Mk 12:41 Then he sat down opposite the offering box, and watched the crowd putting coins into it. Many rich people were throwing in large amounts. 12:42 And a poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, worth less than a penny. 12:43 He called his disciples and said to them, “I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the offering box than all the others. 12:44 For they all gave out of their wealth. But she, out of her poverty, put in what she had to live on, everything she had.”

Lk 21:1 Jesus looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the offering box. 21:2 He also saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins. 21:3 He said, “I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put in more than all of them. 21:4 For they all offered their gifts out of their wealth. But she, out of her poverty, put in everything she had to live on.”

Not exactly a ‘troublesome text’, this one, but a text which certainly invites a second look.

A model of piety…?

The usual approach is to understand Jesus as commending sacrificial giving.  Edwards, for example, says that the main point is the woman’s modelling of discipleship:

‘No gift, whether of money, time, or talent, is too insignificant to give, if it is given to God. And what is truly given to God, regardless how small and insignificant, is transformed into a pearl of great price. What may look like a great gift, conversely, may in reality be little in comparison with what one could give. The widow’s giving “ ‘all she had’ ” is a true fulfillment of the call to discipleship to follow Jesus by losing one’s life (Mk 8:35). The final Greek words of the chapter might be paraphrased, “she lay down her whole life.” That is what Jesus will do on Golgotha.’

Hurtado takes a similar approach:

‘The virtue of the widow’s gift lies in her giving all she had (v. 44), illustrating for the disciples the wholesale commitment for which Jesus called (e.g., Mk 8:34–9:1; 10:28–31). Her action exemplifies the complete devotion spoken about in Mk 12:28–34, where it is hinted that commitment to God is not to be measured in the impressiveness of the sacrificial gift one is able to offer (v. 33). The elevation of this simple woman to such an exemplary place captures the essence of Jesus’ words that in God’s judgment “many who are … last [will be] first” (Mk 10:31).’

So also Hooker:

‘The story is a reminder to Mark’s readers that the humblest and poorest of them can make a worthy offering to God.’

…but also a tragic victim?

Other commentators have suggested an additional layer of meaning.

One such is Wright, who thinks that the additional meaning is that

‘when we read this story in the light of Jesus’ riddle about David’s Lord and David’s son we discover a strange affinity. One might have thought she was ‘merely’ putting in two copper coins, but in fact she was putting in everything she had. One might have thought the Messiah was ‘merely’ David’s son—a human king among other human kings. But in fact, in the Messiah, Israel’s God has given himself totally, given all that he had and was.’

Writing in the Women’s Bible Commentary, Elizabeth Struthers Malbon is perhaps, on to something when she writes:

‘Later interpreters misuse this poor widow by making her the model for a stewardship campaign. She is, rather, an image of the demands and risks of discipleship that Jesus has proclaimed and is, at the moment of his telling of her story, in the midst of enacting—giving his whole life.’

The approach taken in Harper’s Bible Commentary also suggests that this story might be taken in more than one way:

‘The incident provides the bridge between Jesus’ attacks on the Temple and its authorities, Mark 11-12, and the predictions of the destruction of the Temple in Mark 13. It also prepares for the woman who anoints Jesus in Jerusalem who, like the widow, gave “what she had” (Mk 14:8; cf. 12:44) and for the discipleship of other women during the passion narrative (Mk 15:40-41, 47; 16:1-8).’

Garland (NIVAC) is content with understanding this story as an example of sacrificial giving.  Yet he agrees that

‘one can give this incident a quite different spin, which laments that this widow gives so sacrificially to this den of thieves. The woman is to be praised, but giving sacrificially to a corrupt, spiritually bankrupt, and oppressive temple is to be lamented. She exhibits unquestioning devotion to the temple, a fruitless cause that exploits her. The high priests live in luxury on their cut from the contributions made by the poor. Hers is a misguided gesture, a case of the poor giving to the rich, the victim lining the pockets of the oppressor. The costs to operate this extravagant temple are therefore one of the things that “devour the resources of the poor.”’

Matt Anslow develops this alternative (or complementary) approach.  Note the context: this incident in preceded by Jesus’ denunciation of the scribes (vv38-40) and is followed by his prediction of the destruction of the temple (Mk 13:1f).  Note also that Jesus does not commend the woman’s giving.  It looks, then, as if his teaching is meant not as a celebration, but as a lament.  The woman had given all that she had.  Quite possibly, she would have nothing to eat for several days to come.  Her wealth, such as it was, had been ‘devoured’ (v40) by those responsible for the temple treasury.  An institution that should have protected her, exploited her.  This interpretation, it has to be said, is consistent with Jesus’ more general critique of the temple and its institutions.

