Luke 21:1 - 4
Jesus looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the offering box, 2 and he saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins. 3 And he said, “Truly, I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them. 4 For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”
Questions:
ReplyDelete1. Was Jesus commending the widow?
2. What's the meaning of this observation?
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2018/11/mark-1238-43-38-as-he-taught-jesus-said.html says:
ReplyDeleteBy misinterpreting the Scriptures, they urge their people to do something contrary to sound doctrine. A perfect example is the manner in which the Biblical account of the “widow’s mite” has long been applied. Misinterpretations of Mark 12:41-44 and Luke 20:45-47 and 21:1-4 create guilt and persuade individuals and entire congregations to give beyond their means. This approach, giving motivated by guilt and fear, is a direct contradiction to Paul's doctrine of giving for the Church Age in II Corinthians 8:5-15.
Using the Mark and Luke passages of the widow and her gift as illustration, some preach, "You have not given anything until you give sacrificially." Others state, "Give till it hurts"--suggesting that God is not pleased with believers unless they are suffering. What a misrepresentation of the grace of God! Because of these and similar tactics the church of Jesus Christ has become known as money grubbing. And unbelievers have found another excuse to ignore God: "All they want is my money.” Sadly, all too often their complaint is accurate.
The context of the Biblical account of the widow who gave her last two mites is not meant to teach sacrificial giving. In fact, the Lord’s real point is virtually the antithesis of how the passage is usually treated. The Lord here teaches the crime--one of which any false religious system is guilty--of having no particular interest in the welfare of the individual, but a great deal of interest in exploiting the giver for the system's own gain.
The context is critical to a correct interpretation of this passage. Jesus was in the Temple teaching. He had been discussing the character and the conduct of the scribes. The scribes mentioned in the gospels were the professional scholars of their day in the interpretation of the Old Testament. (It is well to note that they had no role during Old Testament times having come into being during and after the Babylonian captivity.) They were usurpers who took upon themselves the responsibility of interpreting the Old Testament for the people. Since the priests from the tribe of Levi were God's ordained teachers of Israel (Deuteronomy 24:8; 33:10), the scribes of Jesus' day were self-appointed leaders of a superficial and apostate religion: superficial in that it emphasized only the external show of religion and apostate because it had long since left the true purposes of the Word of God.
Our Lord was teaching that God's people should not follow the way of the scribes and their teachings. The authority of the scribes should be rejected. In addition, they were guilty of shameful conduct: “They devour widow's houses.”
Jesus continued His condemnation of the scribes by the graphic illustration which follows in verses 41-44. Jesus was sitting opposite the trumpet-shaped chests into which the people threw their Temple offerings. The rich would not miss what they gave, but the poor widow had given away all her living. She had given all she had to the apostate Temple worship of the Jews while the promised Redeemer sat but a step away.
https://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2018/11/mark-1238-43-38-as-he-taught-jesus-said.html continued:
ReplyDeleteThe most pathetic part of this account is that the misguided widow could have had eternal life had she turned from the false, put her money in her pocket, and embraced the Savior who was sitting nearby observing.
The tragedy of life is always that Jesus is so near with the gift of life, but people seek either to buy or to work their way into heaven.
The widow gave all she had under the misguided impression that she was serving God.
Observations:
Jesus was teaching his disciples. (Luke 20:45).
The context is a discussion of the superficiality and malpractice of the scribes.
The account of the widow's mite was an observable demonstration of one method whereby the scribes devoured widow's houses.
The religion which she supported was replaced by the gospel of grace. The Temple and system to which she gave was destroyed in 70 A.D. and was replaced by the Church of Jesus Christ.
All her sacrifice was for nothing.
The widow could have received eternal life freely had she turned to Jesus.
Preachers who would follow the example of the scribes are not true to the Word of God.
Only a false, uncaring religious system would ask members who could not afford it to donate to their cause.
The widow's mite does not teach giving: A better application would be, ”Look out for the scribes and Pharisees in our own time.”
If the work is of God, God will supply: if it is not God's work, let it die.
Do not give if it hurts; God does not want--or need--that kind of giving.
I'd be interested to know who wrote this commentary.
Deletehttps://bible.org/article/they-devour-widows-houses
Deletehttps://hartmangroupdevotionsmark.blogspot.com/2018/11/mark-1238-43-38-as-he-taught-jesus-said.html continued:
ReplyDeletePrinciples of Giving
GRACE: There was a two-fold grace granted to the Macedonians: joy and generosity. Their liberality on behalf of their fellow Christians at Jerusalem was a manifestation of the joy the grace of God was producing in their own lives.
While the purpose of the Macedonian and Corinthian giving was to relieve the poverty of the saints in Jerusalem, and Paul used the occasion to teach the early Church how God employs His grace in this area, the practice of grace giving has other spiritual reasons for our involvement. If properly practiced there is blessing both for the giver and the receiver.
FELLOWSHIP: Fellowship means sharing, being a partaker with. Thus, giving done apart from its true meaning of fellowship and sharing loses its purpose and results in the loss of spiritual benefit and blessing. Genuine, free, and cheerful giving is the only offering God really accepts and blesses, no matter the amount.
EQUALITY: This time the Corinthians were to give because they had an abundance. Later the Corinthians may be short and other Christians will come to their relief. And so, by this spirit of reciprocity, a principle of equality should operate in the universal body of Christ.
