Session 3 — John MacArthur
March 5th, 2008
(By Nathan Busenitz)
Wednesday night. The evening sessions of the Shepherds’ Conference are open to everyone in our church family, not just the conference attendees. The result, of course, is a packed campus, as hundreds of our own people join with the thousands of pastors already here. With five overflow rooms in addition to the main worship center, it’s hard to know exactly how many have joined us tonight as we celebrate in worship through song and the preaching of God’s Word.
The singing, again, is out of this world. Clayton Erb (our minister of music) even remarks, “That was the best singing I have ever heard,” after the first congregational hymn. The crowds laughs, but I doubt he was kidding (and he’s heard a lot of singing in his thirty years at Grace Church). The sound of several thousand spiritually-renewed pastors singing at the top of their lungs is, in a very real sense, incomparable. You can sing as loud as you can and still not hear yourself, simply because of how loud everyone else is singing. It’s pretty amazing. Heaven is not difficult to imagine, especially when John MacArthur takes us to Revelation 5 for the evening’s Scripture reading.
The special music for the evening includes a trio by John Martin, Lisa Martin, and Christian Ebner; a beautiful choral arrangement; and a solo piece by Kory Welch.
Stepping behind the pulpit, John MacArthur directs our attention to Luke 20:45–21:6. Here is that text from the New American Standard Bible:
(45) And while all the people were listening, He said to the disciples, (46) “Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and love respectful greetings in the market places, and chief seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets, (47) who devour widows’ houses, and for appearance’s sake offer long prayers. These will receive great condemnation.” (21:1) And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury. (2) And He saw a poor widow putting in two small copper coins. (3) And He said, “Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all of them; (4) for they all out of their surplus put into the offering; but she out of her poverty put in all that she had to live on.” (5) And while some were talking about the temple, that it was adorned with beautiful stones and votive gifts, He said, (6) “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.”
In 21:6, we find Christ, referring to the temple, prophesying about how that great symbol of Judaism would soon be destroyed. About forty years later, that prophecy came to pass. It was the end of what had become a God-rejecting, Christ-rejecting religious system. The entire system was all coming down. In some ways, these are the most severe words Jesus ever said about Judaism. What would bring that religious system to this kind of terrible judgment? What kind of religion does Christ seek to destroy?
Those are compelling questions. And for the answer, we must go back to chapter 20, verses 45–47. Those verses are an indictment of the Jewish religious leaders of Jesus’ day. This speech was given by Jesus in the temple area, and it is the last public speech that Jesus gave (the full text of which is in Matthew 23). After this, Jesus walked out of the temple for the last time, never to return again until His second coming. And the disciples followed Him out. This is the end of His public ministry – and it ends with a pronouncement of doom on the hypocritical Jewish religious system.
The last words of any man are significant. The last words of Jesus are infinitely significant. And in His last public words, Jesus warned the people of the dangers of false teachers.
The contemporary trend is to have a “conversation” with the leaders of other religions. We are told that we must stop condemning people and engage ourselves in the conversation. But how did Jesus interact with false teachers? Did He look for common ground and try to have a conversation? Or did He condemn them? This passage in Luke (and its extended parallel in Matthew 23) makes it clear what He did. He called them hypocrites, exposed them, warned them of their impending damnation, and warned the people not to follow them.
This does not mean that Jesus was not sad – He wept over the city of Jerusalem. And He gave them many opportunities to turn from their evil ways.
In this passage, He condemns the practices of the religious leaders which stemmed from their bad theology. His warning to His disciples is clear: “Beware!” The religious leaders had developed a legalistic system of works and self-righteousness and it dominated the lives of the people. It was a deadly system, and the last thing Jesus would do was try to find common ground with those who promoted a damning system.
Jesus, first of all, exposes them as hypocrites. This is seen, in an extended fashion, in Matthew 23. They liked to walk around in long robes that drew attention to their superficial spirituality. They loved the respectful greetings of the people, because it fed their spiritual pride. They wanted to be viewed as the source of all spiritual wisdom and life – obviously lacking humility. They loved the chief seats, desiring to be honored and recognized as experts in the law. Their prayers were nothing more than show. They were phonies.
But in all of this description, there is one thing that is especially despicable: they devour widows’ houses. They eat them up and consume them. The religious leaders of Judaism were guilty of taking advantage of widows and the poor.
