Luke 20:45-21:6 (Mark 12:38-44)

We have spent the last few days in Matthew’s Gospel and Jesus’ pronouncement of woe on the shepherds of Israel.  But we should note that both Mark and Luke refer to this last public discourse of Jesus, though it is only in summary form.  That summary refers to three areas of spiritual abuse by the religions leaders: first that they love to be recognized as important; second that they have become rich by taking advantage of the weak, devouring widow’s houses; and third that they loved to parade their spirituality.  That certainly is a good summary of the discourse of Matthew 23.

But this summary also provides an interesting possibility for the transition from Jesus’ last public discourse to the first of two powerful private discourses with His disciples.  Those two are The Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24-25; Mark 13:1-37; Luke 21:5-36, which will occupy the remainder of this booklet) and The Upper Room Discourse (John 13-17, published in a separate booklet). 

The Olivet Discourse begins with Jesus’ disciples noting the buildings that adorned the temple mount that Herod had made so amazingly beautiful.  Jesus’ response to their amazement was to say that the day was coming when not one stone of the temple would be left upon another, to which the disciples then asked when this would happen and what would be the sign of Jesus’ return.  

In between the summary of Jesus’ announcement of woes on the false shepherds and the disciples’ questions on Olivet both Mark and Luke describe the scene Jesus and the disciples saw of the widow placing the last of her money in the treasury at the temple.  This story has often been used in preaching as an expression of how everyone ought to give to the Lord.  According to Jesus she gave all she had while the rich gave easily from their riches.  

This is not a totally implausible interpretation but given the context and our understanding of the Mosaic Law we think that misses the point.  The Law never required a person to give all they had as an expression of love and worship.  The tithing laws were proportional; you gave a percentage of income.  Free-will offerings were just that, based on how much you desired to give to a project.  

So why did the woman give?  It makes sense when seen in the context.   The leaders, who devoured widow’s houses, laid a burden on her.  She was giving because she had been told that if she gave the little she had God would bless her with much in return.  In fact, the Law required the people to care for the poor, not to balance the books of the temple treasury by their sacrificial giving.  

Seen in this light Jesus is challenging an issue in our day.  To think that God is going to bless us materially in response to our generosity while we live in disobedience to Him was wrong in Israel and is wrong today in the Church!  It reduces God to an idol who promotes covetousness (Col. 3:5).  It provides a strong pictorial warning; let us see and heed.