For centuries, Christians have assumed that Jesus wants us to emulate a poor widow’s sacrificial giving of her only 2 coins. As the story goes in Mark 14, Jesus was watching people put money into the Temple treasury. Rich people put in a lot of money. Then, a poor widow put in 2 small copper coins worth about a penny. Jesus saw a lesson here for the disciples so he gathered them together and said:

“this poor widow put in more than all the other contributors to the treasury; for they gave out of their surplus, but she, out of her poverty, gave all she owned, all she had to live on.” - Mark 12:43-44

Jesus’ commentary makes it clear that the widow felt the impact of her contribution much more than all the rich people giving money they didn’t need. She gave the very money that she needed to buy food to survive. Her sacrifice had painful consequences in her poverty.

We have historically assumed Jesus is commending the widow’s example to us. We typically interpret the significance of the story just like Joy Allmond does on the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association blog:

What matters to God is our heart toward our money and our possessions. Do we see them as ours, or as His? Regardless of how much we give to Kingdom work–whether it is $10 or $10,000–Jesus makes it obvious to us in Luke 21:1-4 [the story of the Widow’s mite] that He is most pleased with those who had to sacrifice to give that $10. What is your “mite?” Are you sowing sacrificially from your resources?

Before we can jump to personal application like this article does, we need to make sure we understand Jesus’ original meaning. Is the point of Jesus’ observation to praise the sacrificial heart and actions of the widow?

The only way to answer that question is to examine the context. Each story included in each Gospel is contributing to a larger story about Jesus’ identity and mission. We must interpret each story by how it connects to the material before and after it. In the case of the widow’s offering, that context completely changes our assumptions about what Jesus is communicating.

Context Controls Meaning

The question we must ask about the context is: Why does the Gospel of Mark place the story of Jesus watching Temple treasury donations (Mark 12:41-44) between his condemnation of Jewish religious leaders (Mark 12:38-40) and his prediction of the Temple’s demolition (Mark 13)? When you read the story in this context, you find verbal connections between the widow’s gift to the Temple and Jesus’ predictions of judgment. Jesus is not talking about generosity or self-sacrificial love before or after the story of the widow. He is talking about how corrupt the religious leaders are who control the Temple and how the Temple is going to be completely destroyed in a future act of divine judgment.

Here is what Jesus says immediately before the widow’s story in Mark 12:41-44:

“Beware of the scribes who like walking around in long robes and respectful greetings in the market places, and chief seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets, who devour widows’ houses, and for appearance’s sake offer long prayers; these will receive greater condemnation.”

Do you see the verbal connection in his reference to widows? Another verbal connection occurs in the following passage when Jesus predicts the Temple’s destruction:

As He was going out of the temple, one of His disciples said to Him, “Teacher, behold what wonderful stones andwhat wonderful buildings!” And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left upon another which will not be torn down.” – Mark 13:1-2

If you read carefully, you recognize that Jesus talks about widows in the preceding context and the Temple in his subsequent remarks to the disciples. That context is how we should understand the story about the widow giving her last penny to the Temple.

Jesus is angry at other Jewish teachers who are persuading widows to give all their money to the Temple bank account. He sees a corrupt religious system that no longer honors God’s heart to care for the needy. Teachers of the Law no longer honor the intent of the Law. Instead, the system has created wealthy religious celebrities who construct lavish buildings and pray in long robes to puff up their public reputation, while the poor go bankrupt. That’s why he isn’t impressed by the “wonderful stones” and “wonderful buildings” in the Temple complex.

Jesus is intentionally highlighting the widow’s gift to the Temple as an illustration of how messed up Jerusalem is. He is condemning Jerusalem’s leaders just like Amos and Isaiah and Ezekiel did before him. The widow’s gift is evidence of what Ezekiel saw in the Temple over 600 years earlier: “The people of the land have practiced oppression and committed robbery, and they have wronged the poor and needy and have oppressed the sojourner without justice” (Ezekiel 22:29). In that context of prophetic judgment against Jerusalem, the widow’s offering takes on a much different meaning than we first suspect.

The Real Meaning of the Widow’s Mite

The widow is a victim of oppression not an example to follow. We typically assume Jesus said or implied, “Go and do likewise.” But he didn’t. What did he say? He emphasized that the widow “out of her poverty, put in all she owned, all she had to live on.” The repetitive “all she owned, all she had to live on” draws the observant reader to Jesus’ message. This widow no longer had anything left to live on because Temple teachers had convinced her to donate it to their extravagant slush fund.