The Bible is clear that God cares about widows and the poor. But these purveyors of religion took advantage of widows. And there are some very interesting historical facts that tell us what they did. They took money from widows for their services, even though it was forbidden. Scribes (who were the lawyers of their day) cheated widows out of their estates; engaging in gluttony and putting excessive demands on the weakest of widows. They gained a reputation for taking money from older widows who had deficient mental powers. And they would take widows’ houses in pledge for services rendered, and when the widows couldn’t pay they would throw them out of their own houses.
That was in the civil arena. In the religious arena, also, the religious leaders took advantage of the poor—by requiring them to pay money for certain religious services, and by demanding excessive alms. The people were told that it was through these monetary means that they could purchase their redemption. So they were cheated on every level.
Not much has changed today. How many false evangelists fleece the widows and the poor of our day?
It is for this specific sin that Jesus says that they will receive greater condemnation. The fact that these religious leaders shared common ground with Jesus (as Jews who knew the Old Testament) did not minimize their condemnation. Rather, Jesus said they would receive greater damnation in hell for their wickedness.
The verses that follow, beginning in chapter 21, include a well-known story about a widow who gave her last two copper coins. At first glance, this story seems utterly out of place. So how does it fit into the context, or into the extended context of Matthew 23?
The standard answer is that Jesus is contrasting the genuine worship of the widow with the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees. Some have taught that this is a spiritual lesson about sacrificial giving. But this interpretation does not actually fit the context. Nor does the New Testament ever require sacrificial giving to the point of taking a vow of poverty or of not being able to meet one’s needs. Such a view of this story, though popular, is imposed upon the text, not drawn from the text within its context.
Jesus does not actually comment on the attitude or spiritual condition of the widow. The story is not designed to teach us about giving—unless the lesson is for us to give 100% and take a vow of poverty. But that is not what the rest of the New Testament teaches about giving. So that cannot be the point of this story.
There is really just one simple reality here: the widow gave, relative to what she had, more than anyone else because she gave everything. That’s all there is. There is no comment that the Lord loved her and blessed her, or that she provided an example that was to be followed by the disciples.
Because it is such an odd place to interject a story on giving; because the rich are not condemned and she’s not commended; because no principle is drawn out of this by the Lord – there has to be some other explanation than the popular view. This becomes especially apparent when we consider the context, which is judgment.
The text does not say that Jesus was pleased with what He saw. It is most likely that He was highly displeased. How would you feel if you saw a poor, destitute widow go to the temple of a false religion and give her last two cents? You would feel sick. It would repulse you. Any religion that would make a destitute widow feel that she has to give her last two cents to buy into divine favor is utterly corrupt. And that is how Jesus and His disciples would have viewed this woman’s offering.
An important parallel text can be found in Matthew 15:3–9, where the Jewish religious leaders refused to help their ailing parents by claiming that their money had been devoted to God. For the sake of tradition, they had invalidated the word of God. It was typical of the religious leaders to evidence their hypocrisy by the way they handled money.
We would conclude that a woman today who gave everything she had to a false religious system was misguided and in need of rescue. The same was true of this widow. This is not an illustration of heart-felt giving that pleases the Lord. This is not a model. Something very different is going on here.
Mark 12:41 tells us that Jesus was sitting opposite the treasury, and He was observing how people were giving monetary offerings. The corrupt religious system was built on money. When the Lord looked up, He saw that corrupt system of salvation by alms in operation; He was disgusted and discouraged. And He saw the rich giving money, but they had enough to give and yet continue on with their lives. In contrast, He observed the destitute widow putting in the very last of her earthly possessions. It was heartbreaking.
At this point, the words of Luke 20:47 come to mind, that the religious leaders were those who “devour widows’ houses.” Here was an example of that abuse in action.
Here was a destitute widow who fell victim to a corrupt religious system, giving all her money, in the hopes that God would favor her. In today’s vernacular, it was an act of “seed faith.”
Jesus went on to observe that, comparatively speaking, that religious system abused the poor. Compared to the rich people, the widow gave far more. She was exploited more than they, because she had nothing to give and yet she gave it all. The real tragedy that struck our Lord was the abuse of widows taking place in the name of God, in the house of the God who cares for the widow and the orphan. The temple really had become a den of robbers.
When it says that she “put in all that she had to live on,” it is speaking of all of her livelihood. If this “seed faith” did not work, she would go home and die. Jesus was not commending her. He was citing her as a horrible example of that corrupt religious system at work.
