Of Mites and Men

By: David P. Gray

This article originally appeared at https://medium.com/@davidpgray/of-mites-men-8946c81c9849 and has been reprinted here by permission.

If you are a regular church attender you are probably very familiar with the story of the widow offering up her two mites in the temple treasury. As a pastor for many years, this was kind of a “go-to” story to inspire giving among the congregation.

“And He sat down opposite the treasury, and began observing how the people were putting money into the treasury; and many rich people were putting in large sums. A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which amount to a cent. Calling His disciples to Him, He said to them, “Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the contributors to the treasury; for they all put in out of their surplus, but she, out of her poverty, put in all she owned, all she had to live on” (Mark 12:41–44).

Many preachers (self included) have used this passage, and the parallel passage in Luke 20, to advocate sacrificial giving or faith-filled giving, highlighting that this woman must have had a great level of faith to give so much in the offering even though she had so little. Indeed, some have even taught us that this woman gives us an example of what they call, “giving out of need”, or “giving out of lack.” I have heard it said many times from pulpits that the Biblical way to handle need, lack, or debt is to “give your way out.” The idea being that when you continue to give to the church even when, or rather - especially when, you yourself are in need, God will honor your faith and meet that need.

Simultaneously, the “rich people” in the story are typically viewed with some level of disdain. It seems to many that even though they apparently gave “large sums,” their giving is viewed with suspicion and therefore is deemed minimal or lackluster at best.

But, let’s read the passage a little more closely.

Does Jesus actually praise or commend her for “faith-filled” or “sacrificial” giving? When you read it closely you realize — No, He does not. Does He berate, chastise or criticize those who gave out of their abundance? No, He does not. We assume both of these things merely because Jesus took note of them and mentioned them to His disciples. Therefore, we often think He must be commending her actions and her faith while simultaneously criticizing the rich, right? But, He actually does no such thing.

This is where preachers import their own ideas into the story. They often assume it is some great act of desperate-level-faith that motivated this poor woman and that it was her faith that made it noteworthy to Jesus. Many have understood His statement that “she gave more than them all” as a form of high praise. But, both of these assertions are assumptions. It is more likely that Jesus was merely describing what He saw. She gave more than all of them, in principle, because she gave all that she had. But, make no mistake, He does not commend or praise her for this. He merely states it as a fact.

In this instance it is important to notice what Jesus does NOT say. He does not say, “look at how great her faith is,” like He did with the Roman Centurion who came to Jesus on his servant’s behalf (Matt 8:10); or the woman with the issue of blood who pressed through the crowd (Mark 5:34). Indeed, He makes no mention of her faith whatsoever. Rather, when the passage is read at face value we see that Jesus is merely describing what He sees. He actually adds no commentary at all. He simply says, “she gave all she had” and “they gave out of their abundance.” Furthermore, neither Mark nor Luke bother telling us her motive.

We have to ask, then, why would Jesus take note of the poor widow’s offering? We err if we simply turn to conjecture to answer that question. Rather, it is imperative that we pay attention to the context within which Jesus takes note of this woman, for it is the context that gives us a clue.

We should keep in mind that the four gospels are not mere recollections of Jesus’ life and teachings haphazardly strewn together. The writers are not simply jumping from one story to the next as they remember them. Nor are they attempting to chronicle the life of Jesus from beginning to end. Neither are they attempting to give an exhaustive account of all of His ministry. These types of historical accounts would be somewhat foreign to their understanding and to their purpose. Rather, each gospel writer had a specific audience in mind and a specific agenda for that audience. It was this criteria that drove what they included in, or left out of, their respective gospel accounts.

It is here that our modern Bibles do us a great disservice — in two regards. Time for a brief history lesson: the chapter divisions of our modern Bibles were added somewhere in the mid 1300’s and the verse divisions in the mid-1500’s. We would do well to remember that these divisions are not inspired by the Holy Spirit. They were added as a way to help reader’s locate stories and passages more quickly and easily. Though the motive was admirable, sometimes the divisions take away from the story being told, and the purpose of the inclusion of the story in the scriptures. For some reason, the Archbishop who instituted the chapter divisions felt that a chapter division right in the middle of this story in both Mark’s and Luke’s gospels made sense (where none existed for over 1300 years). This choice has inadvertently influenced how many have understood the passages.

Additionally, many of our modern Bibles have gone a step further and have added titles or headings at various places within the chapters, grouping even smaller passages together. These added titles and subdivisions are interpretive choices. As a result, the Bible I most commonly use has the story of the Widow’s gift to the temple treasury completely isolated from its context, both what happened before and what is said after. However, we make a mistake when we read these three sections independently of one another.