Method of Giving: The Old Testament tithe or tax is not for believers in the age of grace. The tithe was regulated because they were under Law. There are times when a person's entire income is needed to meet personal expenses. Granted, to hide behind one's expenses to avoid giving is a way of lying to God, but to make a show of prosperity in times of want is equally false. The tithe, practiced as it is today, is an ungracious way of putting God's people in a strait-jacket, a form of legalism that destroys the individual's freedom before God and causes division in the body of Christ. (In some churches tithers are promoted as the elite of the congregation.) Grace giving should be voluntary, given on a weekly basis as God prospers and not subject to man's approval or disapproval.
Conclusion
Because New Testament giving is not practiced in many churches, the blessings of grace, fellowship, and equality are sadly lacking. The church has projected a reputation of they just want my money.
True Christianity gives, but it gives from the principle of grace--lovingly, not legally; freely, not through coercion; not to gain favor but to impart it, having received bountifully from the Lord. “God so loved the world He gave...”(John 3:16a). Jesus gave willingly, lovingly, and generously. Let us give first of ourselves: (like Jesus) freely, graciously, bountifully, and there will be equality in the body of Christ. Before the Lord, dare we do less?
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/21-2.htm says:
ReplyDeleteA certain poor widow.—St. Luke’s word for “poor” differs from St. Mark’s, and seems to have been carefully chosen to express the fact that the widow, though “needy,” and compelled to work for her scanty maintenance, was yet not a “beggar,” as the more common word for “poor” suggested. It is not found elsewhere in the New Testament.
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-21-commentary continued:
ReplyDeleteWith this background, there are three considerations that we need to consider which might give us pause to reconsider how we have always interpreted this famous story, so let's look at them briefly.
(1) The Context - Context as you know is "king in interpretation." Recall that when the Bible was originally written there were no chapter breaks or verses. A chapter break at Luke 21 makes it easy to read Lk 21:1-4 and forget the preceding context. So these men represent a corrupt, apostate religious system which no longer honors God but exalts men (the leaders) and takes advantage of widows.
Here are the passages that follow the story of the widow's giving:
And while some were talking about the Temple, that it was adorned with beautiful stones and votive gifts, He said, “As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down.” (Lk 21:5-6)
Notice that Lk 21:5 in Greek begins with the coordinating conjunction "kai" which is translated "and" which clearly links Jesus' condemnation of the Temple with His description of the widow in the Temple Court of the Gentiles.
So what is the point? From the passages before and after Luke 21:1-4, it is clear that these sections deal with condemnation of the self-righteousness leaders and the corrupt religion in the Temple itself. The upshot is that the before and after passages (context) clearly speak of God's judgment on a religious system which no longer honors Him and benefits His people, but which instead dishonors Him and takes advantage of the people (such as poor widows, Lk 20:47).
(2) The Religious System to which the widow is giving - This point is alluded to above, but to reiterate, are the funds given by the people in the Court of the Women being used to honor God and bring Him glory? It would be easy for a poor widow to have the door of the Kingdom shut in her face, being deceived into the trap that the more she gave to the Temple coffers, the more "right standing" she would have before God! You might respond that the widow was giving of her own free will, which is possible, but there is another consideration. She may have felt an obligation to give, because several of the offerings were mandatory or compulsory.
(3) What is Jesus' Assessment of this Scene? Does He truly commend the woman for giving everything she had to live on? Does He chastise the rich for not giving all they had, but only giving out of their surplus? Does God demand that we give everything we have to live on? Is that giving really sacrificial or is it foolish? Why would she give everything? Why not hold back one mite? What did she think giving both coins would accomplish? Would she obtain greater blessing?
(4) She may have been guilty of practicing corban (this is supposition, but it is a way the Scribes "devoured" widow's houses).
---
Some have suggested that Jesus was not praising but lamenting what the widow had done. According to this interpretation, the widow had been so indoctrinated by the religious leaders that she brought about voluntarily the devouring of a widow’s house, which is condemned in Luke 20:46.
---
In Wright's opinion, rather than commending the widow's generosity, Jesus is condemning both the social system that renders her poor, and "...the value system that motivates her action, and he condemns the people who conditioned her to do it."
Questions and findings:
ReplyDelete1. Was Jesus commending the widow?
He may have been commending her generosity. He may have been comparing her to those who were showing off and telling the disciples not to be impressed by the show offs. However, He just mentioned how the scribes devour widows houses. He probably was using this as a point to demonstrate one of the ways that the scribes were devouring widow's houses. There were both mandatory offerings and voluntary offerings.
2. What's the meaning of this observation?
Contrary to what many commentators have observed, this is not a story about giving generously. It's probably the complete opposite - it's about how a religious institute is robbing the poor (which makes it ironic when religious institutes today use this story to do the same thing).
It is true that none of our money belongs to us (Christ followers). And it is true that we should be generous with the resources we have. It is also true that we should give proportionately, sometime being on the giving end and sometimes being on the receiving end. If there are poor within our church, we need to do the right things to care for them.
Wow, I began to read this sort of thinking, "I doubt there is anything new here" and, as usual, I was blown away. The alternative interpretation does seem to have validity, given the context. I do have to say that Paul did praise the Macedonian givers who gave, not only out of their plenty but out of their need, praising their above and beyond desire to give. I think Jesus' observation here was many things - reminding the disciples not to be awed by the "big doner" while at the same time giving a possible example of more religious devouring of widow's houses.
ReplyDeleteRereading the passage before, this one and the following, it seems Jesus is not even talking so much about giving, but as warning the disciples about being captivated by appearances. He knew they were to be leaders in his kingdom and didn't want them to get sucked in to the inevitable "big and showy is obviously superior" whether it be long robes, long prayers, large gifts or amazing buildings. In all cases, God looks on the heart, not the external.
ReplyDeleteCorrection: He doesn't ignore, but looks beyond, the external.
ReplyDelete