It was for this reason that Jesus would say in verse 6 that the temple would be destroyed. Any system of religion that takes the last two cents out of a widow’s hand on false pretenses is corrupt. He promised to bring it down. Hence, the prophecy of condemnation in verse 6.
Interestinly, Jesus’ final condemnation of that false religious system was not regarding their theology, but had to do with the practical outworking of their bad theology – that they would take advantage of destitute widows.
On a side note, the largest percentage of givers to prosperity preachers is single older women. Where do those preachers get their fleets of jets and massive homes? They get it from the desperate under the guise of “seed faith.” And they will face greater condemnation for their religious ponzi schemes.
God does not look favorably on any kind of religious system that takes money out of the hands of the most desperate and defenseless, and that does it in the name of potential blessings from God. It is a blasphemy and those who do so will not escape divine retribution.
Such things are terrible defections from the book. Our task is to stay faithful to the Word.
For the record, my notes on this don’t really do this sermon justice. There was a lot more exegetical explanation that I was not able to fully capture. This would definitely be one to get the MP3 of, when it’s available (which should be shortly after the conference ends).
Great notes! I am attending the conference, and I took notes, but these are much, much better. God bless your work.
I’m attending the conference, and all I can say is … WOW! What an awesome time. This is my first time to this conference, but I’ll definitely be at all the future ones.
Thanks so much GCC for putting on this conference, and for being so hospitable! The care that you give to the Shepherds is outstanding!
Thanks, Dr. MacArthur, for being such a blessing.
This is a great commentary. I wonder about many churches that insist on tithing. To me this seemed an OT law for the Jewish people as they did not have civil taxes per se. If a poor widow or single person that works two part time jobs to make ends meet is expected to give 10% and a wealthy, Escalade driving 4car garage family is expected to give 10%, isnt this the same principle that Jesus would have condemned. I guess I see it as the church system doing the same thing—fleecing the poorer sheep and lambs of the flock and using the Scripture to place a yoke arounf their necks.
So my question is, why are not church leaders coming out against this insistance of tithing? I have no idea what Grace Church’s policy is.
I’ve been to SC’s in the past and I’m soooo jealous of you guys that are currently there! That singing is unbelievable! Praying for you guys that you would be renewed and refreshed and fired up to preach the Word.
Greetings,
I wonder being that the Shepherd’s Conference is in CA. if they are addressing how pastors should respond to SB777. Look, I am just trying to keep it real. If we don’t address this now as a Church, the Shepherds won’t hardly have any sheep left to shepherd in about another generation or so. I am not the only one saying this brothers, there are some heavy-hitters coming out and making the same argument. When will pastors biblically address this reality?
“The tragedy is that too many conservative Christian, Republican parents who want their children to have a different worldview — their own — willingly participate in the destruction of their children’s minds by turning them over to a way of thinking that is antithetical to their beliefs. Parents who worship at conservative churches on Sunday willingly send their children to schools five days a week where what they are taught undermines what they learned in church and at home. They would never think of taking their kids to a church that teaches doctrines opposed to their beliefs, but they don’t give a second thought to doing the same thing by sending them to government schools. It makes no sense.”
- Cal Thomas 3/4/08
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/right/orl-syn-cal0304,0,975133.story
Peace,
David
(Malachi 2:7-9)
Thanks for all your work Nate. I have been to two SC’s in the past but was not able to go this year. The SC feeds pastors in immeasurable ways. I would like to say a special thanks to the hospitality and service of the many volunteers at grace church. You guys create an atmosphere that is beyond description. Of course the teaching is exceptional. What a great place to be. I hope to go next year.
Fred,
No one should ever give any percent of their income to the church begrudgingly. But the reality of the fulfillment of the Law in Christ doesn’t free us from having to give to the church. It actually frees us to give more than 10% and to do it joyfully, and cheerfully, and gladly.
I think of 2 Corinthians 8 and 9. Folks begged Paul to let them give more than they were actually able to give, because it was such a joy for them to do so. For they knew the grace of Our Lord, that though He was rich, yet for our sakes became poor, so that we through His poverty might be made rich.
So no one should ever feel compelled to give, they should feel honored to give.