Evans (WBC on Mark) advances a similar interpretation.

Focusing on the Markan account, Jeremy D. Otten argues that catchwords (including the word translated ‘widow’) and other contextual clues

‘link the widow narrative not just with the preceding pericope, but with the whole series of five disputations in the temple (vv. 13-40). With the episode functioning in this way as an epilogue to the whole section, the widow may be seen as both a model of discipleship as well as a tragic figure whose poverty illustrates the failure of the religious leadership.’

Counting against this interpretation, however, is the observation that

‘the Lukan Jesus is thoroughly in favor of the temple and its worship: as recently as 19:45–46 he has, at least symbolically, put to rights the abuses interfering with temple worship; and for this whole section he is presented as a regular daily temple-teacher.’ (Nolland, WBC)

Possibly.  But those very verses record Jesus complaining that the temple had been turned into a ‘den of thieves’.  We may conclude that it was this abuse of the temple (rather than the temple itself) that our Lord was hinting at in the present passage.

This difficult saying has been understood in various ways:-

1. Some, such as Barnes, think that this is a promise of supernatural protection to a particular people at a particular time.  Barnes thinks that this was fulfilled at the time of the fall of Jerusalem, when it has been thought that Christians suffered no serious harm.  But Kidner (commenting on Psa 121:7f) notes that

‘God’s minutest care (‘not a hair of your head will perish’) and his servants’ deepest fulfilment (‘you will win true life’, NEB) are promised in the same breath as the prospect of hounding and martyrdom (Luke 21:16f.).’

2. Bengel and Hendriksen take it to mean, “Not a hair of your head will perish outside of God’s providential purpose and timescale.”  See Mt 10:29f.

3. Others, such as Marshall, France and Bock, take it to refer to spiritual safety (it is precisely such spiritual life that is promised in Lk 21:19; cf Lk 12:4-7).

4. Still others, such as Stein, incline to the view that although individuals may perish, the church of Christ will live on.

‘Jerusalem will be trampled down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.’

This is the one passage in the NT that seems to speak of the return of Jerusalem to the custody of the Jews.

For some, the ‘times of the Gentiles’ came to an end on 14th May, 1948, when Israel became an independent state.

For Derek White, of Christian Friends of Israel, there is no doubt:

‘The plain meaning of these words of Jesus is that the imposition of Gentile rule and possession of Jerusalem is to have an end, and that it will come again into the possession of the Jewish people as their Capital. It is impossible, without doing disservice to all reasonable Bible interpretation, to spiritualise “Jerusalem” here and make it mean anything other than the city, the Capital of Israel, called by that name. In the first part of verse 24 Jesus is certainly speaking literally and therefore also in the second part of that verse. The implication of this verse is the restoration of sovereignty to the Jewish nation when the “times of the Gentiles” have run their course. Many believe this Scripture to have had its fulfilment in June 1967 when Israeli forces liberated East Jerusalem from Arab rule and returned it to Jewish jurisdiction for the first time in 1900 years. Whether or not this is so, we are certainly within the period of the close of the times of the Gentiles.’

But for most commentators, the issue is not nearly so clear-cut.  Stein (NAC), for example, says,

‘there may be hints in Luke about a future restoration of Israel in Lk 13:35 and Lk 21:24, but they are elusive, so that certainty on this issue is impossible.’

However, our Lord says nothing here about what would happen to Jerusalem at the end of the period spoken of.  The view of Hendriksen (citing Greijdanus & Lenski in support) is that the period of oppression of Jerusalem will last until the end of the age, the theme to which our Lord now turns, in vv25-28.

Travis remarks that although Jesus taught that the OT prophecies concerning the Kingdom of God were fulfilled in his own ministry, there is nothing to suggest that he expected a time when the Jews would have political independence in Palestine.  And although the present text does speak of the trampling down of Jerusalem until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled, it does not say that Jewish sovereignty will be restored at that time.  It is consistent with the general tenor of Jesus’ teaching that the fulfillment of the times of the Gentiles would be followed by the parousia.  (I Believe in the Second Coming of Jesus)

Daniel 7:13f – “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.  He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

There can be little doubt that, when seen through the ‘lens’ of the teaching of the New Testament, this is applicable to Jesus Christ.  He is the ‘Son of Man’ who ‘comes with the clouds of heaven’, is led into the presence of his heavenly Father, and is given an indestructible and universal kingdom.