The widow’s offering is an illustration of injustice not generosity. The widow’s livelihood was being devoured by wealthy religious teachers just like some TV evangelists today convince poor people to send in their money so they can use it to buy private airplanes. The widow may have had an obedient heart, but Jesus cared more about correcting the corruption. God’s people were supposed to be caring for the poor not taking from them. As Kirk MacGregor writes in his critique of how Word-Faith Movement prosperity preachers abuse this text,

“there are many passages in the Bible which, in context, teach that Christians should give, and give sacrificially, to meet the financial needs of poor members of the body of Christ, the poor in general, people who serve in vocational ministry, the local church, and the global church (e.g.2 Cor. 8–9; Rom. 15:25-33; Matt. 25:31-46; 1 Tim. 5:17-18; Acts 2:44-45; 4:32–5:11). However, the account of the widow’s mite is simply not one of them. Rather, this text stands in the prophetic tradition of condemning unscrupulous religious leaders who steal from the poor under the guise of their giving to God (e.g. Amos 5:11-12; 8:3-10; Isa. 3:14-15; 10:1-2; Jer. 23:1-2; Ezek. 22:26-31; Psa. 10:1-9; Prov. 22:16, 22; 1 Tim. 6:3-10; 2 Peter 2:2-3, 14-15; Jude 11).”

Jesus was on a mission to end this corrupt system. That’s why he promised to do for people what religious leaders said only the Temple priests could provide. He offered forgiveness of sins without having to pay inflated prices to underhanded Temple businesses to make animal sacrifices. He predicted the demise of the Temple buildings and the reconstruction of a new Temple in his body to stop this kind of religious abuse (John 2:19).

During his earlier ministry, Jesus attacked the practice of Korban where religious elites dedicated their possessions to the Temple rather than using their resources to care for aging parents in poverty (Mark 7:9-13). He wanted justice and mercy to replace tithing regulations that concentrated wealth among the religious elites (Matthew 23:23). He was on a mission to relieve widows from the “heavy burdens” placed on them by leaders who loved privilege and lacked self-sacrificing servanthood (Matthew 23:1-12). That is a mission we must continue today.

How The Widow’s Offering Applies Today

The widow’s offering reminds us that generosity without discernment is not commendable. Self-sacrificial giving to misguided causes doesn’t please the Lord. God wants justice and mercy embodied by people who walk humbly before the Lord (see Micah 6:8). He doesn’t want Christian celebrities who build beautiful buildings and publicly demonstrate their religiosity. He doesn’t want people in poverty giving their last cent to corrupt Christian industrial complexes.

The original purpose of the tithe was to care for the poor not rob them under the auspices of religious devotion. In Deuteronomy 26:12, God’s people were commanded every third year to give their tithe to the poor, both widows and impoverished Levitical priests (see Chris Wright's Old Testament Ethics for the People of God). James 1:27 makes it clear: “Religion that is pure and undefiled before our Lord and Father is to care for orphans and widows in their distress.” Jesus doesn’t add more stress to those in poverty by asking for a donation. He believes in exactly what God mandated in Deuteronomy 15:11, “Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, ‘Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land’” (cf. Isa. 25:4; 58:7; Psa. 41:1; 72:4, 12; Prov. 19:17; 21:13; 28:27; 31:9).

This demand for justice could hardly be more relevant today in churches across the globe where pastors persuade poor people to give them all their money. In fact, the government in Angola drafted a law in 2018 to require “proper training” for pastors because too many have devised schemes to take money from the poor with promises that God will bless their financial sacrifice. They sell water bottles blessed by the pastor for exorbitant prices to accumulate money for themselves. Who knows how the Angolan government will define “proper training” for pastors, but something must be done to protect the most vulnerable in Angolan society. The path won’t be easy, but it is a path that Jesus blazed in first-Century Israel. It is a path we must blaze today. It is the reason I preach the same sermon Why Does God Bless People? every time I get to speak at Majority World churches plagued by “Christian” voices trying to “devour widows’ houses.”