Mike,
Thank you four your gracious reply. I agree, we give from the heart and that should be from the joy of giving. So would you say that it is not wise for a church to preach on tithing but rather on the joy of giving, without making it seem that a minimum of tithing should be the norm? The emphasis should be on the freedom of giving and a matter of the conscience. Give all that you can and that you can by good conscience and wisdom give.
“Jesus was not commending her. He was citing her as a horrible example of that corrupt religious system at work.”
First time I ever heard this interpretation. Interesting to say the least.
Still seems to me this woman was offering her everything to God. For Luke says, “offerings of God”.
Of course the religious system the leaders had in place was corrupt, and evil.
But the Temple was the house of Jesus’ Father, as He says in John 2:16: “..make not My Father’s an
house a house of merchandise.”
Yet the religious leaders because they killed the Son, and destroyed the Temple, His body, God judged them in 70 AD, and destroyed the Temple, and so brought in the New Covenant.
I appreciate this post, and I am very encouraged to hear of the Lord’s powerful presence being upon this conference.
May this gathering be a mighty surge within this world of the kingdom of heaven going forth, and may we see the Church built up, and the Gospel preached in greater ways, and many souls won for the kingdom, and for the glory of God, and His name sake. Amen.
Fred,
Yeah… I wouldn’t tell someone to preach on the 10%, one reason being that the OT tithe was more than that. It was actually something like 23.5%, but support for that escapes me at the moment, so you’ll have to take my word for it or disregard it altogether.
But what I would be careful to do is to demonstrate the joy it is to give of your bios (cf. this text in Luke), and that we as spoiled Americans give much less than we really “can.” Sometimes our “good conscience” giving is nothing more than faithlessness, fear, and unbelief. I keep remembering the Macedonians, “that in a great ordeal of affliction their abundance of joy and their deep poverty overflowed in the wealth of their liberality. For I testify that according to their ability, and beyond their ability, they gave of their own accord, begging us with much urging for the favor of participation in the support of the saints.”
They begged to give beyond their ability. We today might say that’s foolishness, and there’s certainly something to be said for abandoning the care of your family to give money to the church. In some instances that may be just the outworkings of pride (as in the text in Luke). But I don’t think the Macedonians cared who thought they were foolish. There treasure was in heaven, where their heart was.
So to answer your question, I would preach on the grace of Christ (2 Cor 8:9), because it’s only seeing the glory of Jesus in His grace in condescension to humanity and even death on a cross… it’s only when we see HIM that we can give in a way that honors God. So I’d preach on the joy, the opportunity, the privilege of giving, and would tell anyone who thinks twice about it to keep their money, because God doesn’t want it. He wants our wholehearted praise from a joyful heart.
I would recommend two sermon series by Pastor Albert Martin of Trinity Baptist Church here in NJ. He and Dr. MacArthur are actually friends. The first is on giving in general, and it’s an exposition of 2 Corinthians 8 and 9. The second is on tithing and how it can be both an aid and a hindrance to giving.
God’s Unspeakable Gift
Tithing as an Aid and Hindrance
David d,
I believe the Shepherds Conference is meant to encourage Biblical exposition, not push a personal agenda. The discussion regarding choice of education has already taken place on this website. This thread has nothing to do with sb777 so please do not hi-jack it.
Frank
David D,
As a Pastor that has been to two Shepherd’s Conferences (and understands what the purpose of the conference serves), what does your agenda have to do with the theme and thrust of the Shepherd’s Conference? I realize to you, home schooling is a major platform and issue. But to those of us that want to interact about the conference and enjoy the theological topics that are brought up, please don’t use this forum to advertise this week. Why not listen and discuss the messages on Psalm 1; Luke 20; and the things being discussed at the conference?
The OT tithe was actually 23.33333%. 3 Different 10% (what tithe means) tithes. One of which was only paid every 3 years. I can’t remember what the 3 tithes were for. Temple tax, Government/National tax, and Levite tax maybe.
Keep in mind that the church was the government so in a sense giving to the IRS is sort of like 10% of this.
Marty Winn
Not only was the total tithe over 23% but those receivng the first whole tithe were NOT the priests. They did all of the dirty jobs, were craftsmen, even politicians but they were not the priests who ministered the blood. This is evident from 1st Chronicles chapters 23 to 26.
And then the Levites and priests were not allowed to own or inherit property!!! When is the last time you heard that from a tithe-teacher?
