New Thoughts (08/22/11-08/23/11)
I don’t want to spend an inordinate amount of time on this, but it seems worthwhile to try and get our bearings just a bit, particularly as we’ve had this slight diversion back in time following Luke’s account of that earlier dinner. In the main flow of events, we are still here on day three of the final week, if my assessments are correct. Jesus has just been laying into the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, and in most public fashion. We should also recall that just yesterday He had come into the outer courts and taken action to restore that area to its proper use, chasing out the moneychangers and insisting that those just passing through as a sort of shortcut find a different road to do their business on. All that being the case, a brief look at the general layout of the temple doesn’t seem out of order.
That there was an outer court called the court of the Gentiles is common knowledge, and that there was a wall beyond which Gentiles were not suffered to go is likewise well known. It was this outer court that Jesus had dealt with yesterday. It was also this outer court, just to remind us, that the Pharisees had allowed to become so degraded in purpose. Imagine! The heads of the temple had seen fit to take a place for worship and make of it a common market square. What had been marked out as sacred, they preferred to return to profane use. Oh, they dressed it up, to be sure. The animals on sale at market were to be sacrificed. The moneychangers were changing foreign coin to the acceptable Jewish coinage necessary for giving, or so I had always understood it. I have to say that this passage throws that understanding into question. But, allow me to hold off on that topic.
At some point, the events of this third day have shifted to what is referred to here as the treasury. This ought not to be understood as suggesting that Jesus had sat down amidst the piled treasures of the temple. Rather, it appears to refer to the court of the women, the outermost of the inner, exclusively Jewish courts of the temple. This court was at a higher elevation than the outer court, some twelve steps up, and walled off from outside view. The court was clearly not for exclusive use of the women, but was so named because it was the nearest court into which women were allowed at all. Beyond this point it was men only.
This deserves something of a general observation. The arrangement of the courts was such that the nearer one approached to the temple proper, to the Holy of Holies, the more exclusive the access became. We start with the outer court of the Gentiles, where pretty much anybody could come. Then we proceed to the court of the women, and Gentiles are excluded. Then comes the court of Israel, and women are excluded. Next, the court of the priests, and all but the priests and Levites are excluded. From there, we arrive at the Holy Place, and only the priest or priests on duty for that period have access. Finally, we arrive at the Holy of Holies and even the priests are not granted entry except for that one day in the year. All of this is designed to remind that God is indeed Holy, unique in His being, and utterly unwilling to be in contact with sin. Each step nearer requires a greater purification, a further cleansing from sin.
We are blessed to live under the blessings of the New Covenant, and that wall between Gentile and Jew has been removed. So, too, the wall between woman and man. As believers, we have been declared a nation of priests, so we have our access even to that most inner court. Yet, we dare not suppose that the need for purification has ceased. We are cleansed, it is true, by the blood of the Lamb, by the atoning work of Christ. Yet, we are not without responsibility, certainly not when it comes to our own actions. If we would dare to approach God with our sins on proud display, we have clearly not apprehended Who He Is, and with equal clarity, we are not known to Him as His own.
When we read here that Jesus sat opposite the treasury, we are being informed that He is in the court of the women, for it is here that all Israel could come to make their offerings. The setup apparently included thirteen coffers shaped rather like trumpets, into which the people could put their offerings, and these would be taken to he treasury rooms themselves by the priests. When I read the description of these things, it puts me in mind of the baskets we see at toll booths. Interestingly, this was not all for cash offerings. There were apparently four of these coffers intended for freewill offerings, which might include all manner of things, from decorative items given for the temple to burnt offerings, to whatever else might suit.
This seems to have been a pretty regular setting for Jesus to teach in when He was in Jerusalem. It was probably a popular spot for other teachers to come as well, given that the court was fitted with various porches and cloistered areas. The court of the Gentiles was likewise equipped, but then there was the noise out there, which would be somewhat dissipated in this inner court. John speaks of Jesus teaching at this location at another time (Jn 8:20). On both that occasion and this one, it is worth noting that Jesus is teaching in a very public setting. He is not hiding away. He is not, as we were reading in the previous study, whispering private instruction to His disciples (Lk 12:1-3). That would a good thing to keep in mind going forward from here, as well. The things He is saying on this occasion, while primarily directed at His disciples or for their benefit, are said such that all who care to listen in can hear.
