! The very wealthy tended to be Sadducees as well.
Early on, the Sadducees may have actually tended to like Jesus, because He spent so much time attacking these man-made traditions of the Pharisees. But that all changed when He threw the money changers out of the temple. This was affecting them in the pocketbook – Jesus certainly wasn’t good for business.
The Sadducees believed that “dead was dead” – that when you died, the worms ate you up and you turned to dust. No afterlife. No immortality, only nothingness. Jesus, in response to His parable of the tenants, used Old Testament scripture to argue that even though He would be killed, He would certainly become the “capstone” or “cornerstone” – in other words, that He would come back to life. Their question, they believed, was a sure-fire way to show how foolish those who believe in resurrections really were. Of course this woman can’t keep all seven husbands, so of course there is no such thing as a resurrection of the dead!
Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection. But in the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord 'the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to Him all are alive." – Luke 20:34-38
Note that Jesus is saying (1) that there is indeed a resurrection, (2) that the resurrection to life is a privilege, not a right – we know from the rest of Scripture that that right is not one can be earned, but one that can only be found by entrusting the reigns of your life to Jesus – (3) that resurrection is to immortality, and (4) that marriage is not a part of this resurrected life. (Why do you think this is? And what does it mean that they are like the angels? Those are two questions you might want to think about for our sharing time.)
Some of the teachers of the law responded, "Well said, Teacher!" And no one dared to ask Him any more questions. – Luke 20:39-40
I’m sorry, but I just find this terribly funny. In debate and in politics, this is what you would call a slam dunk. Not only has your argument been thoroughly dismantled and ground to dust, you realize that your foe is so superior to you that the best thing you can do is to find an excuse to slither away.
Then Jesus said to them, "How is it that they say the Christ is the Son of David? David himself declares in the Book of Psalms: 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."' David calls him 'Lord.' How then can he be his son?" – Luke 20:41-44
Many verses in the Old Testament state that the Messiah will come from David’s line: Amos 5:11, Micah 5:2, 2 Sam. 7:12-14, Psalm 89 (multiple times). Everyone knew this. In the gospels, several people called out to Jesus calling Him the Son of David. And the genealogies in Matthew 1 and in Luke 3 show that both His earthly father and His mother were descended from David. There is no question the Temple records, which were meticulous about these things, confirmed He was descended from David – if He weren’t, they would have been quick as lightning to denounce Him.
It is difficult for us to grasp the earthquake of what Jesus said here. What He said was stunning. No Rabbi commenting on this verse prior to Jesus noticed what Jesus pointed out, that David declared that the Lord spoke to someone that David called Lord! How can the Messiah be both a son of David and the Lord of David? Only if He is the eternal God who before Abraham was born, said, “I AM.” He is God become man, the Word become flesh. Shortly after this, non-believing Jews tried to come up with various ways to explain away this passage from Psalm 110. Some said it referred to Melchizedek, some to Judas Maccabee, a Jewish ruler from about 100 years earlier, someone celebrated in the festival of Hannukah, by the way. Some even said David must have lost his mind temporarily when he wrote this Psalm! But of course this is all nonsense. And note the rest of the verse (and indeed the whole Psalm): you really don’t want to be an enemy. Do you know what happens after people put their feet on your necks? Read Joshua 10 if you want to find out.
While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, "Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely." As He looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. "I tell you the truth," He said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on."
Some of His disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, "As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down." - Luke 20:45 -21:6
Picture the scene; there are different small-necked urns around this part of the temple grounds, each labeled with which purpose each urn is for. As people come by you hear them drop in their money, plink, plink. We are all very familiar with that middle passage, about the two copper coins. We have been conditioned to expect a certain kind of sermon and application on this passage, perhaps because we have heard it so many times. The application is something like this: “You need to give sacrificially, like this woman.” “It’s not how much you give, but what percentage you give.” “God is really pleased when you give beyond your means and trust Him to take care of you.” This may be one of the more controversial things I have ever said in here, but I don’t think this is what Jesus meant at all!
Why would I say this? For a number of reasons: (1) It doesn’t seem to fit the context of the surrounding passages at all. Jesus has been on a roll condemning the leaders for several chapters, and He is quite blunt in verses 45-47. And in the following passage, He goes on to say that God will allow the whole temple to be destroyed! Why in the world would Jesus squish in between these things praise for a woman who gives all to this very system? (2) Jesus never actually commends the woman! He doesn’t say He is pleased with her gift. He doesn’t say He is pleased by her sacrifice. All He says is look: she has put in more than the others; indeed, she put in everything she had. He doesn’t make any of the applications I mentioned earlier. They are not in this passage, and they are not in the parallel passages in the other gospels. (3) I believe there is another explanation that makes more sense.
The first thing to notice is that Jesus says she is a poor widow. What does the Bible have to say about widows? Plenty! Over and over and over again, it warns of God’s severest punishment for those who don’t take care of widows. Scripture also gives very strong warnings to those who don’t take care of their own families. Now, widows who don’t have families to take care of them are in a particularly difficult situation. The Old Testament made it clear that the people as a whole were required to take care of these people.
Let’s go back to the first portion. It says that the teachers of the law devour widow’s houses. What does this mean? First of all, other writings tell us that the leaders viewed widows as those under the curse of God; in other words, they believed that they deserved their situation. Second, they required all widows to give to the temple, and taught that to not do so would result in God’s further punishment. In contrast, they taught, to give would make God show favor to you. If this sounds an awful lot like the teachings of certain modern prosperity gospel preachers, that is because, I believe, God is equally disgusted with what they do. Third, there is some evidence that some of them even purposely defrauded widows so as to be able to take their property, their homes, from them.
And so we come to what I believe about this passage. You certainly don’t have to agree with this interpretation, but what seems more likely to me is that Jesus’ point was simply this: “Look at this poor woman: she just gave all she had! Beware of the teachers of the law! Look what they will do to you!”
God is not impressed by showy gifts, but it is no exaggeration to say that He hates those who compel others to give beyond their means. Indeed, God is willing to tear down and will tear down anything that is built on worldly principles instead of being built on the capstone, Jesus Christ. How sobering to think that He would even allow His own temple to be torn down!
No comments:
Post a Comment