In the United States, we could compare the widow’s Temple offering to a poor lady who gives money she needs for food to a ministry with large surpluses and an extravagant CEO salary. One big ministry in the USA had a $189 million surplus in 2017 after raising excess money for hurricane relief, and they only plan to spend a third of that surplus to help more people in 2018. Their low-income donors actually need that money more than the ministry does for its cash reserve accounts and $1 million CEO salary.

God is a God of justice and mercy. He doesn’t want wealthy or poor donors supporting corrupt causes. He wants well-resourced people to care for the vulnerable. Temple authorities were not supposed to be taking from the vulnerable but making sure people gave their tithe every third year to them. That was the Law in Deuteronomy, and Jesus wants it to be the heart his people have. That wasn’t happening at the Temple in Jesus’ day. And if it isn’t happening today, it’s our task to eliminate unjust systems that are crushing the vulnerable and establish merciful patterns of sharing God’s blessings with those struggling to eat. That’s why I spend my life at Excellence in Giving helping wealthy Christians support ministries that embody Jesus’ passion for justice and mercy around the world.

NOTE: I am not the first Bible scholar to discuss the meaning of this pericope in the literary contexts of Mark and Luke. This same interpretation has been readily adopted over the past 35 years as Jesus’ larger message of judgment against corrupt Jewish leaders in Jerusalem has been more commonly recognized in the Gospels. See Emma Crossen’s “Be Like The Widow” or Addison Wright’s “The Widow’s Mites: Praise or Lament? – A Matter of Context”.