So, let’s look at the context:

In both gospels we see that Jesus had just warned the disciples (within the hearing of everyone) to “beware of the scribes” (Luke 20:46). Why would He issue that warning? He gives a list of reasons, most of which seem to center on the scribes desire for notoriety, for special privilege, and for public honor. Right in the middle of this indictment He adds a statement that I think is often overlooked. He says of the scribes that they “devour widow’s houses” (Luke 20:47). However, He offers no explanation as to how or when they did such things.

It is in this context that we find the story of the poor widow. Luke 21 opens with “And He looked up” (Luke 21:1). In other words, Jesus had not moved. He was in precisely the same location as He was when condemning the Scribes (which now appears in the previous chapter). What comes next is a continuation of the same conversation as His indictment against them. He condemns the scribes as “devouring widow’s houses,” then looks up and sees this “poor widow” giving into the temple treasury. Thus, “attention shifts from the scribe’s victimization of widows to a woman who is likely one of their victims.” In other words, He had just spoken about how the religious leaders “devour widow’s houses,” He then looks up and, what do you know — here is a widow right here, giving in the temple treasury. It’s as if Jesus looked up and said, “See what I mean?!” Since Jesus has just roundly denounced those who deprive widows of their means of support, it seems hardly likely that He is here represented as happy to see a widow do this to herself by giving her all to the temple.¹

Let’s dig a little deeper. Being 2000-plus years removed, it’s easy to sort of “spiritualize” this story. We read, “she gave all that she had” and often think, “how nice.” But, we should wrestle with what it means for her to give “all that she had to live on.” The gospel writers are not concerned about how Jesus knew this nor what her motivation was. They are only concerned to note that it was “all she had left,” thus illustrating her true condition. In the West our government has all sorts of measures and programs in place to help the less fortunate so, it might be hard for us to imagine the depth of her dire circumstances. But here “this meant she would not be able to eat.”² It quite literally means, she gave up the cost of her next meal, she had nothing left. Nothing to eat. Nothing to live on. Nothing to sustain her needs. And, it is likely she had no one to support her. In other words, she didn’t just “give sacrificially;” she gave all she had left. She gave her livelihood. She gave … everything.

One translation captures the essence of the meaning well: “She put everything that she had into the box. That was all the money that she needed to live” (Easy English Bible).

For further context, we should keep in mind that there is not a single command in the Torah (that I am aware of) that anyone should give “all that they have to live on” to the temple, or anything else for that matter. Not one. In fact, what we find in Torah is just the opposite. As just one example, in Isaiah’s scathing rebuke against Israel he writes:

“To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me?” Says the LORD. “I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams And the fat of fed cattle. I do not delight in the blood of bulls, Or of lambs or goats…. Learn to do good; Seek justice, Rebuke the oppressor; Defend the fatherless, Plead for the widow” (Is 1:11,17).

Additionally, Jesus emphatically rejected what is known as the “Corban rule.” “Corban” is a Hebrew word meaning “gift” (as described in Mark 7:11), or in this context, “sacred gift.” The Rabbi’s allowed that “if a man refused to honor his parents with his money or goods to support them, and would utter the word “Corban,” … he would be excused from his obligation to his parents and be accepted by the Lord with his offering.”³ This was another instance in which Jesus had given a scalding rebuke to the Scribes and Pharisees for teaching people that giving to God (i.e. the religious system) what should’ve been used to care for their families (i.e. parents) was godly and honorable. As a result, Jesus proclaims that they have “invalidated the word of God” and He pronounces that they are “hypocrites.” He declares that even though they were supposedly representing God to the people, “their hearts are far from [Him], and that “their worship is a farce” (Mark 7:9–13; Matt 15:1–9). Strong words!

With these in mind, it might be said that caring for others, especially family, supersedes temple building because it is the essence of true worship —at least according to the prophets. Later, Jesus reiterates this idea when He teaches what the judgment of the nations upon His return will look like. He says it consists of: feeding the hungry, welcoming strangers, clothing the naked, caring for the sick, and visiting the prisoner among the Lord’s family (Matt 25:31–46).

These indictments against the religious leaders are the backdrop and the set-up for this encounter at the temple.

Also of note: there is no indication that anyone else was giving “all that they had to live on” that day. So, with no command from Torah, nary an example from scripture, and no one else doing it, we have to ask, why would this poor widow woman feel compelled to give everything she had to live on?Though her motive seems to be pure and her giving with good intentions, we should ask, what would motivate her to take such extreme measures and do such a thing?