John MacArthur is one of the few even among conservative Christian leaders who are standing up for this truth. Even graduates from Dallas, Moody and Wheaton are re-instituting tithing under so-called NT principles. I am fighting this heresy tooth-and-nail on my web site and was on CBS Sunday news last week. Please stand up with me.
Russell Earl Kelly, PHD, author of Should the Church Teach Tithing?
Hi Everyone,
We’ve deleted several comments about homeschooling because they were not on topic. If you would like to discuss homeschooling, please refer back to the two articles we did on that issue several weeks ago.
Thanks,
Nate B. for Pulpit
Nate and Pastor Steve:
I was not discussing home schooling per se, but rather my emphasis was that putting Christian children in “godless and pagan public schools” was, in fact, putting them under false doctrine. This claim seems pretty self evident given that public schools teach evolutionism, yet not creationism. Now these schools are also teaching homosexuality, especially in California, yet not Christian covenant marriage. These are moral and Biblical issues. John MacArthur warned against false teachers. I only said this warning should apply to K-12 public education and did not claim that he said this. He also said, “Beware” and I say to the shepherds who refuse to protect their families and children from the indoctrination of public schools, “Beware, lest you lose some reward.”
In this current culture this should be a chief goal of the faithful shepherd. I hope this shepherding conference will address this topic “just a little.” If not discussed at all, it would be like having a conference on the doctrine of God without any mention of the Trinity. If you plan to censor this message, please let Dr. John MacArthur read it first. Blessings.
(E. Ray Moore, Jr., Th.M. at www.Exodusmandate.org)
Few pastors look at the widow’s gift in context. Jesus is not using her as an example of giving, but as an example of how she is being exploited.
Jesus could have used a poor man or a poor woman as His example if He was teaching about giving, but He chose a poor widow, tying her to His statement that the scribes “devour widow’s houses.”
I never did understand how the tithe was used to care for the widows, the poor, the orphans and the strangers in the OT, but every pastor I’ve ever known (until recently) has used this passage to take money from the poor.
May God have mercy on all of us who have misapplied this verse (and its parallel passage in Luke 20:46 - 21:4).
Thank you for this message, Dr. MacArthur.
(I’m sorry if I caused any confusion with my referrence - the parallel passage is Mark 12:38-44)
I am recent come to this webpage, and although I have posted two comments prior (two blogs about the Law), I am going to add a ‘C’ to my name, so I won’t be confused with the Michael attending the Conference.
Don, when you say that Luke refers to “offering of God”, I’m not sure where he does this. In Luke 21, the money being given is for the treasury, and he calls it “gifts” (verse 1 and 4). I agree that this is a different direction than one usually hears about the widow, but I don’t think the Lord was using her as an example for New Covenant (NC) giving. It is interesting that after noting her gift, the other began to discuss the Temple with its beautiful stones and votive gifts. The Lord immediately tells them that the Temple (and thus it’s system of worship) will be torn down. The focus of the passage is on Temple worship, destruction, and “when will these things be?”, not on giving.
Since tithing has been brought up in the above comments, I think we (evangelicals) assume that the tithe was required and ‘offerings’ were voluntary; however, in the Moseic Law both tithes (3 different kinds) and offerings (Lev. 1-4) were all required. Only in Ex. 30 and maybe Lev. 5 were the Israelites told to give money. The Israelites did not give money under the tithe or in the differnt offerings. The practice of giving money for the Temple upkeep (Luke 21:1) may have started around the time of Joash, but it was not required in the Law. (Sheryl2- The third year tithe was used for the poor, Deut. 28:28-29). The tithe and offering were both tied to the sacrificial system of Temple worship and the Levitical priesthood. These both have been done away with (Heb. 7).
Giving under the NC is better expressed in “as he has purposed in his heart” and “as he has prospered” and “cheerful giver”. We give out of love, concern and gratitude, not because of any legal command. In my opinion, for a church to teach its members that they are required to tithe, is to put them under the Law. Unfortunately, I’ve seen both Dispensational and Covenantal preachers do this.
