The Widow's Mite: A Misunderstood Story with a Shocking Lesson

PDF

Well, I invite you to turn with me again to, to Mark's gospel to the end of the twelfth chapter where we find ourselves tonight with a very familiar story, but a story with a, a very misunderstood meaning and really a shocking lesson. By the time we're done, I think you'll see that. I was surprised this week to read about a quote from 1949. It was that year, and a well-known and popular science fiction author was speaking in New Jersey at a convention for science fiction writers. This is what he said in his speech, "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."

That was 1949. The man who said that was L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. In fact, the next year in May of 1950, he authored a book entitled "Dianetics: A Modern Science of Mental Health" which of course has become the sort of entry level book for those coming into the Church of Scientology. The following year in 1951, he published his first book on Scientology. And in 1954, just four years after, or five years rather after that famous quote while he was still a science fiction writer, the Church of Scientology was incorporated, and he made his million dollars and more.

Sadly, as I thought about that quote and as I thought about the false religion of Scientology, I was reminded of the fact that there are many who are technically not a false religion but who come under the umbrella of Christianity, but who have been equally motivated by their greed to get involved in ministry. If you doubt that, we have several of them here in our own area in the DFW metroplex who've made millions of dollars and have multimillion dollar homes and private jets that go all around the country. In fact, on my ride home down Whites Chapel, I pass a 66-acre ranch that belongs to some of them.

What makes the whole thing so sad to me is that often the wealth of those who are involved in quasi Christian ministry is built on the backs of those who can least afford it – the poor, the disadvantaged, the disenfranchised, those who have no resources but who, who believe the lie, desperate to think that if they will give their resources, then maybe God will do exactly what He's done for that health, wealth and prosperity teacher, and He'll be generous with them in return. Obviously, both teacher and pupil are sinning against God in that process, but you can see, and you can understand the heart of God toward those who take advantage of the poor, who take advantage of religion to affect the most disenfranchised.

Tragically, the issue of false religion (taking advantage of the poor) was alive and well in first century Palestine as well. And in the passage that we come to tonight, our Lord addresses it although not apparently on the surface. Let me read it for you, very familiar passage. Mark 12 beginning in verse 41,

And … [Jesus] 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 has 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."

Now, I want us to begin tonight by looking at what I would call the traditional interpretation of this passage. If you grew up in the church, you have heard at least one sermon on this passage, and perhaps you've heard many. And if you have, you've heard it explained something like this:

This passage is a contrast. It's a contrast between the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees that Jesus has just pronounced all those woes against and the real and genuine devotion of this poor widow. She demonstrated her genuine heart of love for God by her willingness to sacrifice everything for Him as opposed to the wealthy who yes, gave large amounts of money, but had no heart or weren't truly generous in the way that she was. They gave their large gifts, but how much they have left demonstrated where their hearts truly were.

We could summarize the traditional interpretation this way: "Jesus is commending this poor widow's devotion to God, her spirit of sacrifice and her generous gift. And you and I should do the same."

Obviously, there is truth to that statement. God does expect us to be devoted to Him. He does expect us to manifest a spirit of sacrifice. He does expect us to give cheerfully but that's not, I don't believe, what this passage is teaching. In fact, this interpretation really only has one great argument in its favor, and that is it has historically been the primary interpretation of this passage. I want to begin there. It has historically been the primary interpretation of this passage. In fact, in the interest of complete disclosure, it has been the almost exclusive interpretation of this passage. For example, John Calvin: "The Lord encourages the poor who appear to lack the means of doing well not to doubt that they testify to their enthusiasm for Him even with a slender contribution." In other words, if you have only a little, God still appreciates your generosity.

Now when we were working our way through how to study the Bible this summer, I told you that when you came to an interpretation of a passage, you should check your interpretation by comparing it against commentaries and other Christian resources, and to be extremely careful if you found that your interpretation of a passage is outside the mainstream of Christian thought.

Obviously, our interpretation should never be contrary to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith, those doctrines that are considered part of the faith once for all delivered to the saints – the deity of Christ, justification by faith alone, "sola Scriptura" and so forth. And even on less important issues, there should still be very strong and compelling reasons to arrive at a different interpretation than the historic interpretation of a passage.

Why is that? Well, because two centuries of believers all with the Word of God and all with the Holy Spirit to guide them usually enables them to arrive at a correct understanding of Scripture. So, we need to be extremely cautious, and I think you will see that I am. Rarely do I come to any interpretation that's outside what has been the historic Christian thought on a passage – very rarely. Tonight will be one of those very rare occasions.

