Whenever I encounter a new (to me) interpretation of a familiar passage of Scripture, I’m generally skeptical of its validity. I hope that this reticence is due less to my arrogance and more to my understanding that “there is nothing new under the sun.” That doesn’t mean I’m not open to hearing it out, because something may be new to me but not actually new, but I’ve studied enough to know that novel ideas are generally bad ideas when it comes to biblical interpretation.
But when my friend Lacey came up to me some time ago and mentioned a new take on Luke 21:1-4 that she had heard in a Matt Chandler sermon (date: 8/9/09), I’ll admit I was intrigued. Let me give you the verses (TNIV):
As Jesus looked up, he saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins, “Truly I tell you, ” 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.”
These verses are generally taken as praising the woman for her sacrificial giving. If you’ve been in church long enough, you’ve heard it preached that way quite a few times. I’d venture to guess that many a building campaigns have been helped by preaching this passage.
Chandler, however, offered a different take on it. Rather than praising the widow for her giving, Jesus was actually lamenting that she gave (note: the word “praise” doesn’t show up here). If you read the passages immediately before and after this one, you’ll see that Jesus denounces the teachers of the law in part because “they devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers” (20:47) and then goes on to predict the destruction of the Temple in chapter 21- the same Temple the woman was supporting with her offering. Chandler argues that given the surrounding context, Jesus couldn’t have been praising the woman for giving her money to the very Temple he was denouncing. Instead, he was lamenting. I don’t remember if Chandler specified if Jesus was upset at her or upset at the Temple authorities for bilking this woman out of what little money she had, though my guess is the latter.
Chandler likens this passage to the televangelists who guilt old ladies into giving up their retirement checks to fund their lavish lifestyle- surely a practice Jesus detests. (Side note: whether or not his exegesis is right, I’m loving Chandler’s hermeneutics here.)
What do I make of this? To be honest, I’m not sure. I’m a huge fan of reading passages in light of the surrounding context. You can see an earlier post here of how I think the biblical writers can use narrative to make their point rather than stating things explicitly. So Chandler has that going for him here. But, I think literary context could possibly work the other way, too. Is it possible that what we have here is actually a juxtaposition (one of my favorite words in studying the Bible, by the way)? Is it possible that Jesus is purposely contrasting the widow’s sacrificial life with the greed of the teachers of the law?
Let me address a couple other points Chandler uses in his favor. One, he states that in Luke’s gospel, when Jesus commends someone for a righteous act, he follows it up with a statement like “go and do likewise” or something along those lines (see the Good Samaritan). Such a statement is missing here, which Chandler claims works in favor of his interpretation. However, that isn’t entirely true. The story of Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10) is one example where Jesus praises someone’s action without telling others to do the same.
Two, while it’s true that Jesus declares the impending destruction of the Temple, he also commanded a man healed of leprosy to go tell the priest and make the proper sacrifices (5:14). As far as the widow is concerned, the Temple is the place where the righteous go and worship. The Temple had not been destroyed; Jesus had not died and risen from the dead. Shoot- even Paul went to the Temple and even intended to make an offering (before he was arrested) in Acts 21:26.
After listening to the sermon I popped open some commentaries to see what they had to say. I only own 1 Luke commentary, but I own a few on Mark, who records this same story in Mark 12:41-44 along with the same surrounding passages. None of the commentators took the interpretation that Chandler did. That doesn’t mean he’s wrong, of course, because commentators are capable of rehashing traditional but wrong exegesis, perhaps especially prone in a case like this where the interpretation seems “obvious”. It does make me wonder what sources Chandler used, though (side note: I’d love it if pastors shared this kind of information once in a while; I wonder if he ever has).
So, I’m not convinced. Yet. I’ll admit that Chandler has successfully convinced me that his interpretation is possible, if not plausible. The immediate context does lend him support, though as I noted above I think it could (perhaps not ‘should’) be understood differently. I’d be very interested to hear what others have to say about this, so feel free to leave any comments you might have. I may very well be missing something that a different set of eyes might pick up.