But what about this ‘coming’?  Is it a coming down from heaven (at his ‘parousia’) or a coming up to heaven (at his ascension)?

And what are we to make of the New Testament passages which quote or allude to this passage? –

Mt 16:27f  “For the Son of Man will come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.I tell you the truth, there are some standing here who will not experience death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Mt 24:30  “Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man arriving on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.”

Mt 26:64  “I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Mk 14:62)

Mk 13:26  “Then everyone will see the Son of Man arriving in the clouds with great power and glory.”  (Lk 21:27)

Acts 7:56  “Look!” he said. “I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!”

Rev 1:7  Look! He is returning with the clouds.

Rev 14:14  Then I looked, and a white cloud appeared, and seated on the cloud was one like a son of man! He had a golden crown on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand.

1. The Parousia?

Commenting on Dan 7:13, Nelson (UBCS) sees a clear application of this passage by and to Jesus.  However, he thinks that it is applicable to his return:

‘Daniel 7 is of the utmost importance for understanding both the identity of Jesus and the plan of God for the end times. When the book was written, “son of man” was not a title, but rather the vision referred to a transcendent one who looked like a man. Originally it was probably understood to be an angel or archangel—Michael is the best candidate, since he figures prominently in the deliverance of the Jews (12:1). However, in the NT, Jesus uses “Son of Man” as a title for himself (for example, Matt. 8:20; 9:6; 11:19). Although he sometimes uses it to mean “man,” he identifies himself with the figure in Daniel’s vision at other times, predicting that he will return in power and glory riding on clouds (Matt. 19:28; 24:27, 30; 26:64). John also utilizes the imagery for Jesus in his apocalypse (Rev. 1:7, 13; 14:14). Daniel’s vision in chapter 7 gives us hope for the future. Jesus will return to raise from the dead those believers who have died (1 Cor. 15:22–26; 1 Thess. 4:14–17), to gather together his living followers, and to set up God’s kingdom in its fullness. The oppressive regimes of this world will disintegrate as they are replaced by the eternal, righteous, reign of God. This leads us to cry “Maranatha” (1 Cor. 16:22) and to pray “Your kingdom come … on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt 6:10). For those who are suffering persecution for the name of Jesus, Daniel 7 holds out the certain hope of the eventual triumph of God’s kingdom and with it the vindication of God’s people for their faithfulness. It calls them to endure and persevere through their present trials with an eye fixed on the horizon awaiting their great future.’

So also Miller (NAC):

‘The phrase “coming in clouds” is understood in Matt 24:30 as a reference to the return of Christ.’

Wallace (BST) is another who thinks that, for Jesus, this passage was about ‘his second coming and ultimate triumph.’

Referring more widely to the ‘son of man’ figure in later Jewish writings, Harper’s Bible Commentary states:

‘This preexistent heavenly figure of Jewish tradition may be the one of whom Jesus speaks in such passages as Matt. 10:23; 16:27–28; Mark 8:38; and 13:26, in which he seems to be referring to some heavenly figure who will come on clouds as the judge of the Last Day.’

See this by Michael Vlach.

2. The ascension?

Calvin was decidedly in favour of this interpretation.  Bolt (The Cross from a Distance: the Atonement in Mark’s Gospel) provides quotations:

‘The great Reformation exegete, John Calvin, in his commentary on Daniel, also joined this stream of interpretation, claiming that these verses are ‘undoubtedly of Christ … He had been endued with heavenly power, and was seated at his Father’s right hand.’ Throughout his exposition, Calvin uses strong language that expresses his conviction: ‘This passage, then, without the slightest doubt, ought to be received of Christ’s ascension, after he had ceased being a mortal man’; 40, 44; ‘This, in my judgement, ought to be explained of Christ’s ascension; for he then commenced his reign, as we see in numberless passages of Scripture’ (cf. Rom. 6:10, John 16:7; 14:28); (p. 42); ‘He now arrives at the Ancient of days, that is, when he ascends to heaven, because his divine majesty was then revealed’ (p. 43); ‘He ascended to heaven, and a dominion was bestowed upon him’ (p. 44).’