Though I was not able to attend the conference this year, to be able to review the website and enjoy the messages has been a delight. I encounter many fellow-pastors in Montana and the Pacific Northwest that complain that Dr. MacArthur is mean-spirited and lacking in a grace-emphasis. Reviewing this recent message reminds me that those claims are just not true. What “love” it is to declare the truth; what “great love” to declare the hard truth and to sacrifice one’s self in so doing. Since I couldn’t support Dr. MacArthur in person at the conference with my applause this year, I did some recent PR work in this area by presenting people with John’s elk hunting story from a few years ago. The adventure is found in the book, “The Ultimate Hunt,” and uses that outdoor experience as a wonderful illustration of Grace, quoting Dr. MacArthur numerous times. So, hopefully more in this State will become endeared to your ministry as they overcome their critical spirits be reading of Grace in that fun story. P.S. In the conference pictures of John preaching, I can’t even see a scar over the eye where his rifle scope popped the successful hunter when he pulled the trigger! Maybe healing in the atonement? (:
“Don, when you say that Luke refers to “offering of God”, I’m not sure where he does this.”
From the New King James. That’s another problem methinks.
It just seems to me that this woman was being commended by the lord in front of His disciples. It is difficult for me to see that the Lord is seeing her as a victim.
But i will definitely kick this around with my fellow Christians, and I really appreciate John MacArthur, and have learned so much from this faithful servant of Christ.
Have a great Lord’s Day Michael.
We are so thankful for Pastor John’s faithful exposition of the Word. This was definitely one of those “Tale of Two Sons” messages…one that will forever change and deepen my understanding of that passage, and help me further appreciate the loving character of our Lord.
I had the privilege of shining shoes all week, and I heard a lot of feedback from the men attending. One thing they seem to appreciate from this message from Pastor John was that, rather than preach ABOUT preaching the Word, he just flat-out preached the Word, just like he does week in and week out. Certainly the lesson directly taught was extremely powerful and encouraging, but the indirect messages were equally as powerful: the lesson on hermaneutics, the lesson on letting the text speak for itself, and the way this message backed-up his opening message Wednesday am, that he can go anywhere, anytime, with any of his messages, and have it be powerful, because the Spirit of God works whereever the Word of God is proclaimed. As Pastor John says, “the best apologetic for the Scripture is just to preach it!”
I wonder how many popular conference speakers have ever used the “Widow’s Mites” for their keynote address?? This passage has nothing to do with preaching or preachers, but man did it impact preaching and preachers! It just goes to show how powerful and how relevant Scripture is -any passage, any place, any time- when you just unleash it and let it speak for itself.
Amen, and thank you so much Pastor John!!
Don,
Luke 21:4 in the King James version does translate DORON as “offerings of God”. The NASB uses the word ‘offering’ but with a footnote that it is the same word used in verse 1 translated ‘gift’. The ESV doesn’t mention gift or offering. The NIV says ‘gifts’. This gift was not one of the ‘offerings’ required under the Law. I agree that the Lord is saying that the widow did give more than the others, because she gave all she had, not just a small portion. In the context of giving towards the upkeep of the Temple it is a commendation; however, it is quickly pointed out that the Temple itself, and the related worship, will be ‘torn down’. I agree, I don’t see the Lord necessarily viewing the widow as a victim, but I also don’t see the main point of this passage being on ‘giving’.
“..I also don’t see the main point of this passage being on ‘giving’.”
Amen.
The point may be that if Bill Gates gives a billion dollars to charity, and a poor child in Tanzania gives his meager three or four cents to charity, this poor child have given more, in God’s eyes, because it was sacrificial, and he’s not looking for a reward, whereas Bill is looking for a tax deduction, and a little admiring from the world “to boot”.
have a pleasant and blessed Lord’s day.
Thanks for posting these notes. I have enjoyed reading them.
donsands “It just seems to me that this woman was being commended by the lord in front of His disciples. It is difficult for me to see that the Lord is seeing her as a victim.”
It is important to keep in mind that chapter and verse divisions were not in the original autographs. We need to keep the verses in context. If you look at Mark 12:38-44 the verses are not separated as they are in Luke.
When taken in context, it is impossible to see this as a commendable act. That must be read into the text. The warning to beware of the scribes who “devour widows’ houses” in vs. 40 parallels Jesus’ use of a widow for His example. Jesus could just as easily have chosen a “poor man” as His example, or simply a “poor woman” - but He was very specific in His choice of a poor widow. This ties it to His criticism of the Scribes who He said were devouring widows’ houses in vs. 40.
Some points I’ve often made to others were in Dr. MacArthur’s sermon.
