Every once in a while, we come across someone who offers a different interpretation to a familiar passage of Scripture. This happened a few weeks ago during our Sunday night study, and several people asked me what I thought of the interpretation that was given. I told them that I would study it out and try to provide a thorough answer, so here goes. In Mark 12:41-44 we read the following account:
Now Jesus sat opposite the treasury and saw how the people put money into the treasury. And many who were rich put in much. Then one poor widow came and threw in two mites, which make a quadrans. So He called His disciples to Himself and said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that this poor woman has put in more than all those who have given to the treasury; for they all put in out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all that she had, her whole livelihood.”
This story, often referred to simply as “the widow’s mites,” is well known and generally understood as an example of sacrificial giving. All of the people who asked me about it said they had been taught to give like the widow in this passage, and my own reading on the subject confirmed that this appears to be the most common interpretation.
For example, William Hendriksen, the primary contributor to the excellent New Testament Commentary series writes of the widow, “Shall we say that she might at least have kept one of these small, thin copper coins for herself? But no, she gave both. In fact, she, knowing that God would not fail her, sacrificed everything.” And he goes on just a few sentences later: “The point to be emphasized is that this poor widow gave most generously, spontaneously. She gave ‘in faith.’ It is for this reason that Jesus praises her so lavishly.” And then Hendriksen offers a series of lessons to be taken from this passage, the first being, “It is not the amount of the gift that matters most, but the heart (attitude, purpose) of the giver.” And this interpretation is, of course, mirrored in Hendriksen’s volume on the parallel account in the Gospel According to Luke. Clearly, Dr. Hendriksen believed that this widow’s example was to be commended and followed by faithful believers in the church.
In commenting on this passage, J. C. Ryle says that the widow’s gift was “more in the sight of him who looks not merely at the amount given, but at the ability of the giver – not merely at the quantity contributed, but at the motive and the heart of the contributor.” He then offers several paragraphs of applications from this text including the following comments: “The stinginess of professing Christians in all matters which concern God and religion is one of the crying sins of the day, and one of the worst signs of the times. The givers to Christ’s cause are but a small section of the visible church. Not one baptized person in twenty, probably, knows anything of being ‘rich towards God’ (Luke 12:21). The vast majority spend pounds on themselves, and give not even a pence to Christ.” Ryle calls out those who speak of “giving their mite” to a cause, “when they probably contribute some trifling sum which they do not miss, and which bears not the most remote proportion to the widow’s scale of liberality. People contribute ‘their mite’ when they contribute half their daily income, and not till then.” Clearly, Bishop Ryle believed that this account was included in Mark’s record to teach us the importance of sacrificial giving.
I’ll give just one more example of this overwhelmingly common interpretation. Alfred Edersheim writes, in his book The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, that Jesus, having observed her gift “spake not to her words of encouragement, for she walked by faith; He offered not promise of return, for her reward was in heaven. She knew not that any had seen it – for the knowledge of eyes turned on her, even His, would have flushed with shame the pure cheek of her love; and any word, conscious notice, or promise would have marred and turned aside the rising incense of her sacrifice. But to all time has it remained in the Church, like the perfume of Mary’s alabaster that filled the house, this deed of self-denying sacrifice.” And Edersheim offers this application in the next paragraph: “Would that to all time its lesson had been cherished, not theoretically, but practically, by the Church! How much richer would have been her ‘treasury’: twice blessed in gift and givers.” And many more examples could be given of pastors and commentators who interpret the widow’s gift as a blessed example of sacrificial love and trust in the Lord.
But I am compelled to ask if Hendriksen and Edersheim are right to say that the widow “gave in faith,” when there is no mention in the Scriptures of the woman’s faith. And I cannot help but wonder if it is accurate to say, as Hendriksen does, that Jesus praised her lavishly. Yes, he commented on the greater proportionality of her gift compared to those of wealthy donors, but I’m not sure it rises to the level of “lavish praise.” And where Ryle speaks of Christ as the one who looks upon the motive and heart of the giver rather than the amount of the gift, the Gospel account makes no mention of her motivation or intent. In fact, Jesus’ observation dealt entirely with that which was external and obvious – the amount given and the respective socio-economic class of the giver. So while there seems to be a general consensus about the interpretation of this passage of Scripture, I am left with some questions that do not seem to be answered by the popular take. We’ll look at those questions and see if there are answers in the text of Scripture next time.