A number of older commentators adopt this view:

‘This relates to his ascension, Acts 1:9–11, at which time, though King before, Matt. 2:2, yet now, and not before, he seems to receive his royal investiture for the protection of his church and the curbing of their enemies, which he says he had before, Matt. 28:18; 1 Cor. 15:25; chap. 2:44.’ (Poole)

Charnock writes that this is

‘not to be understood of his coming at the day of judgment, but his coming after his oblation. He comes not here to judge man, but to be judged by his Father; and upon being found to have performed the part of the Son of man, he hath a kingdom both extensive and everlasting bestowed upon him, which should not be destroyed by the subtleties or force of his enemies; a present only worthy of the Son of God. Again, he received not his power at the day of judgment, but upon his resurrection and ascension after his death; but this expresseth the first investiture of this power in him.’ (Works, Vol 5, p55)

John Flavel:

‘This vision of Daniel’s was accomplished in Christ’s ascension, when they, that is the angels, brought him to the Ancient of days, that is to God the Father, who, to express his welcome to Christ, gave him glory and a kingdom. And so it is, and ought to be expounded. The Father received him with open arms, rejoicing exceedingly to see him again in heaven; therefore God is said to “receive him up into glory,” 1 Tim. 3:16. For that which, with respect to Christ, is called ascension, is, with respect to the Father, called assumption. He went up, and the Father received him. Yes, received so as none ever was received before him, or shall be received after him.’ (The Fountain of Life)

Matthew Henry notes that:

‘Some refer this to his incarnation…I think it is rather to be referred to his ascension; when he returned to the Father the eye of his disciples followed him, till a cloud received him out of their sight, Acts 1:9. He made that cloud his chariot, wherein he rode triumphantly to the upper world. He comes swiftly, irresistibly, and comes in state, for he comes with the clouds of heaven.’

Ovey writes that Dan 7:13

‘arguably’ depicts ‘the transition from Jesus’ state of humiliation to his exaltation.’ (New Dictionary of Theology, art. ‘Ascension (and Heavenly Session of Christ)’.

Referring to Mk 14:62, Ian Paul writes,

‘This cannot refer to Jesus’ return to earth (‘second coming’) unless Jesus was deluded about how soon that would happen. But more importantly, it cannot mean this because it is an almost exact quotation from Daniel 7, and refers to Jesus’ (the Son of Man’s) ascending to the throne of God and fulfilling the destiny of Israel. That is why the High Priest considered it blasphemy: in effect, Jesus was crucified because he anticipated his Ascension!’

Commenting on Mt 26:64 – ‘This,’ writes Ian Paul,

‘cannot refer to Jesus’ return to earth (‘second coming’) unless Jesus was deluded about how soon that would happen. But more importantly, it cannot mean this because it is an almost exact quotation from Daniel 7, and refers to Jesus’ (the Son of Man’s) ascending to the throne of God and fulfilling the destiny of Israel. That is why the High Priest considered it blasphemy: in effect, Jesus was crucified because he anticipated his Ascension!’

Ian Paul again:

‘This is associated not with anyone’s coming from heaven to earth, but rather the opposite—the exaltation of the Son of Man as he comes from the earth to the one seated on the heavenly throne. This is language both distinct from, and opposite to, Paul’s use of ‘coming on the clouds’ in 1 Thess 4.17. This would have been very obvious to Paul’s readers, since he uses quite different language for ‘coming’, the word parousia meaning ‘royal presence’.’

Focusing on Lk 21:25-28 (and the parallel accounts in Mt 24:29-35; Mk 13:24-31), Ian Paul notes that this passage is selected as an Advent reading for Year 3 of the Revised Common Lectionary.  There is an assumption that this passage is all about Christ’s Second Coming.

Following G.B. Caird and R.T. France, Paul argues that this passage is actually about the Ascension and the subsequent spread of the gospel.  The key elements in the argument are:-

1. ‘the ‘technical’ language of parousia (used repeatedly by Paul in e.g. 1 Cor 15.23, 1 Thess 2.19) occurs in the second half of Matt 24 (Matt 24.37, 39) but is absent in the first half, except in Matt 24.27 when Jesus says all that is happening is not sign of his coming;
2. ‘English translations confuse this, by using the same wording (‘coming’) to translate both this word and the quite different present participle erchomenos;
3. ‘the language of the ‘coming of the Son of Man’ in Matt 24.30 is a direct allusion to Dan 7.13, which refers to the Son of Man coming from the earth to the throne of the Ancient of Days. Matthew conflates it with a reference to Zech 12.10, which talks of the Spirit being poured out on the House of David, and all the tribes of Israel seeing the one they have pierced—used in reference to Jesus’ crucifixion and then the events of Pentecost;
4. ‘the main stumbling block for the ‘traditional’ reading comes in Matt 24.34–35 – “Amen I say to you: this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.”‘  This seems to demonstrate that the events spoken of would take place within the next 30-40 years.