	Passage: Mark 12-13 On Monday, October 7, 2019 (Last Updated on 10/28/2019), Yujin wrote, This is an article by Paul Penley on his website, which provides a unique and compelling perspective on a very familiar incident in the life of Christ. The Widow’s Mite: Good or Bad Example of Giving? 11/26/2018 For centuries, Christians have assumed that Jesus wants us to emulate a poor widow’s sacrificial giving of her only 2 coins. As the story goes in Mark 14, Jesus was watching people put money into the Temple treasury. Rich people put in a lot of money. Then, a poor widow put in 2 small copper coins worth about a penny. Jesus saw a lesson here for the disciples so he gathered them together and said: “this poor widow put in more than all the other contributors to the treasury; for they gave out of their surplus, but she, out of her poverty, gave all she owned, all she had to live on.” - Mark 12:43-44 Jesus’ commentary makes it clear that the widow felt the impact of her contribution much more than all the rich people giving money they didn’t need. She gave the very money that she needed to buy food to survive. Her sacrifice had painful consequences in her poverty. We have historically assumed Jesus is commending the widow’s example to us. We typically interpret the significance of the story just like Joy Allmond does on the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association blog: What matters to God is our heart toward our money and our possessions. Do we see them as ours, or as His? Regardless of how much we give to Kingdom work–whether it is $10 or $10,000–Jesus makes it obvious to us in Luke 21:1-4 [the story of the Widow’s mite] that He is most pleased with those who had to sacrifice to give that $10. What is your “mite?” Are you sowing sacrificially from your resources? Before we can jump to personal application like this article does, we need to make sure we understand Jesus’ original meaning. Is the point of Jesus’ observation to praise the sacrificial heart and actions of the widow? The only way to answer that question is to examine the context. Each story included in each Gospel is contributing to a larger story about Jesus’ identity and mission. We must interpret each story by how it connects to the material before and after it. In the case of the widow’s offering, that context completely changes our assumptions about what Jesus is communicating. Context Controls Meaning The question we must ask about the context is: Why does the Gospel of Mark place the story of Jesus watching Temple treasury donations (Mark 12:41-44) between his condemnation of Jewish religious leaders (Mark 12:38-40) and his prediction of the Temple’s demolition (Mark 13)? When you read the story in this context, you find verbal connections between the widow’s gift to the Temple and Jesus’ predictions of judgment. Jesus is not talking about generosity or self-sacrificial love before or after the story of the widow. He is talking about how corrupt the religious leaders are who control the Temple and how the Temple is going to be completely destroyed in a future act of divine judgment. Here is what Jesus says immediately before the widow’s story in Mark 12:41-44: “Beware of the scribes who like walking around in long robes and respectful greetings in the market places, and chief seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets, who devour widows’ houses, and for appearance’s sake offer long prayers; these will receive greater condemnation.” Do you see the verbal connection in his reference to widows? Another verbal connection occurs in the following passage when Jesus predicts the Temple’s destruction: As He was going out of the temple, one of His disciples said to Him, “Teacher, behold what wonderful stones andwhat wonderful buildings!” And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left upon another which will not be torn down.” – Mark 13:1-2 If you read carefully, you recognize that Jesus talks about widows in the preceding context and the Temple in his subsequent remarks to the disciples. That context is how we should understand the story about the widow giving her last penny to the Temple. Jesus is angry at other Jewish teachers who are persuading widows to give all their money to the Temple bank account. He sees a corrupt religious system that no longer honors God’s heart to care for the needy. Teachers of the Law no longer honor the intent of the Law. Instead, the system has created wealthy religious celebrities who construct lavish buildings and pray in long robes to puff up their public reputation, while the poor go bankrupt. That’s why he isn’t impressed by the “wonderful stones” and “wonderful buildings” in the Temple complex. Jesus is intentionally highlighting the widow’s gift to the Temple as an illustration of how messed up Jerusalem is. He is condemning Jerusalem’s leaders just like Amos and Isaiah and Ezekiel did before him. The widow’s gift is evidence of what Ezekiel saw in the Temple over 600 years earlier: “The people of the land have practiced oppression and committed robbery, and they have wronged the poor and needy and have oppressed the sojourner without justice” (Ezekiel 22:29). In that context of prophetic judgment against Jerusalem, the widow’s offering takes on a much different meaning than we first suspect. The Real Meaning of the Widow’s Mite The widow is a victim of oppression not an example to follow. We typically assume Jesus said or implied, “Go and do likewise.” But he didn’t. What did he say? He emphasized that the widow “out of her poverty, put in all she owned, all she had to live on.” The repetitive “all she owned, all she had to live on” draws the observant reader to Jesus’ message. This widow no longer had anything left to live on because Temple teachers had convinced her to donate it to their extravagant slush fund. The widow’s offering is an illustration of injustice not generosity. The widow’s livelihood was being devoured by wealthy religious teachers just like some TV evangelists today convince poor people to send in their money so they can use it to buy private airplanes. The widow may have had an obedient heart, but Jesus cared more about correcting the corruption. God’s people were supposed to be caring for the poor not taking from them. As Kirk MacGregor writes in his critique of how Word-Faith Movement prosperity preachers abuse this text, “there are many passages in the Bible which, in context, teach that Christians should give, and give sacrificially, to meet the financial needs of poor members of the body of Christ, the poor in general, people who serve in vocational ministry, the local church, and the global church (e.g.2 Cor. 8–9; Rom. 15:25-33; Matt. 25:31-46; 1 Tim. 5:17-18; Acts 2:44-45; 4:32–5:11). However, the account of the widow’s mite is simply not one of them. Rather, this text stands in the prophetic tradition of condemning unscrupulous religious leaders who steal from the poor under the guise of their giving to God (e.g. Amos 5:11-12; 8:3-10; Isa. 3:14-15; 10:1-2; Jer. 23:1-2; Ezek. 22:26-31; Psa. 10:1-9; Prov. 22:16, 22; 1 Tim. 6:3-10; 2 Peter 2:2-3, 14-15; Jude 11).” Jesus was on a mission to end this corrupt system. That’s why he promised to do for people what religious leaders said only the Temple priests could provide. He offered forgiveness of sins without having to pay inflated prices to underhanded Temple businesses to make animal sacrifices. He predicted the demise of the Temple buildings and the reconstruction of a new Temple in his body to stop this kind of religious abuse (John 2:19). During his earlier ministry, Jesus attacked the practice of Korban where religious elites dedicated their possessions to the Temple rather than using their resources to care for aging parents in poverty (Mark 7:9-13). He wanted justice and mercy to replace tithing regulations that concentrated wealth among the religious elites (Matthew 23:23). He was on a mission to relieve widows from the “heavy burdens” placed on them by leaders who loved privilege and lacked self-sacrificing servanthood (Matthew 23:1-12). That is a mission we must continue today. How The Widow’s Offering Applies Today The widow’s offering reminds us that generosity without discernment is not commendable. Self-sacrificial giving to misguided causes doesn’t please the Lord. God wants justice and mercy embodied by people who walk humbly before the Lord (see Micah 6:8). He doesn’t want Christian celebrities who build beautiful buildings and publicly demonstrate their religiosity. He doesn’t want people in poverty giving their last cent to corrupt Christian industrial complexes. The original purpose of the tithe was to care for the poor not rob them under the auspices of religious devotion. In Deuteronomy 26:12, God’s people were commanded every third year to give their tithe to the poor, both widows and impoverished Levitical priests (see Chris Wright's Old Testament Ethics for the People of God). James 1:27 makes it clear: “Religion that is pure and undefiled before our Lord and Father is to care for orphans and widows in their distress.” Jesus doesn’t add more stress to those in poverty by asking for a donation. He believes in exactly what God mandated in Deuteronomy 15:11, “Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, ‘Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land’” (cf. Isa. 25:4; 58:7; Psa. 41:1; 72:4, 12; Prov. 19:17; 21:13; 28:27; 31:9). This demand for justice could hardly be more relevant today in churches across the globe where pastors persuade poor people to give them all their money. In fact, the government in Angola drafted a law in 2018 to require “proper training” for pastors because too many have devised schemes to take money from the poor with promises that God will bless their financial sacrifice. They sell water bottles blessed by the pastor for exorbitant prices to accumulate money for themselves. Who knows how the Angolan government will define “proper training” for pastors, but something must be done to protect the most vulnerable in Angolan society. The path won’t be easy, but it is a path that Jesus blazed in first-Century Israel. It is a path we must blaze today. It is the reason I preach the same sermon Why Does God Bless People? every time I get to speak at Majority World churches plagued by “Christian” voices trying to “devour widows’ houses.” In the United States, we could compare the widow’s Temple offering to a poor lady who gives money she needs for food to a ministry with large surpluses and an extravagant CEO salary. One big ministry in the USA had a $189 million surplus in 2017 after raising excess money for hurricane relief, and they only plan to spend a third of that surplus to help more people in 2018. Their low-income donors actually need that money more than the ministry does for its cash reserve accounts and $1 million CEO salary. God is a God of justice and mercy. He doesn’t want wealthy or poor donors supporting corrupt causes. He wants well-resourced people to care for the vulnerable. Temple authorities were not supposed to be taking from the vulnerable but making sure people gave their tithe every third year to them. That was the Law in Deuteronomy, and Jesus wants it to be the heart his people have. That wasn’t happening at the Temple in Jesus’ day. And if it isn’t happening today, it’s our task to eliminate unjust systems that are crushing the vulnerable and establish merciful patterns of sharing God’s blessings with those struggling to eat. That’s why I spend my life at Excellence in Giving helping wealthy Christians support ministries that embody Jesus’ passion for justice and mercy around the world. NOTE: I am not the first Bible scholar to discuss the meaning of this pericope in the literary contexts of Mark and Luke. This same interpretation has been readily adopted over the past 35 years as Jesus’ larger message of judgment against corrupt Jewish leaders in Jerusalem has been more commonly recognized in the Gospels. See Emma Crossen’s “Be Like The Widow” or Addison Wright’s “The Widow’s Mites: Praise or Lament? – A Matter of Context”.