Now: I had mentioned earlier that my understanding had been that the temple only accepted the shekel and that this was the purported reason for the moneychangers in the court of the Gentiles. I’m not sure whether I shall be able to satisfactorily sort this issue out, but I think I shall give it a bit of effort. Looking at Fausset’s, it seems perhaps this matter of the shekel applied solely to the annual temple tax, and not to other gifts and offerings. This ISBE seems to confirm that this issue of the shekel was specific to the commandment regarding the annual temple fee required of all adult males in Israel. That would seem insufficient to explain the businesses set up in the court of the Gentiles. Perhaps they were also converting foreign coin so that visitors could purchase their sacrificial materials from other merchants in the court, who would not be willing to accept the array of coinage that might be presented them, particularly during one of the great feasts. McClintock and Strong seems to confirm this additional aspect to the business.
Beyond that, attempts to sort out the values of this coin or that rapidly devolve into confusion, as most of the references I have to hand convert to British values, and those at a far remove historically. How much, for example, is a British shilling circa 1907 equivalent to in US dollars today? I have no idea. The best I can manage is to lay hold of relative values of this coin versus that. Even there, the various references differ wildly as to the value. Edersheim, for example, gives the lepta this widow has given a value of 1/96th of a denarius, whereas the NET places its value at 1/128th of a denarius. Meanwhile, the denarius is defined as the value of 10 asses, where the lepton is identified as being the eight part of an as. (I have been assuming that ‘as’ was a typo, and that the ‘as’ and ‘asses’ describe the same unit. That would give a value of 1/80th denarius near as I can calculate.)
That would seem to be as much satisfaction as I am likely to have on the matter of the contribution. More to the point of the passage, there are certain other aspects of the widow’s gift that might be worth noting. First, the coin used was the least valuable coin then extent, so low in value that it was worth only half of the lowest denominated Roman coin of the time. That’s the comparison that Mark makes. We could try and envision it as a half-penny, if we had such a thing, but I’m not sure how that would serve in terms of value. Suffice it to say that the coin was of next to no value whatsoever. Indeed, according to Edersheim, the two lepta gift this woman has given was the smallest legal contribution the temple allowed. How they would know if one gave less is beyond me, but so it is written.
As a note of comparison, there was a comment to the effect that it had been necessary to place a maximum on the size of these donations as well, measured as a percentage of income. Given that, and given that the occasion on which Jesus is observing this activity is in the midst of the run up to Passover, it is easy to envision that He was seeing some pretty sizable contributions being brought in. Given the nature of those He has just been berating, one can also reasonably expect that they were rather ostentatious in doing so. Imagine, just for example, the effort of hauling this contribution up the twelve steps from the court of the Gentiles into the court of the women. If one was giving in coin, there would be some weight involved, and probably some servants in tow to help carry it in. And all of this, if Edersheim is correct, would be passing right by Jesus as He sat on the steps they were climbing to bring the offering.
The NET gives the value of the lepta as being something akin to the pay for six minutes of the average daily wage. This might give us some sense of things. Figure a wage of say $18 an hour. Six minutes would earn one tenth of this, or $1.80 – about enough for a cup of coffee, or maybe a half-gallon of gas. When we are told, then, that this woman gave all she had to live on, even if we take with an unstated, ‘for the day’, it was not much at all. Being a widow, we ought to understand that she also had very limited means at her disposal for earning anything further. The degree of sacrifice that Jesus commends here cannot be stressed enough. This was indeed a woman giving until it hurt and then some. Indeed, it is necessary that we recognize she was giving with wholehearted devotion, a love for God so deep that frankly, nothing else mattered to her.
The point we ought to take from this is not that we ought all to be giving our way into penury and need. There is nothing specifically holy about bankrupting oneself. On the other hand, if we have allowed our stewardship to become a cover for hoarding, or if we have allowed our personal comfort to temper and restrain our efforts on behalf of the kingdom, there is assuredly nothing at all holy about that. Somewhere in here is a point of balance that we need to lay hold of.
Let me offer an example of the extreme that I would say needs to be avoided. I have known those who will make their way to this Christian event or that, not only heedless of the expense but fully aware that they could ill afford to go. Having arrived, they then set themselves upon the conscience of those others who have come as if they should be able to demand and count on these other believers providing for their return. Now, I’ll set aside the presumption in such behavior, the reflection of a welfare mentality ill befitting a child of God. More to the point, they have deluded themselves in thinking there is anything in this behavior that even faintly echoes what this poor widow has done. Understand this. They think they have put themselves in that same category of sacrifice. But, there are at least two major differences to observe. First, the widow gave to further the work of God. These people did not give into the work of God, per se. They simply spent their funds to come be blessed, or even merely entertained, by those who might actually be doing the work of God. They gave nothing! They were strictly on the receiving end.
Second, the widow, having given her all, did not turn to those to the left and the right immediately seeking alms to carry her through. This is exactly the opposite behavior of those who, having arrived at the auditorium, make certain to get to the front, where they can gain a hearing, and begin begging their ride home with the added imprimatur of the preacher or evangelist who relays their message to egg on the fragile of conscience. Let me reiterate. There is nothing holy about this sort of thing. Nothing! It is purely self-indulgent and of absolutely no value in the sight of heaven. I don’t think you could even properly count it as God-chasing, if such a thing seems positive to you. It’s idol chasing, truth be told. It’s running off to see the big name star whatever the cost to finance and dignity. Valueless!