So, although we should be extremely cautious, at the same time we have to remember that the Scripture is infallible, but human interpretations are not. So, when we come to a different interpretation than the predominant one, we must get there by asking this key question: what does the Bible say? Taking into consideration the context of the passage, the teaching of the rest of Scripture, what is it reasonable to conclude the Spirit intended this passage to teach? You could put it this way: are there good reasons to question the traditional interpretation? What about the passage before us tonight? Are there good reasons to consider a different meaning? In fact, there are a number of very troubling questions about the way this passage is normally interpreted and taught.

So, before we consider what I think this passage very well means, I want to first consider some troubling questions. What are the reasons that we should seriously question the traditional interpretation of this passage? Let me give you several.

First of all, in neither of the New Testament accounts (this by the way, this account is in both Mark's gospel and Luke's gospel; in neither of the New Testament accounts) does Jesus directly commend the actions of this woman. Read both Mark's account and Luke's account, and notice what Jesus says and what He doesn't say. He does not say that she has done a good thing as He does, for example, with the woman who broke the alabaster vessel and anointed Him with oil. Nor does He command His disciples to do the same thing. Now okay, that fact is alone not conclusive because there are other passages in which Jesus takes (this) a more low-key approach, but you have to consider that as an issue, particularly when you look at the other ones.

Secondly, another troubling issue is the immediate context both before the passage and after the passage doesn't fit the traditional view. The passage that comes before this story in both Mark and Luke is Jesus' pronouncement of judgment on the leadership who ran the temple and on what they did and how they abused the people. In addition, in both cases the following context (in both Mark and Luke, the following context) is Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the temple. Ordinarily then, the paragraph that comes between would somehow be related to its context.

A third troubling issue is that in both Mark and Luke the closest reference to widows comes immediately before this paragraph and is exactly the same. You can see it in Mark 12. You can see it in Luke 20. Look at Mark 12. Look at the verse that comes before the story of the widow's mite. He is in the middle of castigating the scribes and Pharisees, and He says in verse 40 (and this is the same in Luke's gospel as well): "… they devour widows' houses.…" Immediately on the heels of that reference, you have the story of the widow. And again, the same thing is true in Luke's gospel. In fact, the word "widow" occurs very infrequently in the gospels. And it's very unusual then to have these two specific stories, related but unrelated, so close together about widows. There's every reason to believe there's some connection between the two.

A fourth troubling question is that Scripture never commands anyone to give away all he has to live on; never commands. For example, in 1 Corinthians 16 as Paul lays out the standard for giving (in New) in the New Testament world, he says, "On the first day of every week each of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper…." You give in accordance with your ability to give; as God has prospered you. That has always been the standard. If you go back to the Old Testament, there was a tithe – it was a tax to keep the system running, it was the equivalent of their tax. New Testament believers are not commanded to tithe, although that's a different story and a different message for a different time. But there were (in addition to the taxation in the Old Testament), there were freewill offerings which were exactly equivalent to what we are commanded to do. You determine before the Lord based on how He has prospered you what you will give, but nowhere does it command us to give away all that we have to live on.

In fact, in Second Corinthians (and I won't take you there because we're going to go there in a few minutes), but in 2 Corinthians 8::12, Paul talks about the fact that if you have a willingness to give but you don't have the ability, God takes that willingness (as the) as if you had given. He understands that there will be times when we don't have that ability, but what matters is the willingness to do so.

There's another troubling issue and that is Scripture demands that widows be cared for and supported by God's people and their leaders – that they never run out of resources because they're provided for. You can see this negatively; in fact, let's go back to the Old Testament law. Look at Exodus with me, Exodus 22. And there are, I'm not gonna go through all of these; I just want to show you a couple. Exodus 22, look at verse 22. Verse 21 is context,

"You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. If you afflict him at all, and if he does cry out to Me, I will surely hear his cry; and My anger will be kindled, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless."

Wow. God takes this issue very seriously. You don't take advantage of those who are in a helpless situation. The rest of the law made provision for widows to be cared for. Corners of the field were to be protected for those who didn't have any resources to come in and gather. God looked out for them in a variety of ways. They were to be cared for and supported. Job defends his innocence by talking about the fact that he had never turned a widow away. He had never refused to meet the needs of a person who was truly in need.

There're also the positive commands. Look at Deuteronomy 10. Deuteronomy 10:17,

For the Lord your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe. He executes justice for the orphan and the widow and shows His love for the alien by giving him food and clothing; so show your love for the alien [and for those who are disadvantaged as well].... [We're commanded to do it because God does it.]

