The widow and her two mites commended?

[MarieP]

I ran across someone who believes that Jesus is not commending the widow for giving her two mites. Granted, His response is not explicit commendation:

"Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God, but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had"-- Luke 21:3-4

I found this blog article (I know nothing about the author, except that he cites John MacArthur):

https://sunandshield.wordpress.com/2009/02/15/the-widows-mite-a-lesson-on-religious-abuse/

What do you think?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

He (the author) doesn't say his take is also JMA's interpretation of the passage; only that JMA alerted him to the context. I think one would have to listen to JMA's sermon to discern whether he took a similar line specifically on the question of whether the widow was a victim of a Pharisaical building-program, a religious system rigged for personal gain. I doubt it. And the author seems pretty clear that his proposal is his own insight.

I can't commend the interpretation offered. Not that the author is wrong when he faults other interpreters for using the story of the widow's mites improperly. It is an abuse of the passage to defend mandatory tithing and the manufacture of guilt to put pressure for more. The author might be aligning Luke's "rich" (v1) with the "scribes" of the previous vv. However true this may have been in some general sense, it is not a textual connection. In fact, the rich do not even factor into the author's interpretation of the text.

To say Jesus does not hold the widow's gift up comparatively as more admirable (in a specific sense) than the substantively greater sums given by the rich--such an interpretation of Jesus' words avoids a plain interpretation of them. The contextual appeal goes beyond what the example itself bears witness of. Here is an instance of a counter-interpretation that partakes of an equal degree of false-leverage to the first abuse, just in an opposite direction.

There is no obvious reason to assume the widow is a victim; and if we make her out to be, she loses the apparent benefit of what ages of competent interpreters have recognized as Jesus' comparative praise. The author conclusion states:

the true moral of the story is that Jesus doesn’t want anyone to take advantage of us.

Make no mistake, certain 1C religious leaders are under the gun in this view, not without warrant. But so is the widow, and her gift; and this is completely improper.

 

[MarieP]

Thanks, brother! That was helpful! I was also thinking that Jesus would have responded differently if this author were correct.

 

[Jack K]

I think the article goes a few steps too far in saying Jesus claimed this woman was being abused by the Temple bigshots.

It is correct, though, in saying that the point should never be to shame people into giving more than they think they can afford. Giving isn't the main point of Jesus' teaching here at all. Rather, he uses the situation to warn his disciples that those who look most religious may actually be ungodly people who're devoted to their own gain, while those who look like they are offering little may actually have great devotion to God.

Jesus chose to teach this point while the issue as hand was: who is truly on his (God's) side, and who merely looks godly? In a few days Jesus would be arrested and killed. Jesus would, like the widow, be giving everything he had in service of God. The high-looking teachers in the Temple would prove themselves to be anti-God despite their appearances. And what about the disciples? Would they prove true to Jesus, all the way down to the heart, or show themselves to be fakes? That's a question each of them would struggle with over the coming days, and Jesus is helping them (and us) understand the issue here. This is part of an ongoing discussion, reaching its culmination in these last days in Jerusalem, about the need to give up everything for the kingdom rather than be a pretender who merely looks godly.

I suppose this might have implications when an offering plate is passed, but church giving is not directly the point. The challenge is not, "Have you given all your money?" but rather, "Have you given all yourself, even the hidden parts that others cannot see?"

 

[MarieP]

John MacArthur does appear to say the same thing...that the account is not an example of Christian giving, but rather she was suckered into it and thought she was buying her way in to the Kingdom...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTW57kPbatc (1:11 mins.)

and here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Giwv_z5TXPA (Part 1- 10:51 mins.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHmw70OGwwY (Part 2- 10:40 mins)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLgQnYTgHOE (Part 3- 10:41 mins)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rlv8PWzw7rE (Part 4- 10:51 mins)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afu8sW-NGEw (Part 5- 9:43 mins)

While it sounds plausible, given its appearance between the devouring widows verse and the destruction of the Temple, I'm not sure I'd go so far as MacArthur to say she was trying to buy her way into heaven.

It bears some thinking through...