Indeed, part of what I see Jesus teaching here is that the gift which is no sacrifice to give is not a gift at all. This is in keeping with that which David understood. He wanted a particular field for the Lord’s purposes, and the owner of that field offered to just give it to him. But, David understood that this would never do. What value his gift to God if it was not even his? Even if you counted it his after this man gave it to him, it was a thing that would cost him nothing to give over to God. He’d never actually had the land, so what was it to him to give it away? It was excess, just like these folks at the coffers.
Arguably, we could and should measure our tithe in this light. For most of us, that 10% is excess. We can live without it and not even notice. Oh, we might feel a slight cramping of our lifestyle, but even that’s pretty doubtful. We figure we’re doing pretty well because we give without being cajoled, and as best we may, we give with a cheerful heart, because we know we’re supposed to be that way. We are honestly glad to be supporting the work of the Church. It feels good to be part of what’s happening, to be doing a little something to spread the Gospel, and donating money to the Church is a nice, anonymous way to do it. We don’t have all the pressure of talking to the unsaved, of putting ourselves out there. It’s neat and tidy and we can go home satisfied that we’ve done our bit. But, really, by this measure, it’s still nothing. There’s been no sacrifice. It’s giving from excess.
What this woman has modeled takes it to a whole new level. She’s not just cheerful about it. She’s absolutely committed. She has set the kingdom not just first, but pretty much exclusively before her eyes. Yes, she’ll have to eat. But, if we understand that God will provide, then this isn’t our focus. Yes, she’ll need clothing and shelter. But, if we take God at His word, then we know He’s got that covered, and we can stay occupied with His work for us. We don’t live this way. I certainly don’t. But, it’s where we really ought to be.
Notice the boundary here. It’s not that we go about presuming on others to take care of us in our foolhardiness. No! The instruction to the Church is absolutely blunt in this regard: If anyone will not work, neither let him eat (2Th 3:10). Earn your way in life. But, don’t be consumed by the process. Be satisfied in your daily bread, not preoccupied with making certain of your bread for the next year or decade. Be responsible, but not consumed. In short, turn your eyes upon Jesus, seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, knowing that all these things you need shall be taken care of. Can we live like this? Dare we?
Let me lay out just one more example for us, that which Paul gave to the Corinthians. He set before them the example of the Macedonians who, “in a great ordeal of affliction” gave what they had for the needs of their brethren in Jerusalem (2Co 8:2), and did so, with ‘abundance of joy’. They were, Paul explains, in deep need themselves. These were not rich people, but about equivalent to subsistence farmers. Yet, they gave, and they gave generously. Why? Because they understood that those in Jerusalem were suffering worse than themselves. Because they recognized that these were God’s people and beyond that, that if these people hadn’t given so much of themselves for God, the Macedonians would have had no hope of the Gospel to be thankful for.
But, Paul proceeds to temper his message, and it is here that I find my balancing point. “If the readiness is present, it is acceptable according to what a man has, not according to what he does not have” (2Co 8:12). Understand that God has always set up His economy in this fashion. We saw it at the presenting of Jesus to the temple on His eighth day. What did His parents give? Two doves, the offering of the poor, instituted by God because even if you had no animals of your own, you could at least go out and catch a couple of doves to bring as offering. The only place I do not see this matching of the sacrifice to the wherewithal of the giver is in the temple tax we looked at earlier. That was one half shekel per male head period, regardless of their circumstance. There we ought to see, perhaps, the assurance of God that by His providence, it would always be proven possible for the man to pay. Consider the fish Jesus caused to come to Peter with the coin in its mouth sufficient to cover both Peter’s and Jesus’ tax.
God will provide. That’s the message of the tax. That’s really the message of the tithe as well. Indeed, it is often stated that you can’t out give God. I would hold with that statement so long as we retain the understanding that it applies so long as your giving is in God’s purpose. If your giving is really just foolish spending dressed up with a patina of righteousness, then I think you’re right back with the Pharisees, all shiny spectacle on the outside, but still dead and corrupt on the inside.
The sum of this is that God is not requiring that we give what we don’t have to give. He is requiring that we give our all. That in itself is challenge enough and more. But, then, obedience to God always turns out to be challenge enough and more. Praise be to our Lord and King that He truly does not require of us more than we are able to accomplish. Praise be to Him as well that He almost always requires more of us than we think we are able to accomplish! In our weakness, He is ever being shown strong, and may it always be thus.