You see it throughout the Old Testament. You also see it in the New Testament. You remember in the early church in Acts 6, one of the issues that quickly came to the forefront in that newly founded church was that some of the widows weren't being adequately cared for. And the apostles appointed spiritual men to oversee the distribution of food to the widows to make sure they were cared for. In 1 Timothy 5, that's commanded as well, and we'll come back to that passage. And of course, James 1:27 says that caring for those who are without is an expression of true religion and undefiled. So, Scripture commands that.

Another troubling issue that confronts me as I look at this passage is that God personally cares for widows. God makes this a priority in His own self-revelation. For example, Psalm 68:5 – "… [God is] a father of the fatherless and a judge for the widows...." He is their protector. He's the One who cares for them. In Psalm 146:9: "The Lord protects the strangers; He supports the fatherless and the widow..." In Proverbs 15:25, "The Lord will tear down the house of the proud, but He will establish the boundary of the widow." God becomes very personally involved in this issue. And you remember the passage we read just a moment ago that (when) if Israel were to do otherwise – if they were to abuse and take advantage of widows and orphans – God would make (their children, ) their offspring widows and orphans.

One last problem I have with the traditional interpretation is that God promises to bring severe judgment on those who take advantage of widows. We already saw the one passage, but I want, I want you to see a couple more. Turn to Isaiah, Isaiah 10. And this, this context will come back when we get to the interpretation of the passage in Mark 12. Isaiah 10:1. God's going to bring Assyria against His people, against Israel, the ten northern tribes, and here's why,

Woe to those who enact evil statutes And to those who constantly record unjust decisions, So as to deprive the needy of justice And rob the poor of My people of their rights, So that widows may be their spoil And that they may plunder the orphans. [Here the people of Israel were taking advantage of widows and orphans.] Now what will you do in the day of punishment, And in the devastation which will come from afar? To whom will you flee for help? And where will you leave your wealth? Nothing remains but to crouch among the captives Or fall among the slain. In spite of all this, His anger does not turn away And His hand is still stretched out.

God says, 'Part of the reason I am bringing (and this was back in 722 B.C.; God said I'm going to bring) the Assyrians against the ten northern tribes of Israel.' Part of the reason was because of their abuse of widows.

Look at Jeremiah, Jeremiah 22:3. Here God is warning through Jeremiah of the southern kingdom's fall, of Jerusalem's fall. And notice the issue here. Verse 1,

Thus says the LORD, "Go down to the house of the king of Judah, and there speak this word and say, 'Hear the word of the LORD, O king of Judah, who sits on David's throne, you and your servants and your people who enter these gates. Thus says the LORD, "Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. Also do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place. For if you men will indeed perform this thing, then kings will enter the gates of this house, sitting in David's place on his throne, riding in chariots and on horses, even the king himself and his servants and his people. [In other words, "Listen. If you'll repent, if you will turn from the sins I'm enumerating, then you'll be spared."] But (verse 5) if you will not obey these words, I swear by Myself," declares the LORD, 'that this house will become a desolation."'"

Again, part of the reason for the, the eventual destruction at Babylon's hand of the southern kingdom of Jerusalem had to do with their abuse of the helpless, including widows. And this theme comes up again and again.

Now for me, those are seven good reasons that raise serious questions about the traditional interpretation of this passage. So, if this story is not about sacrificial giving, what is it about? And why do Mark and Luke include it? We've seen the traditional interpretation. We've seen some troubling questions. I want to take you to an alternate interpretation, and let's walk through the passage itself. Until the last few weeks as I have really worked through this passage, I've never preached a message on this text. I've never studied it in depth for myself before. But I will tell you that I've always been troubled by the traditional interpretation of this passage for the reasons, some of the reasons that I just shared with you and for others that have become more apparent as I've wrestled with it.

The first time I heard a more satisfying approach to this passage was a couple of years ago when I heard a message by my mentor, John Macarthur, on Luke's account of this story. But you need to know that tonight (what I'm going to share with you) I am not parroting his message although (there would) it would probably be a better message if I did. But in fact, the, the first and last time I heard his take on this passage was several years ago. I heard the message once several years ago. And to keep from being unduly influenced by one person's view, even a person whom I deeply respect, I decided not to relisten to his message in preparation for my sermon tonight. I wanted this text, its context, and the rest of the teaching of Scripture to lead me to a conclusion. And I trust to at least raise serious questions in your own mind about what our Lord was teaching in this passage. So, let's work our way through it together.

Start at verse 41, "And He sat down opposite the treasury, and began observing how the people were putting money into the treasury...." Now Jesus at this point is at the temple. Here is the temple mount. I showed you this recently – that massive, thirty-five-acre construction project that Herod the Great built which hundreds of thousands of people could gather. In the center of that great temple mount was the temple compound proper. You see it with that massive building standing there in the middle. The front of that building was fifty yards wide by fifty yards high – huge structure. Here's a close-up of that center structure – the, the temple itself there you see with the gold face.