	Passage: Mark 12-13 On Monday, October 29, 2018, Yujin wrote, He said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God" (Mark 12:34). Jesus commended the scribe, who questioned Him about the greatest commandment. The scribe honestly acknowledged Jesus' right answer and even went so far as to comment that obeying these commands is more important than any offering or sacrifice. His answer suggests his understanding that there is no burnt offering or sacrifice to atone for (i.e. provide forgiveness for) disobedience to these commands. Jesus, noting the man's wise answer, tells him that he is not far from the kingdom. In what sense was the man close to the kingdom? And what would take him the rest of the way? We are not told in the immediate context, but in view of Jesus' other teachings and what the rest of the New Testament teaches, we might surmise. Jesus taught, "What is impossible for man is possible for God." Paul taught, "No one is righteous, not even one...all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Jesus taught, "I have not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it." Paul taught, "He who knew no sin became in for us so that we might be the righteousness of God through Him." Jesus taught, "The work of God is to believe in the One He has sent." Paul taught, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not of yourselves - it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one may boast." Jesus taught, "God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever beleives in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." Paul taught, "God demonstrated His love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Jesus taught, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me." Peter cited the passage Jesus would cite in this context (Mark 1:35-37) to declare, "Therefore, let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah," then later to add, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved." The scribe understood the greatest commandments of God. He understood the extent of God's righteousness and holiness. He perceived that no burnt offering or sacrifice could atone for the violation of these commandments. Now, he just needed to recognize how far he came short of them. He needed to see his need for a Savior, even Jesus, standing right in front of him and speaking to him. This Jesus, standing so close to the scribe, was his Messiah, Savior and Lord. The Kingdom was indeed close, both intellectually and physically. The scribe simply needed to believe. Paul recognized the dilemma of the religious Jew: Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes (Romans 10:1-4). Friends, let us not stumble over the stumbling block of Law and works. Salvation is always by grace through faith and never on the basis of our good works. To think otherwise is to misapprehend the holiness, goodness, and righteousness of God. We who believe are not simply close to the kingdom of God. We have that kingdom within us through Christ Jesus our Lord: For God wanted them to know that the riches and glory of Christ are for you Gentiles, too. And this is the secret: Christ lives in you. This gives you assurance of sharing his glory (1 Corinthians 1:30 NLT). Praise God that the kingdom of God is ours on the basis of God's grace through the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross for our sins! This we believe, and by this we are saved!

