38 As [Jesus was teaching in the Temple], he said, ‘Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and to be greeted with respect in the market-places, 39 and to have the best seats in the synagogues and places of honour at banquets! 40 They devour widows’ houses and for the sake of appearance say long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.’
41 He sat down opposite the treasury, and watched the crowd putting money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. 42 A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which are worth a penny. 43 Then he called his disciples and said to them, ‘Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. 44 For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on.’ [Mark 12:38-44, NRSV]
In a narrative context of mounting opposition towards Jesus, Mark inserts the story of the widow’s mite in the Jerusalem Temple. This story is often associated with the law of the gift.
The usual teaching says a poor widow contributes her all into the temple treasury and Jesus praises her action and teaches that her contribution is greater than that of the rich who gave of their abundance.
(1) Of trusting faith
Jesus says by contributing two copper coins to the Temple treasury, the widow has actually put in more than all the others, including the wealthy. In terms of sacrifice, her contribution was a great deal more costly to her than what the others’ cost them. Whereas the others contributed out of their abundance, she gave out of her poverty. The two copper coins represented “everything she had, her whole living” (v.44). By putting in what she needed to live on, she reminds us of the widow of Zarephath. We get it when preachers draw the parallels between the two stories and raise the two widows as great examples of generosity for the parishioners to emulate in rendering financial support for the Church.
Whereas the eye-catching scribes went out of their way to attract attention and praise, this poor, inconspicuous and insignificant widow would have gone completely unnoticed but for Jesus. He watches and he sees everything she and the rich people do when they put money into the treasury. In her self-sacrifice, he sees what others do not see – a model of life in the Kingdom of God. He notices her extraordinary but invisible generosity. He contrasts that generosity with the “self-indulgence and false piety of the scribes and the easy and ostentatious giving of the rich” (Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark, 336). He points that out to his disciples. What is that telling us today?
It tells us in contrast to the ego-driven religious “scribes”, there is a great deal of quiet heroism from ordinary people in our midst. They carry out simple, ordinary deeds for the good of others on a regular basis. These deeds are special, because they come from loving, generous hearts, carried out daily by people with unassuming goodness and generosity of spirit. They live below most people’s radar, unfeatured in any church bulletins. But they are there, in their quiet corner, always overlooked. In “calling his disciples to him” (v.43) and praising the widow’s quiet but profound sacrifice, Jesus called for the close attention of the managers of the Church he was going to leave behind, to the model manifested in an overlooked poor! The Lord challenges us to discover the poor “widows” in our community – those nobodies whose generosity of heart and spirit challenge our comfortable world. Value service, particularly invisible service!
That this story may be read as praise by Jesus is further justified by a Christological hint. When Jesus said the widow has contributed her “whole living” (v.44, RSV), the word in the Greek text is bion which means her life. This takes us beyond a mere reference to what she has to live on, for Jesus was here saying that in absolute trust in God, she has freely surrendered her life. The significance is heightened when we recognise that we are at a critical point in Mark’s Gospel. Jesus is now in the Temple in Jerusalem which he has just cleansed the previous day (11:15-19), drawing great hostility from the religious leaders, including the scribes, for doing so. In Mark’s time-line, the poor widow’s story happened on Tuesday of the Holy Week. Jesus is just about to enter into his passion, at the end of which he will give his life, his all, out of love for God and humanity, “as a ransom for many” (10:45). Is Mark telling us that Jesus has seen something of himself in this widow who literally gave her life out of love for God?
- The woman gave from her heart, and the heart generates one’s faith and inner attitude. In assessing the incalculable magnitude of the poor widow’s contribution, Jesus spotlights the offering of her life. This becomes, in effect, her loving oblation of herself to God, entrusting herself to God’s loving care. It is this total giving of herself to God’s loving mercy that Jesus seems to elevate to visibility for the benefit of the disciples. We may rightly wonder whether Jesus isn’t using the widow to demonstrate to his disciples the unreserved self-oblation that he will enter into shortly.