And then the red circle that I've indicated there is the area of the temple called the court of the women. This was as far as Jewish women could go. The gate just beyond that was the Nicanor Gate; through that Jewish men could go and priests could go. But the women could only go to this courtyard. It's where the candelabra were that we talked about a couple of weeks ago. It's also where the money was given. Not counting the colonnades (you see those colonnaded areas around that court, the court of the women – not counting that colonnaded area), the open area alone the archaeologists and scholars estimate would have accommodated some fifteen thousand worshippers.

It was in this court that gifts to the temple and the nation were received. Along, all along the colonnaded area that you see there (you see that column portico) all along that on each side there were thirteen trumpet-shaped brass boxes or chests. Specifically, they were in the shape of the shofar which perhaps you've seen, the ram's horn that's still blown at special occasions by the Jewish people. The smaller, tapered end pointed up for obvious reasons in order to prevent anyone reaching down and getting some of the money that was at the bottom end, the large end of the shofar. Each of those trumpets (thirteen of them, each trumpet) bore an inscription that indicated where the gift that was placed in that particular box would go, how it would be used.

The Jewish Mishnah tells us that the boxes were marked like this. There were two for the temple tax, one if you were up to date, one if you were past due (see, the IRS is nothing new). There was one for bird offerings (one for, you didn't put the birds in there; you put the money in there – four, four, there were four of them, or excuse me). There was another one for young birds for whole offerings. There was one for wood, for incense, for gold for the mercy seat (and we're not sure exactly what that meant). But then there were six of them that were identified for freewill offerings. That's what the Mishnah says. Six of the thirteen were marked "freewill offerings". So, understand that charitable donations for the poor were made separately from this. All the money deposited in these boxes was for the temple, its service, its priests, its leaders.

Remember, it's Passover time. It's Tuesday of the Passover week. It would have been packed with a steady stream of people who've come for the feast inserting their offering into the narrow neck of these trumpet-shaped boxes.

It was among these trumpet-shaped boxes in the court of the women that Mark tells us Jesus sat down on a bench to watch. And He began to observe how people were putting money into these receptacles. Look at verse 41, "… and many rich people were putting in large sums." Jesus noticed that many of those who were especially wealthy were dropping in large amounts of money. Now there was nothing inherently wrong with that. In fact, the wealthy are commanded to be more generous because they have more resources.

But we do know that those who had resources in the first century (according to Matthew's gospel when they were giving their alms), they often did it with great fanfare, 'Let the trumpet blow. Let everybody watch. I'm giving money to this poor person.' It's possible the same thing happened at the temple as well. A show was made. There's even some record that at times they announced audibly to an official of the temple how much they were giving, and the official of the temple announced it as well. It's possible that was happening.

But as it is today, the wealthy contributed large sums for various reasons. At times, clearly, it was given out of a genuine heart of gratitude and worship and appreciation for all that God was doing in the nation and their own lives. I'm sure there were also times when they gave in order to retain their power and influence with the leaders of the nation there in the heart of the city of Jerusalem.

Often, unfortunately as it is today, it was a way to invite God's continuing generosity. It was playing the percentages. If I give God this much, then maybe He'll give me back so much. And this kind of thinking was even encouraged by the leaders. Frankly it, it wasn't much different in that day than the sort of seed money of the televangelists.

Josephus reports that at the time of the Roman general Pompey, after the money that was collected in these trumpet-shaped boxes had been used to defray every possible temple expense, there were still huge cash reserves left. It was a racket and a very successful one. The pressure was put on the people to give.

In that context, verse 42 says, "A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which amount to a cent." In the Greek text, there's a way to sort of capture the pathos. Literally, I could translate it this way. Mark writes, 'One widow poor (one widow and a very poor one)…' It's likely that Jesus would have known she was a widow by her distinctive dress. He might have also been able to identify her as poor by the distinctive dress of a widow in tatters and shreds. We don't know, but she was poor.

The Greek word that Mark uses here for "poor" isn't the word you would expect. There were two words, there are two words for "poor" in the Greek language. One of them is for the working poor, the day laborer who works hard but basically lives hand to mouth. He's able to support himself. He doesn't need to rely on others, but he works hard one day, and he needs his money at the end of the day because that's how he's gonna pay for the expenses of that day. That's not the word used here.