	Passage: Mark 12-13 On Tuesday, October 28, 2014, Yujin wrote, In His teaching He was saying: “Beware of the scribes who like to walk around in long robes, and like respectful greetings in the market places, and chief seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets, who devour widows’ houses, and for appearance’s sake offer long prayers; these will receive greater condemnation” (Mark 12:38-40). Jesus often taught against drawing self-exalting praise to oneself. Here He teaches against the ways of the Jewish leaders, who loved the special treatment and honor accorded them. In the Sermon on the Mount, He taught against doing acts of prayer, fasting, and charity to gain admiration from people. He warned against the position-seeking attitude of Gentile leaders. Consider this instruction from Peter's Epistle: Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen (1 Peter 4:11). Friends, we must do all things so that God is the One who is glorified. We must be conscientious of whether we are taking any of this glory to ourselves. When someone praises us, and we say, "Praise God!", this does not have to be a glib afterthought but can express our sincere desire to direct all the glory to God. This instruction applies perhaps to leaders more than others. Let us learn to deflect praise to God. Rather than being consumed with our position, let us constantly be thinking about how we can use our position to serve the Lord and others. Let us be careful that we don't allow the functional value of materialism to become our passion or idol. Let us celebrate the success of others, even if it is at our expense, when their success brings glory to God. Let us not envy them or allow greed to distort our mission. Let us accept our portion in life, whether little or much, whether easy or hard, with such an all-consuming desire for the Giver that His gifts to us are in themselves inconsequential.

	Passage: Mark 12-13 On Tuesday, October 29, 2013, Yujin wrote, But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers that are in the heavens will be shaken. Then they will see the Son of Mancoming in clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven (Mark 13:24-27). This prophecy is difficult to interpret. What preceded it could easily be associated with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. But the cosmic changes, the second coming of Christ, and the ingathering of the elect cannot be placed so easily. There seems no clear witness of these events in either biblical or secular history. Those who treat this passage as being historically fufilled in the first century resort to taking these events as being figuratively and spiritually fulfilled. Those who treat this passage as being still future see the time markers "in those days" and "after that tribulation" (cf. Matt. 24:29 "Immediately after the distress of those days") in a figurative or spiritual way. As I see each perspective defended, I observe that both perspectives are flawed at best. Ninety-nine percent of what is written by each side can find biblical warrant, but the one percent of guess work required to complete each view can throw off their entire interpretation. As such, I would be scared to be dogmatic about either view. When I read various commentaries on these verses, I see what appears to be sincere attempts to rightly interpret the text; however, there may be a divinely-intended obscurity here that should keep us from being too dogmatic about any interpretation. Where the Bible is clear, let us whole-heartedly obey. Where the Bible is not clear, let us marvel and declare with Paul, Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! (Romans 11:33). Friends, sometimes when we force clarity where God intends obscurity, we may be found to be going against God's will and tampering with His truth. Let us continue to explore, discuss, and humbly learn from one another in a spirit of unity and peace (cf. Ephesians 4:3). Let us not take the attitude, as I've experienced, "I'm the pastor of the church, so you need to shut up about your views because they are different from mine." Nor should we have the attitude, "If you are with me, you will support my view; otherwise, you are against me." Are we concerned about personalities? As Paul wrote, What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task (1 Corinthians 3:5). I believe both of these attitudes are contrary to the biblical command to "make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace... Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ" (Ephesians 4:3,15). So then, what is our rule of thumb. In concluding an extensive rebuke of the Corinthians in their obsession with the cult of personalities rather than submission to God's Word, Paul writes, Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.”Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other (1 Corinthians 4:6). "Do not go beyond what is written"! Our faith, our hope, our lives rise and fall on the truth of God's Word, the Bible. Let us certainly not go against it, by contradicting what it teaches us. And also, let us not go beyond it either, by teaching or practicing things that the Bible does not teach.