All this having been said, a regular explanation of praise for the widow misses way too much and actually risks silencing some important teaching of Jesus. The law of the gift is inappropriately applied in the face of a gleaming Temple free of any financial crisis requiring the poor widow to bankrupt herself to help. Furthermore, there was neither promise of divine blessing beforehand, nor actual indication of that blessing after she has made what appears to be a “suicidal” generous donation. Given these glaring negativities, the Markan text warrants critical reflection as to whether, rather than praising the action of the widow in the Temple, Jesus was not actually condemning the Temple for operating a bilking system that impoverished widows and orphans. Is this not rather a great story about the extortion of the poor to privilege the rich and the powerful?
(2) Is It Not Rather a Condemnation of a Bilking System?
It is, as we have said, the keen eyes of Jesus who notices the widow and uses her as an example to the disciples. Whilst he praises her generosity, is it right to say that he also praises her poverty, given his criticisms of the scribes? Clearly not. But how shall we proceed with our analysis for a proper understanding of the story of the widow’s mite?
(a) Context is essential
First off, attention to the literary context is quite indispensable.
In Mark’s account of Jesus’ ministry, controversies started early, and became explicit with the scribes from the opening story of chapter 2 onwards. Conflicts soon followed with the whole array of Jewish religious leaders. As early as 3:6, Pharisees and Herodians began plotting to destroy Jesus. The scribes even went on to accuse him of working with Satan in his powerful work of exorcism (3:20-27). Then the Sadducees challenged him on the resurrection (12:18-27). The day before the story of the widow’s mite, Mark has already narrated the accounts of Jesus’ angry fig-tree cursing and Temple-cleansing incidents, causing the chief priests and the scribes to demand from him an explanation as to the authority by which he did all that. All this leads to a summation, a stock-taking as it were, in the storyline in which Mark has Jesus sums up the first and the greatest commandment – to love God and neighbour constantly and perfectly as the most important and operative principle in the Kingdom of God (12:28-34).
Mark’s narrative sequence then takes us to this story of the poor widow in the Temple. It is essential to recognise the context, literary and social, of this passage. Mark has it positioned between Jesus denouncing the scribes (12:38-40) and predicting the Temple’s destruction (13:1). When Jesus sees the scribes with their flowing robes and endless prayers, he objects to them “devouring the houses of Widows.” So Ched Myers comments:
- The site of scribal prayer is the temple, and the costs of this temple devour the resources of the poor. Jesus, who fiercely opposed such exploitation in the temple action and demanded a new site for prayer, points to the tragic story of the “widow’s mite” by way of illustration. Because of its narrative analysis this interpretation is probably the stronge[st] one… Scribal piety has been debunked as a thin veil for economic opportunism and exploitation. Mark charges them with full responsibility for these abuses, and in perhaps the harshest words in the gospel, announces that they will receive far heavier judgment (cf. 9:42). [Binding the Strong Man, 321].
Given this background, it is to seriously misrepresent Jesus if we only speak of him praising the trust and sacrifice of the poor widow, without giving emphasis to Jesus condemning the massive Temple system for making the poor widow a victim. While the widow’s offering signifies a genuine and generous conduct,
- the story is used by Mark not to illustrate the law of the gift, but as a counterpoint against the scribes whose scheming conducts in effect rob widows and impoverish parents.
Further, the condition of serous poverty the poor widow is in raises questions on how Jesus critically assesses Temple-operation as a whole in relation to the poor. Keeping quiet on the severe criticism Jesus leveled against the hypocrisy of the rich, the scribes, and the Temple treasury, we would be at serious risk of helping to perpetuate a bilking system operated by religious leaders anywhere, especially to the detriment of the impoverished.
This raises a moral issue for the Church today. Rarely, if ever, do we hear a homily or any discussion on this particular Gospel passage that goes further than praise for the widow and her sacrifice, together with a veiled encouragement to emulate her behaviour in church donations. Is that a right thing to do? Are preachers misusing (or even abusing) a teaching of Jesus to fleece the congregation? Is not the use of Church funds another elephant in the room we need to acknowledge and inquire about? No, not necessarily. Preaching at public worship, unlike Bible-teaching in class, serves mainly to help congregants in their spirituality and daily Christian living. For this, themes like the law of the gift and trust in God are important, useful, and legitimate to focus on. However, for a proper understanding of the Lord’s teachings according to each evangelist, a proper biblical study is called for so that, outside of the narrow space-and-time-limitation of the pulpit, the official church may stay honest.