Jesus actually says nothing to commend the widow for what she did. (Words of praise are absent)
Jesus’ statement is one of relating facts as He observes (She gave more than they all because she cast in all her living)
Jesus says nothing about how the widow felt about what she gave. (He does not describe her emotional state)
In the larger context of the entire Bible, and given God’s commands regarding the treatment of the poor in both the Old and New Testaments (go through Nave’s Topical Bible on the subject), the traditional interpretation and teaching of the passage makes no sense whatsoever. The idea that Jesus is praising the widow must be read into the verse; the idea that she gave it joyfully must also be read into the verse - in both cases the text must be ripped out of its context in order to give that impression.
We have had the truth revealed in this sermon - dare we allow our “tradition” continue to be taught over truth in reformed protestant and evangelical churches?
If I may, I would like to ask those questioning Dr. MacArthur’s interpretation to watch these two videos for further study:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8186778193218624990&hl=en
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7838738363484227518
May “the eyes of your understanding” be opened on this issue… Peace-
“It is important to keep in mind that chapter and verse divisions were not in the original autographs.”
Done that.
” We need to keep the verses in context.”
Absolutely.
“When taken in context, it is impossible to see this as a commendable act.”
I disagree.
You also have to add in Matthew’s gospel. Seems Jesus spoke His great rebuke to the Jewish leaders in the midst of these two statements as well. Seems the phrase “devour widow’s houses”need not be indentified with the poor widow, but it can be surely as you say.
What does it mean to devour their houses? I’m not sure.
I’ll have to study this a little more.
Thanks for the challenge.
The simple reading of our Lord’s words do seem to say He is saying that sacificial giving is more important than giving out of one’s abundance. It reads much more naturally to me. And the widow may not have be joyful, or she may have. Can’t say.
But if simply read these verses speak plainly to me:
“Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all:
For they have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of GOD: BUT she of her penury hath cast in ALL the living that she had.” Luke 21:3-4
“And He called His disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:
For [BECAUSE] all they did cast in of their abundance; BUT she of her want [lack] did cast in all that she had, ALL her living.” Mark 12:43-44
I don’t understand those who place titles or degrees earned with their names when blogging. Why? If you are confident in what the Word and the Holy Spirit has taught you…then write it. If you think you can either lord over someone or give extra credit to yourself with a title or receive the praises of men with it…go ahead also…but why do you need to do it is the question?
You came in as a regular baby with nothing and you will leave as one, desperate for a Holy Father to care for you by His grace alone…the titles that have been thrown around to gain will only be a judgment against you…be careful what value you place on them here and what you use them for.
“The simple reading of our Lord’s words do seem to say He is saying that sacificial giving is more important than giving out of one’s abundance”
Jesus warned His disciples with a scathing critique to “beware of the scribes” who devour widow’s houses.
A given percentage (financially) is greater to the poor than it is to those who have plenty because the poor need it to merely survive. The widow gave more because she gave what she needed in order to live; that is how they were “devouring widow’s houses”.
Think about this: If you believe the widow is to be our example, do you believe giving is to be a competition? Do you believe that Christians should outdo each other to see who can be the poorest?
Jesus was rich, but became poor. “Blessed be ye poor: for your’s is the kingdom of God”.
The churches of Macedonia gave sacrificially. ” .. in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality. …. Therefore as ye abound in every thing, … see that ye abound in this grace also.” 2 Cor. 8:1-7
Surely it is fine to be blessed with riches from our Father in heaven. I’m quite blessed financially compared to most Christians throughout the world. But we need to see sacrificial giving as something the Lord commends, Himself being the most perfect and outstanding example, when He came to earth, and was born in a stable.
Jesus also said to the rich ruler, “Sell all that you have, and give it to the poor.”
I suppose we will simply have to disagree on the interpretation of this passage of Scripture.
I will continue to look at your interpretation, and study. May God open our hearts and eyes to His truth. Amen.
donsands:
While the passage in Luke does say “blessed are the poor,” the passage in Matthew 5 makes it clear it is not speaking financially, but spiritually. It is those who realize they are spiritually destitute that will receive the kingdom of God.
Regarding the rich young ruler. Jesus was testing him to find out his heart. The ruler loved his money more than God. He did not see his true need, he thought he was righteous.
Pastor MacArthur stated, in message 3 of the recent SC, that it was forbidden to take moneyfrom widows for their(temple ministers?) services. Can you cite the scripture for that please?