	Passage: Mark 12-13 On Wednesday, November 7, 2012, Fernando wrote, Mark 13 20 And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days. Here's an explicit sign of election. I understand that some hold the 'election' statements in the bible to mean something like: God has chosen those who are in the faith circle to be elected and predestined for... As opposed to, how I see it: God has chosen those who will be in the faith circle. Those chosen were chosen before they were in the faith circle, predestined, for... I can see both interpretations coming from the first statement. But passages like this one in Mark would seem bulky or cumbersome. Its as if this statement: For no human being would be saved. But for the sake of those in the faith circle, whom he chose, he shortened the days. would read better if it were something like: For no human being would be saved. But for the sake of those in the faith circle, he shortened the days. Or "...circle, whom he adores," or "...whom he protects," or “…his chosen people” but to say “he chose” them doesn't fit here. It fits here: God has chosen those who are in the faith circle to be elected and predestined for... But not here: For no human being would be saved. But for the sake of those in the faith circle, whom he chose, he shortened the days. To say he chose the people in the faith circle doesn't fit here. Here, he is not choosing to save the people in the faith circle, but is instead saying "I chose the people and made a circle around them; for them, I made the days short." In Mark 13:20 he did not choose the elect for anything, but rather because of those who were already chosen, mankind will continue to exist.

