And having called his disciples to [him] he said to them, Verily I say unto you, This poor widow has cast in more than all who have cast into the treasury
At the temple treasury, Jesus watches the crowd drop in their money, then calls His disciples over. His verdict reverses the obvious sum: two coins worth almost nothing outweigh the offerings of the wealthy.
None of the givers that day knew who was reading them. One writer pictures the crowd filing past the boxes:
How little did these people know whose eye was watching them as they cast in their offerings! How little they thought of the One examining them! His eye could reach the deepest depths of their hearts and read the motives behind what they were doing. Perhaps the showy Pharisee was there, showing off his wealth and making a grand display of his religion. Perhaps the cold, going-through-the-motions worshipper was there too, dropping his usual coin into the treasury with no heart in it. Jesus saw it all, weighed it all, judged it all.
"More than all" is not flattery; it is an accurate total, reached by a different method of counting.
God does not go by the amount given; He judges not by what you give, but by what you keep back for yourself. In this case she kept nothing back — she gave it all. Those who gave out of their plenty kept the greater part for themselves. The test of generosity is not what you give, but what you keep. But when nothing is left, and everything goes into God's treasury, that is the true working of divine love and faith. That is what God values. It expresses not only generous giving, but complete confidence in Him.
Her whole living was two coins that together made a farthing, as the older translation these writers use puts it. The text could have said simply "a farthing" — but the count of two carries the point.
Reader, did you ever notice the form in which she had her living? Why does the Spirit take such care to say "two mites, which make a farthing"? Why not simply say, "She threw in a farthing"? Ah, that would never do. It would not have brought out the real point of beauty, the true touch of wholehearted devotion. If she had had it all in one piece, she would have had to give either all or nothing. Having it in two, she had the option of keeping half for her own living.
Because of this, the familiar expression "the widow's mite" gets her story backwards.
Never were coins so wrongly spoken about as these two mites. Someone asks a rich man with thousands to give to a good cause. He writes a cheque for £5 and says with an easy smile, "Well, here is the widow's mite." Is that so? The widow did not give the one mite, but the two, and that was all she had. The widow's mite would be half the rich man's fortune; the two mites, everything he owned. Still, the Lord's commendation of this poor widow's act is very cheering to those who can spare only a little. The Lord appreciates such wholehearted giving.
Her coins went into a treasury run by corrupt men, and the Lord had just denounced them. One writer faces the awkward result:
Here the Lord denounces the scribes who corrupted the word of God which they claimed to explain. They kept up the form of godliness. They wanted their own glory and other people's money — even the money of widows, whom they got close to by pretending to be devout. So their judgment would be all the more terrible. But God does not forget His own among the hypocrisy of people who only look religious. They may make mistakes. Perhaps the widow's mite helped to pay Judas. But she gave it to the Lord, and her heart, taken up with that mite, did not escape the Lord's eyes or the notice of His love.
She walked away from the treasury with empty hands. The same eye that recorded the gift saw that too.
She was poor. Her total assets came to one farthing. Yet if she was poor in pennies, she was rich in grace. Like the churches in Macedonia, her deep poverty overflowed in the riches of her generosity. She could not give more than two mites; she would not give less, though it left her with nothing. And you may be sure that He who noticed her noble gift saw her empty purse too, and provided for her, as He loved to do.
- Seen — Nobody at the treasury knew who was watching. Jesus saw every gift, weighed it, and judged the motive behind it.
- Weighed — The measure is not what you give but what you keep back. What you hold on to proves how little you gave.
- All — Two coins meant she could have kept half. She kept nothing, and that is why the text records "two mites" rather than one farthing.
- Misnamed — Calling a small cheque "the widow's mite" turns her act upside down. She gave both coins, all she had. Her example cheers those who can spare little, not those sparing themselves.
- Kept — Her gift may have propped up a corrupt system. But she gave it to the Lord. He noticed her heart, saw her empty purse, and provided for her.
for all have cast in of that which they had in abundance, but she of her destitution has cast in all that she had, the whole of her living.
The Lord had just warned about religious leaders who devour widows' houses. Now He sits facing the temple treasury and watches the money go in. Two small coins from a poor widow outweigh every large gift given that day. The reason He gives turns generous giving upside down.
He does not weigh the sum in the box. He weighs what stays behind in the pocket.
God does not go by the amount given. He judges by what you keep back for yourself, not by what you hand in. In her case she kept back nothing — she gave it all. Those who gave out of their plenty kept the greater part for themselves. The test of generosity is not what you give, but what you keep. Keeping much for your own comfort proves how little you really gave. But when nothing is left, when everything goes into God's treasury, you see the true working of Divine love and faith. That is what God values. It expresses not only generous giving, but complete confidence in Him.
Mark notes that her money was in two coins, not one. That small detail carries the point of the story.
Why does the Spirit take such care to say "two mites, which make a farthing"? Why not be content to say, "She threw in a farthing"? Ah! this would never do. It would have missed the real point of exquisite beauty — the true touch of whole-hearted devotion. If her money had been in one piece, she would have had to give all or nothing. Because it was in two, she could have kept half to live on. Most of us would call it remarkable devotion to give the Lord's cause half of all we had in the world. But this poor widow had a whole heart for God.
The popular phrase "the widow's mite" therefore gets her story backwards.
The widow did not contribute her mite; she gave both her mites — all that she had. She handed over all she had to live on for the service of God. That whole-hearted, self-denying devotion is what drew the Lord's praise and approval.
The praise for the widow comes straight after a warning.
First comes the warning against the showy scribes, who talked well but lived badly. Then comes the Lord's praise for the poor widow, whose self-denying offering stood against the greed of the scribes and Pharisees.
Her coins went into hands that were far from clean. That did not spoil the gift.
God does not forget His own in the middle of all this hypocrisy from people who only seem religious. They may make mistakes. The widow's mite may even have helped to pay Judas. But she gave it to the Lord, and her heart, taken up with that little coin, did not escape the Lord's eyes or the notice of His love. The rich had given much, but the widow offered herself as a living sacrifice to the Lord; she gave everything she owned. She might have used it better. But she gave her mite to the Lord from the bottom of her heart, and He accepted it. We should think about this.
What she did with her living matched what He was doing with His life.
It is fairly easy to give tens, hundreds and thousands out of our savings. It is hard to deny ourselves a single luxury or comfort, let alone something we really need. But she gave all her living to the house of her God. This is what gave her a spirit so close to the blessed Lord's own. He could say, "Zeal for Your house has consumed Me." She could say, "Zeal for Your house has consumed my living." So she was very near to Him.
Giving everything left her with nothing — and with One who had seen it all.
By throwing in all she had to live on, she had reached the extreme of destitution and left herself in absolute poverty. She was a widow and she was poor, yet she loved the interests of the Lord and the honour of His house. With a faith and devotion that put others to shame, she threw her two mites into His treasury. That was her "all." But One saw what she had done, and fully valued such unusual self-denial. Did she suffer? Did she lose? Was her Lord to be her debtor? No. The blessed hand that recorded her hidden act of devotion for us to copy would enrich her a hundredfold in this present life, and answer her faith in His own generous way.
- Measure — The Lord counts what you keep back, not what you drop in. The test of giving is what you have left.
- Choice — She had two coins, so she could have kept half. The second coin proves she held nothing back.
- Contrast — Her self-denial stands against the scribes, whose religion emptied widows' houses.
- Channel — The hands that took her coins were not clean, yet she gave the gift to the Lord and He accepted it.
- Nearness — Giving all she had put her in the same spirit as the One whose zeal for God's house consumed Him. And He who saw her empty purse would not stay her debtor.