Contextually, it seems clear that it must have been due to the teaching or manipulation of the scribes. It seems that “the teachers of the law loved the benefits associated with their position, and they sometimes cheated the poor in order to get even more benefits.”⁴ Indeed, “the religious system at the temple was thoroughly corrupt. It was literally devouring widow’s houses.”⁵

In other words, this story is not given to praise the widow (the usual interpretation), but as a lament that she was led to use her money in this way. “This woman was desperately poor, and more fit to be a recipient of charity than a donor.”⁶

This situation gets worse when we read further into the story. It seems as if no one really paid much attention to what Jesus said concerning this poor widow because those who were with Him immediately started talking about how wonderful the Temple was (Mark 13:1; Luke 21:5). Apparently unmoved by Jesus’ words, the crowd began to discuss the beauty of the temple stones and the gifts with which it was adorned.

The temple treasury in which the poor widow gave “all that she had” was used to maintain and support all the functions of the temple itself. So, it makes sense that after observing all the people giving into the temple treasury that a discussion about the beauty of the temple itself would ensue. However, Jesus didn’t seem to agree with their assessment, nor was He in awe of what was before Him. Instead, He prophesied that “Not one stone will be left upon another which will not be torn down” (Mark 13:2; Luke 21:6).

In other words, not only was this poor widow being defrauded of her life’s support but, it was all being given toward something that wasn’t even going to matter in the not-too-distant future. Jesus surely would have regarded the widow’s need as superseding the temple’s, especially because the temple was soon to be destroyed. The end result of her so-called “sacrificial giving” for the temple was that it was all coming to nothing.

Furthermore, when the story of this poor widow is understood in its proper context, it more closely aligns with the giving advocated in other New Testament passages. For example, in Paul’s second letter to the Corinthian believers he writes:

“The gift is acceptable according to what one has, not according to what one does not have. Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, as it is written: ‘The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little.’ … Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Cor. 8:12–15, 9:7 NIV).

So, it seems that rather than being an indictment, what Jesus observed the “rich” giving in the temple that day aligns perfectly with Paul’s instructions to the Corinthian church (though the purpose is different). More importantly, what the poor widow gave directly contradicts Paul’s teaching in that passage. Indeed, none of the writers of the New Testament advocate “giving out of lack,” “giving your way out of debt,” “giving all that you have,” nor anything of the like.

For years the story of the poor widow giving “all that she had” has been misunderstood and subsequently abused to coerce “sacrificial giving” in churches, and for churches. But, we must be careful not to infer that Jesus was commending the widow as an example to be followed. If He was, then we should ask ourselves, “Does Jesus really want us to give all our livelihood? Should we be going into debt in order to maximize our giving to the church? Or should we neglect to pay our bills or buy food for our children so that we can give extra to the Lord’s work? An even more fundamental question than those is whether this account is intended to teach anything about our giving at all?”⁷

It is true that this poor widow is, indeed, an example. But, she is not an example of faith-filled giving. Rather, she is an example of the abuses of the religious leaders. The widow’s all-in giving actually demonstrates the mistreatment of the prominent religious leaders who have taken advantage of the vulnerable. In light of this, when we teach people that their faith is measured by how sacrificially they give, especially toward maintaining a religious structure and institution over and above the care of the people themselves, we come dangerously close to becoming the very thing Jesus was illustrating and condemning in this story. This is particularly true when it comes to inadvertently coercing the less fortunate and vulnerable to give up what they should more appropriately used to care for their families. When we teach people to “give out of their lack,” we not only contradict scripture, we have become very much like the scribes and Pharisees Jesus rebukes.

As one commentator noted, “The widow’s suicidal gift is awe-inspiring, … but it is not to be encouraged.”⁸

References:

1. Westminster Bible Companion — Mark, Douglas R. A. Hare, pg. 165.

2. MacArthur’s commentary on Mark 12:44, MacArthur Study Bible.

3. Brethren New Testament Commentary on Mark 7:11.

4. Life Application Bible Commentary, pg. 467.

5. MacArthur’s Commentary on Mark 12:44, MacArthur Study Bible.

6. MacArthur’s Commentary on Luke 21:2, MacArthur Study Bible.

7. “A Fresh Look at the Widow’s Mites, Part 2,” Emmanuel Baptist Church blog, Nov 21, 2018. https://ebcelkhorn.com/a-fresh-look-at-the-widows-mites-part-2/

8. Westminster Bible Companion — Mark, Douglas R. A. Hare, pg. 165.