	Passage: Mark 12-13 On Monday, October 29, 2012 (Last Updated on 11/10/2014), Yujin wrote, In a previous sharing our brother drew a lesson on stewardship from Mark 12:1-12; however, I don't believe this is the central message of the passage. The reason for this is that the immediate context and the parallel context do not support such an interpretation. In the immediate context, the situation that leads to this parable is Jesus' conflict with the religious authorities. Jesus has just cleansed the Temple from the unlawful and greedy practices of the money changers, causing the religious leaders to pursue ways to kill Him (Mark 11:12-18). His authority has also been challenged by these very same leaders (Mark 11:27-33). In this context Jesus speaks this parable. It is about these religious leaders. What is more, following Jesus' telling of this parable, Jesus quotes a Scripture that relates to the rejection of the Messiah (Mark 12:10-11). This is what the religious leaders were doing in questioning and rejecting Jesus. What is more, we are told that the religious leaders "looked for a way to arrest him [Jesus] because they knew he had spoken the parable against them" (Mark 12:12). The parable of the tenants is not about Christian stewardship at all but about the unlawful, greedy, and unbelieving religous leaders that rejected the prophets of the Old Testament, as well as God's own Son. Jesus is "the stone the builders rejected" (Mark 12:10). The servants that were beaten and killed are the prophets, sages, and teachers that God sent in the Old Testament (c.f. Matthew 23:33-39). In the parallel context in Matthew 21:33-46, Jesus adds these words of explanation: “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. Anyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed.” This explains that Jesus is talking about the kingdom of God in this parable. He is also talking about those that will fail to receive it. As in our present text, so in the parallel text, the religious leaders understood that Jesus spoke this against them (Matthew 21:45). They were the ones that would be left out of the kingdom because they rejected God's prophets and now, God's very own Son. Finally, Christian stewardship, especially in giving to the church, is voluntary rather than obligatory. What we find in this parable is not simply servants unwilling to give the agreed-upon profit to the owner of the land, they are also belligerent, beating or killing anyone sent to legitimately collect this money. But again, the point of this parable is not about stewardship but rather the rejection of God's messengers and His Son by the religious authorities of their day. ------------------------- Now, that brings us to the very next matter of the imperial tax to Caesar. Again, our brother sees this somehow related to stewardship, namely, he argues that while we pay tax to Caesar, we ought not to forget God. There's not a lot of explanation given here for Jesus' statement, "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." However, I wouldn't necessarily link this event with the parable it follows because while Jesus initiated the parable of the tenants, the matter of the imperial tax was initiated by the Pharisees and Herodians, and that at a later time (Mark 12:13). While it is presented one after the other in our reading, we must be careful to consider the historical context. In a series of attempts to trap Jesus, the Pharisees, Herodians, Sadduccees, and Teachers of the Law presented to Him different political and theological conundrums (Mark 12:13-34). Jesus answers every one of them expertly. However, aside from being traps, I don't know that one could make a case that these are in any way related to one another. Now, regarding the imperial tax, the Pharisees and Herodians sought a "Yes" or "No" answer from Jesus (the Pharisees could attack Him for a pro-Roman "yes" and the Herodians could accuse Him for an anti-Roman "no"), but Jesus gave them instead a "Yes" and "Yes" answer, which was profound because it did not dodge the question but brought out a more profound consideration, namely, what is it that God truly requires of you. If they recalled their own Scriptures, they would remember Micah 6:8, He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. Therefore, Jesus' answer, "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" may go beyond the stewardship of money. He is not simply saying give some money to Caesar and some money to God. Since He makes a point of highlighting Caesar's inscription and image on the denarius, it would imply that all the money should be given to Caesar; however, money aside, they still needed to understand what God required of them. I suggest Jesus was saying that just as Caesar's image and inscription gave him ownership of the coin, God's image on them, for we are all image-bearers of God, gave Him ownership of their very lives. I think this is why Jesus' answer had such a profound impact on them: "And they were amazed at him" (Mark 12:17). ----------------- Finally, on the matter of the widow's offering, while I appreciate our brother's perspective that we ought to give to God "out of thanks and devotion," I don't know that this reflects the central message of the passage. Our brother mentions that Jesus does not talk of amounts or percentages, but is this right? Doesn't he contrast the rich people with the widow on the basis of percentage or relative giving? Jesus showed that the rich people's offering of "large amounts" was still relatively small compared to the widow's "two very small copper coins," which represented "all she had to live on." And His message to the disciples was that she put "more into the treasury than all the others." Isn't Jesus speaking of "amounts" by this point of comparison? On the surface, can we not say that He helped them to see that with respect to offerings given to God, the value is not in the absolute amount but in the relative amount? May I suggest that while in worldly enterprises, the absolute amount is more important because more things can be done with more money; but for God, for whom money is no object, His concern is in the relative amount, because this better reflects the heart of the giver. Isn't this similar to the LORD's lesson for Samuel in the selection of the next king of Israel? Samuel judged fitness based on external features, but God looked at the heart: But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart" (1 Samuel 16:7). God is concerned with the heart. Please read my detailed observations about the widow's offering in the parallel passage in the Gospel according to Luke.

	Passage: Mark 12-13 On Thursday, January 26, 2012 (Last Updated on 10/29/2012), Bill wrote, Christ talks about Stewardship in these passages. Parables of the Tenants (Mark 12:1-12) "Jesus then began to speak to them in parables: "A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and moved to another place. At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty-handed. " This parable made me consider stewardship of Gods possessions. If we believe the bible then everything is provided by God and we are simply stewards. This parable talks about the greedy farmers that cared for the landowners vineyard, but were not willing to share their bounty from the land. This parable is followed by another in which the issue of Roman taxes is brought up to Jesus by Pharisees wishing to entrap him. Parable of the Imperial Tax to Caesar (Mark 12:17) "Then Jesus said to them, "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s." Jesus responds to give to Caesar what is his and to God what is his, note that this discussion occurs just after the Parable of the Tenants. I believe Jesus is telling the Pharisees that they are not free from their commitments to God because Caesar demands his tax. Finally, Jesus points out the generosity of a widow contrasted to wealthy Pharisees that donated more. The Widow’s Offering (Mark 12:42-43) "But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents. Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others." I thought that these three parables give us a hint of Gods message of stewardship. Firstly, remember that we are simply caretakers not owners - all was provided by Gods grace. Secondly, our other commitments do not remove us from our commitment to God. Give to God what is His. In the end Christ does not talk about amounts or percentages, but he talks about the heart of a widow that gave all she had. When it comes to stewardship we need to give out of thanks and devotion, otherwise we cannot please God.

The Widow’s Mite: Good or Bad Example of Giving?