As usual, Mark’s brief account harbours many issues waiting to be unpacked.
- “He sat down opposite the treasury, and watched.”
Throughout his ministry, Jesus has consistently watched and championed human needs over the hardened practices of the synagogue. Now that he is in Jerusalem, he turns his attention to the Temple treasury. And Mark says Jesus “sat down opposite the treasury, and watched the multitude putting money into the treasury”. Sitting opposite the treasury symbolizes that Jesus is opposed to the whole temple atmosphere around money. This opening sentence in Mark 12:41 is a rather scary statement when you think about it.
- The Lord sits right there; and he is watching! He sees things with piercing observation: you have nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.
Jesus sees the Temple operating a corrupt bilking system. Religion has been co-opted to justify the exploitation and marginalization of the Poor by the elite, Temple aristocracy. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus’ kingdom work involves struggles for equity and justice and for the recognition of the marginalized and ostracized as human persons. Here, in conscientising his disciples, Jesus liberates their minds and spotlights for them an understanding:
- oppression and injustices that persist insidiously are perpetuated by systems, structures, and people.
He underlines the need for leaders to be in “communion” with the people in order to avoid further perpetuation of oppressive systems.
The rich parade in public with their large sums. But Jesus is not concerned with them; they are never exploited. In fact, they give to the treasury out of their surplus. And, like the religious elites, the rich take care of themselves; their self-love has replaced love of God and neighbour. Jesus exposes the falsehood. Worse yet, the Temple represents a corrupt system that bankrupts the poor while the rich remain rich.
- It is difficult to see the exploitation of the widow because Temple theology and policy is well established, but the Temple spiritually deceives the poor widow.
Obliging all to support the Temple, its managers have created a personal piety in her to make donations a sign of her sincerity and commitment. By putting in two copper coins, the widow divests herself of all support. Her generosity plays into the devouring greed of the Temple. Those who are supposed to protect her leave her literally penniless. She even cooperates with the exploitation because she does not know better. This is part of the system of oppression: the exploited are so thoroughly co-opted that they do not see what is really happening. They even willingly contribute to it, mistakenly thinking it is “good spirituality”. The oppressed think the oppressors are actually doing them good! Is the house of God to which she goes really benefiting her when contributing to it costs her house or makes her penniless?
Jesus, however, sees clearly that under this system, which only superficially says it does not distinguish rich and poor, the meager resources of the poor widow are easily plundered. The widow being a symbol of the most vulnerable in Israel, God cares for her in a special way, for God is “Father of orphans and protector of widows” (Ps 68:5). God has in fact made justice towards the widow a condition for residing with the people of Israel (Jer 7:6). But the most vulnerable is also a prey for the most rapacious “bloodsuckers” and the Temple-indifference to the poor widow raises the question of the religious leaders’ obedience to God. Recall the Temple-cleansing episode. While the Temple-trade ostensibly serves the pilgrims, Jesus calls the Temple “a den of robbers”! Has the widow freely donated the last of her livelihood (while the rich remain rich) or has a subtle theft occurred? She may not be sharp enough to realize it, but Jesus is watching and taking it all in. He knows what is going on. Temple policy makes the vulnerable more vulnerable, and causes the widow to impoverish herself. Jesus is indignant! Recall Yahweh said to Moses, “I have heard my people cry. I send you.” Jesus’ response to Temple and religious hypocrisy is prophetic denunciation.
Has the situation that so angered Jesus in this story continued to this day? Is the exploitation of Jesus’ followers for the aggrandizement of leaders of the religious community being cleverly packaged by “shepherds” to fleece the “sheep”? Is there spiritual indifference to the silent cries of the Poor? Are some TV evangelists actually vultures preying on the simple folk? Are the wealthy still taking from the poor across society in different ways? To all these bilking systems and more in today’s world, Jesus in the story of the widow’s mite continues to draw his disciples’ attention.
Copyright © Dr. Jeffrey & Angie Goh, March 2025. All rights reserved.
To comment, email jeffangiegoh@gmail.com.
