Smoodock's Blog

Some scholars don’t believe the account of the abuse of widows was in Matthew’s original manuscript,[1] believing Matthew 23:14 was placed there by a copyist, who took it from either Mark 12:40 or Luke 20:47. However, I find it difficult to believe, if Matthew’s narrative was so greatly influenced by Peter’s oral Gospel, that Mark 12:40 doesn’t appear in Matthew’s written narrative at Matthew 23:14.[2] Why would he purposefully leave out Mark’s reference to the scribes and Pharisees abuse of widows there, when, clearly, it was his purpose to show Jesus’ denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees?

Notice what Christ says about the scribes and Pharisees, as it pertains to widows (Matthew 23:14). He claimed they devoured “widow’s houses,” vis-à-vis their inheritance from their dead husbands. What Jesus had in mind concerned the scribes and Pharisees trading upon their reputations in the community, by exalting their own positions. A prominent scribe among them was often able to gain control of a widow’s inheritance by becoming her wise executor in financial matters (cp. Luke 12:13-14).[3] Thus, he was able to exalt his own status at the expense of the widow.

According to Josephus, the Jewish historian of the first century AD, the Pharisees presented the appearance of being more religious or righteous than other sects of Judaism, saying that they interpret and practice the laws more accurately than others. These men joined themselves to Queen Alexandra, the widow of Alexander Jannaeus, the Hasmonean King of the first century BC. In doing so, they crept into her favor little by little, until they became the real administrators of public affairs in the Jews’ lands. They enjoyed royal authority without the responsibility, while the expenses and any problems that developed over their supervision belonged to Alexandra.[4]

A modern example of this can be drawn from the efforts of many Christian leaders, who seek to obtain an inheritance in the wills of men and women in the name of the Gospel. Nothing of this nature has support from the New Covenant text. While, certainly, those who labor in the Gospel have a legitimate right to support from the Christian community, Paul made no such demands for the sake of the Gospel. This infers that the support offered the other Christian leaders amounted to a daily wage, not a sizeable sum to support ministries indefinitely.[5] The Pharisees gravitated toward controlling inheritances, but Christian ministries under the New Covenant did not, as is clearly understood in the text. In conclusion, the position of the widow was particularly vulnerable in ages past, and continues to be today. However, Jesus’ point was that the religious institutions of his day took advantage the weak, in this case, the widow. While I’m sure that Christian ministries today operate with sincerity of purpose, I don’t believe any ministry should be supported, under the guise of it being commanded by God (tithe or otherwise). There is nothing Biblically wrong with supporting our Christian ministries, whether to preach the Gospel or to support the poor, but these things should be done on a voluntary basis, while the laborers in the word, whether local or missionary work, should be supported on the daily wage principle, not by huge offerings. These things are a matter of heart, not command, and those who abuse their right for support, making long prayers in pretense will receive the greater judgment, just as it was in the first century AD, when the Jewish nation and its religious institution (the Temple) were destroyed.

[1] The reason they doubt its appearance in Matthew is that the verse doesn’t appear in the Greek uncial manuscripts: A, B, D or L, Z, some copies of the Vulgate and some versions of the Codex Sinaiticus. On the other hand, it does appear in E, F, G, H, K, M, and other later uncials, as well as the received Vulgate and Syriac Versions (see The Pulpit Commentary on Matthew 23:14). The technicality is moot, as far as it being an utterance of Christ is concerned; believers of the word of God agree that these are the words of Christ no matter where they appear. Therefore, the variation isn’t harmful, if our only consideration is whether or not Jesus said this.

[2] See my earlier studies: Which Came First, Matthew or Mark? and Whose Is Mark’s Gospel?

[3] Jesus was tempted by a man to arbitrate between him and his brother over an inheritance from their father. Such a thing was done by the scribes and Pharisees during the first century AD for a fee. The request may have been a legitimate one, vis-à-vis the brother really did want Jesus to intercede for him with his brother, or he may have been a disciple of the Pharisees sent to discredit Jesus, because Jesus may have denounced the scribes and Pharisees for this sort of thing on more than one occasion.

[4] See: JOSEPHUS; Wars of the Jews 1.5.2 (110-111).

[5] The lump sums of money that were donated to the Church early in Acts (Acts 2:42-47; 4:34-37) were specifically for the support of the poor, as were Paul’s gifts from the gentile churches, every 7 years (cp. Romans 15:26). It was not meant to build large ministries with great administrative expenses. Most of the distributing was done by volunteers. If the Apostles aided in its distribution, they were already paid a daily wage by local believers (cp. 1Corinthians 4:4-7). The Apostles’ income was not aided by nor was it dependent on the lump sums laid at their feet.