I would lean on the more skeptical side of Chandler’s interpretation in favor of the juxtaposition that you propose. The main reason for this is the text itself, which thrice contrasts the widow to the rich. This fits in just as well with the preceding context, which denounces the teachers of the law for their greed.
I have trouble seeing how the text following these verses serves as a “denouncing” of the temple; it’s rather a prediction of its coming destruction (with all sorts of other overtones, for sure). Just thinking through the Scriptures a bit (n.b., not exhaustive searching), I cannot come up with any time the temple is “denounced,” per se, so much as the *abuses* of the temple are attacked. For sure, it is superceded by something far better (i.e., us), but never denounced.
I think it’s defensible to say that Jesus’ comments are intrinsically a lament. Is He not saddened that this widow gives so much while those who should know better give so little? That she is exploited by those who should help her? That the temple, while purposed for supreme holiness and good, is abused? That is is admired for the wrong reasons (e.g., wonderful architecture (21:5))?
I haven’t heard Chandler’s sermon, perhaps making me vulnerable to a write-off, but I would favor the contrasts in the text as the main point. However, this is not to the exclusion of lament in Christ’s remarks. I am only inclined to place them in the “nuance” category.
Here is a link to Matt Chandler’s sermon where this is addressed:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache%3A-ENWod_GMTMJ%3Ahv.thevillagechurch.net%2Fresource_files%2Ftranscripts%2F200908091100HWC21ASAAA_MattChandler_LukePt45-GamesPeoplePlayPt3.pdf+widow+giving+matt+chandler&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbSi3_GotK_EdcjR3RDbgKYfCFqhfg&pli=1
John MacArthur made the same interpretation in his recent “take-down” sermon on Joel Osteen
I would hope, and assume, that MacArthur isn’t preaching sermons on Joel Osteen. Last time I checked, there was a pretty good book called the Bible to preach on…
What about the rich boy who lived a sin free life who Jesus told “that’s still not enough” go and sell everything you own if you still want to follow me?
I find this whole topic very interesting actually. I would, I suppose, have to say that I find Mr. Chandler’s take on it entirely plausable as well.
Intention is always a hard thing to determine from written perspective. Even more so when you take into account language and translative issues. I believe that the reality of the situation is that it is this plausability and the fact that no one except Christ Himself really knows, not what He said obviously (because we all know that), but WHY He said the things He said. We can take into account proper exegetical procedure, and study all manner of hermeneutical pursuits and even apply them appropriately and still, even then, make presumptious and grossly uninformed decisions as to Why He said what He said.
I could even say that scripture itself supports this in several ways, in the interest of time I will only site one: “Man looks at the outward appearance, but God looks at the heart.” Why is it we always quote that about each other and yet fail to approach our Master and Saviour with the same attitude and reverence? I realize this may stir up some passions, but the reality is there is no exegetical passage back to the heart and mind of Jesus and as near as I can tell the best we can do is guess, whatever the science and study we may call it.
Perhaps that is why He asked the disciples “Who do you say that I am?”
Thank you for the insight you gave. I presume Chandler is very wright, not only because of the context, but moreover because the Lord our God is said to be a Helper for the widows. In Jesus Sirach 34,26 it is said that, whoever takes what somebody needs to live on, is a murderer. God is not a murderer! This underlines Chandlers interpretation of Jesus criticizing the Pharasees with all their tax rules in stead of complementing the widow. What the Father sees, is the willingness of the widow to live according to his will. Your life is more than your money! And Steve: a rich Jew could use all his time to study Gods word – which makes him more religious than the people who have to work for their money. And then Jesus says: give you money to the poor and follow me. To study Gods word, even on a daily or hourly basis counts less than following Jesus. But take care, following Jesus might seem less religious!
(excuse my English, I’m a foreigner)
This was taken from the NICNT on the Gospel of Luke by Joel B. Green. Chandler’s view is not only plausible but the likely interpretation. MacArthur holds the same view.