Paul comments that, in contrast to Matthew and Mark, Luke places these events much more clearly in the context of the destruction of Jerusalem.

Paul cites Mikeal Parsons to the effect that ‘in keeping with the consistent and distinctive emphasis in Luke on promise and fulfilment, this passage with its predictions of difficulties for the followers of Jesus is actually fulfilled in a range of elements of the narrative in Acts.

The implications for preaching from this passage are, according to Paul:-

First, we need to take this passage seriously in its historical context, noting first what it would have meant for Luke’s original audience, before seeking its meaning for us today.

Secondly, we need to note ‘the connections Luke makes between the events of the fall of Jerusalem, Pentecost, and the gentile mission.’

Thirdly, we need to understand that, for Luke, ‘the “end days” have already commenced with Jesus’ Ascension, the fall of Jerusalem, and Pentecost. God’s covenant grace has now been broken open to include gentiles within the “Israel of God”.’

Fourthly, ‘because of all this, the troubles that Jesus’ followers experienced throughout Acts are troubles that we ourselves might well encounter. Like them, we are to ‘hold our heads up’ and not be dismayed, since this Jesus is Lord, and he will return.’

Tim Chester writes:

‘Luke describes the ascension from below. This is the ground level view and we see one ordinary-looking person rise into the clouds. Daniel describes the ascension from above. He shows us what happens on the other side as Jesus moves through the clouds – not into earth’s upper atmosphere, but into heaven.’ (The Ascension)

3. Christ’s entire journey from resurrection, through ascension, to exaltation and return

It may be that the text in Daniel may be applied with sufficient fluidity as to understood in relation to any or all of these events.  The ‘coming’ itself would refer primarily to the ascension, but this itself may be seen as completing what the resurrection began.  The passage in Daniel can readily be understood to refer also to our Lord’s heavenly session (as he exercises his ‘glory, authority and sovereign power’).  Nor should we, under this view, be surprised if the parousia is described in terms of his ‘coming with clouds’, given that, according to Acts 1:11 “This same Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven will come back in the same way you saw him go into heaven” (emphasis added).

Among older commentaries, JFB state:

‘This investiture was at His ascension “with the clouds of heaven” (Acts 1:9; 2:33, 34; Ps. 2:6–9; Matt. 28:18, “Jesus (after His resurrection, and just before His ascension) spake, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth”); which is a pledge of His return “in like manner” “in the clouds” (Acts 1:11; Matt. 26:64), and “with clouds” (Rev. 1:9). The kingdom then was given to Him in title and invisible exercise; at His second coming it shall be in visible administration.’

Bolt’s view is that this passage in Daniel, so far as the references and allusions in Mark’s Gospel are concerned, is fulfilled ‘in the event of Christ’s resurrection, ascension and exaltation.’

Commenting on Mt 26:64, Hendriksen understands Jesus’ words here as spanning an extensive period:

‘Jesus is looking down history’s lane. He sees the miracles of Calvary, the resurrection, the ascension, the coronation at the Father’s right hand (“the right hand of the Power,” that is, “of the Almighty”), Pentecost, the glorious return on the clouds of heaven, the judgment day, all rolled into one, manifesting his power and glory.’

Goldingay’s interpretation probably belongs here:

‘The actual title “the Son of Man” is a literalistic rendering of the phrase in v 13, though such links between OT and NT are more formal than substantial. Yet Christ is indeed the one who was to come in human likeness from heaven, and the one still to come in human likeness on the clouds of heaven to receive a kingdom and to accept the honor of all nations. The rule of God on earth is implemented through one who is himself from heaven. Along with figures such as the prophet and priest, the angel is one of Jesus’ role models: he fulfills a place analogous to each of these… In the view of theologians such as John and Paul, he is so heavenly that he must share God’s own divinity: the similarity of judge and humanlike figure becomes a similarity of Father and Son… Thus the Christ event initiates the reign of God on earth that Dan 7 promises. It brings that unveiling of the mystery of God’s plan for the world (Eph 3:1–12) which is spoken of here as the opening of the books (v 10).’

Conclusion

I incline towards this last, the more ‘fluid’ interpretation.  The New Testament quotations and allusions, which would seem confusing and even contradictory otherwise, then become more understandable.  Among these, it is now one, and then another, aspect of our Lord’s glorification which is to the fore.