1-4 The second half of the scene Luke paints is often taken as a counterexample, pitting the concern with status honor evident among legal experts over against the sacrificial generosity of the widow. This may be the case, but the points of contact between 20:45-47 and 21:1-4 (see above), and especially the characterization of the scribes as though they were wealthy benefactors, suggests a quite different reading. In this case, just as Jesus indicts the religious leadership for consuming the homes of widows, so now he laments the travesty of a religious system that has as its effect the devouring of this widow’s livelihood. Note that in no way does Luke suggest that Jesus finds the widow’s action exemplary or praiseworthy. How could he, when the religious system was supposed to care for such as these (cf. Acts 6:1-6), not render them utterly destitute? Jesus’ mission is to bring good news to the poor, including this widow, not to impoverish the poor even further (see above on 4:16-30).
Accordingly, Luke’s readers are invited to draw an analogy between the scribes of 20:45-47 and the wealthy of 21:1, 4, and between the widows of 20:47 and the widow of 21:2, 4. The former make a show of their piety, but give out of such abundance that, their gifts notwithstanding, they are able to continue lives of opulence that do not intersect in meaningful ways with the impoverished. Both the wealthy and the poor widow give to the temple treasury, located in the Court of Women in the Jerusalem temple. Her gift, however, is spelled out as consisting of two lepta, 132 of which would have constituted a day’s wage for the day laborer — a puny amount, to be sure, but one that encompasses her entire means of support. Thus does Luke contrast their wealth with her poverty, their superabundance with her deficiency.
And thus does Luke draw attention to a system, the temple treasury itself, set up in such a way that it feeds off those who cannot fend for themselves. What is worse, because it is the temple treasury, it has an inherent claim to divine legitimation. How could it be involved in injustice? It is God’s house! This widespread assumption about the temple only highlights the necessity of Jesus’ criticism of the temple, a criticism already begun in 19:41- 48. Because it has fallen into the hands of those who use it for injustice, Jesus must comport himself and his message over against the temple and its leadership in prophetic judgment.
Hi Matt, thanks for commenting. The excerpt you provide here doesn’t convince me, although it does mean that Chandler at least has a scholar on his side (and a fairly good one, too). Thanks for your input; this is something worth revisiting.
Here is a treatment of the Widow’s Mite pericope that likewise asserts Jesus’ comment as a lament rather than praise gets nearer to the heart of the passage. Published in 1982.
‘It would seem that the only way out of these acute difficulties is quite simply to see Jesus’ attitude to the widow’s gift as a downright disapproval and not as an approbation. The story does not provide a pious contrast to the conduct of the scribes in the preceding section (as is the customary view); rather it provides a further illustration of the ills of official devotion. Jesus’ saying is not a penetrating insight on the measuring of gifts; it is a lament, “Amen, I tell you, she gave more than all the others.” Or, as we would say: “One could easily fail to notice it, but there is the tragedy of the day—she put in her whole living.” She had been taught and encouraged by religious leaders to donate as she does, and Jesus condemns the value system that motivates her action, and he condemns the people who conditioned her to do it.’
Full article:
Click to access Widow’s%20Mite.pdf
The above article notably finds the traditional interpretation difficult to square with Jesus’ condemnation of Corban found in Mark 7. That is, we see that Jesus despises the warping of God’s command (‘Honor your father and mother’) by human tradition. In the Corban tradition a person could devote funds to the Temple directly and this would be regarded by the religious authorities as the person having indirectly fulfilled the command to honor/care for mother and father. Jesus roundly condemns this, which implies that he regards the human needs of one’s parents of greater import (and nearer to the heart of the Law) than devoting moneys to the Temple.
I’ve been browsing on-line greater than three hours these days,
but I by no means discovered any fascinating article like yours.
It is pretty worth enough for me. In my view, if all site owners
and bloggers made good content material as you probably did, the internet shall be much more useful than ever before.
[…] For more insight check out these links: Does God Wants Us To Give Everything by Grace To You Abusing the Poor by Grace to You Jesus and the Widow’s Offering by Bible.org Giving, It’s a Good Thing by Calvary Baptist Church The Widow and Her Two Coins: Praise or Lament? by Boston Bible Geeks […]
John MacArthur has same view–go to 10 min mark in this message: https://youtu.be/sTd2Dvnck1Q