The Greek word used for "poor" here is the same word that's used in the first beatitude. It's a word which describes someone who is financially destitute, someone who depends totally on the generosity of others, someone who has essentially been reduced to begging. This woman had absolutely nothing. She depended on others to live. She has been reduced through circumstances beyond her control to a desperate situation. Her husband has died. She has no means of income. She only exists through the generosity of others. She's a beggar.

But somehow this poor widow, perhaps through her begging, has some money. It's not much money. Perhaps it's the fruit of her begging earlier that day. Mark says it was "two small copper coins, which amount to a cent." These coins were the smallest Roman coins in circulation at the time. Before a reevaluation that happened later in the first century, these coins were only worth about one twenty-eighth of a denarius, and a denarius was the average worker's pay for a day's work – one twenty-eighth of a day's work. In reality, this woman with two of them together is giving the equivalent of about one sixty-fourth of a day's pay – just a few minutes' work for somebody who was generous with her apparently. Or perhaps she earned it in some way. It was such a small amount that the Jewish authors tell us that it was against the religious law to contribute less. So perhaps she had begged or somehow worked, somehow gotten the means to get these two copper coins until she had enough that she could give, and she brings them. Clearly this was all she had. Now look at Jesus' response in verse 43,

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."

Now first, Jesus intended to use what He was seeing here to communicate an important lesson to His disciples and so He calls His disciples to Him. And notice He essentially makes two points. Point number one: the widow gave more than everyone else. "Truly" – that's "I solemnly say to you". That's an expression Jesus uses often when He's about to say something very important. 'I solemnly declare to you, this woman's small gift was proportionately greater, far greater than the gifts of the wealthy.' And verse 44 explains why that was true. The rich gave (verse 44 says) "out of their surplus" – literally 'out of what was overflowing to them', the text says. They gave out of plenty. They weren't lacking for anything. They gave out of their surplus. The poor widow had given most because none of the wealthy had given all they had to live on as she had.

The second point Jesus makes here is this widow had given everything she had. Again, notice what Jesus does not say. He does not say that she should have given all she owned. Nor does He say that we should give all we own. He neither commands nor commends His followers for giving all they had to live on. He simply observes that, in this case, this widow has. Clearly the point Jesus is making is tied to this woman's financial condition. By the way, these are what those coins look like. Here are some that have been discovered in the ruins of the nation. In Greek, they're called "lepton" singularly. And that, that gives you a picture of what they are like as they've been discovered.

But as you look at what Jesus says about her gift, He really makes three observations. First of all, He says she gave "out of her poverty". He gave, she gave out of her poverty. Now this can be commendable. Paul commended those in Macedonia who were generous to give to help the saints in Jerusalem even though they themselves were poor. So, this is not a problem. It's okay to be poor and to be generous with others in their need. Second Corinthians 8 says,

Now, brethren, we wish to make known to you the grace of God which has been given in the churches of Macedonia, that in a great ordeal of affliction their abundance of joy and their deep poverty overflowed in the wealth of their liberality.

The church in Jerusalem, the believers in Jerusalem were undergoing a serious drought. They didn't have the resources and funds to care for themselves. And so, the churches took offerings for them. And the Macedonian believers weren't wealthy believers. And out of their poverty, they were generous with those in need. So, this alone is not a problem.

But notice the second observation is she gave "all she owned". As we have seen, this is never commanded of anyone, especially not of widows. In fact, we're commanded to actually save, to be prepared for difficult times. That's (part of the resource, or, or) part of the stewardship of the resources God has given us. In fact, again that's a different message for a different time, but there are several things we're commanded to do with our money. One of them is to support our family. We're also to give to God. We're also to have enough to support others. We're also to save in order to guard against the dangers of living in a fallen world – not to depend on that money but rather as a matter of stewardship. All of those things are commanded of us. She gave all she owned.

But notice the third thing – Jesus says, even further, she gave "all she had to live on". You understand what Jesus is saying? This woman had already been reduced essentially to begging. However she got these coins, whether through begging or through some odd job that was given to her, this is literally all she had to live on. She wouldn't be able to eat another meal until she somehow came across some additional resources.

Now these last two expressions should bring to mind what our Lord had just said about the leaders of the temple and the nation. Let's step back now and put this paragraph back in its biblical context. Jesus has just preached. It's Tuesday, probably late morning/early afternoon of the Passover week, the last week of our Lord's life. He's been teaching on the temple mount all morning. He's entertained the questions from the leaders of the nation back and forth. At the end of all of that, He preaches one of His longest sermons, and it is a diatribe against the religious leaders of the nation.

If you want to get it in its, in its fullest form, read Matthew 23. Jesus pronounces a series of seven woes on the leaders of the nation to them in their presence with huge crowds, thousands of people around Him. If you want to catch up to speed with that, go back and listen to last Sunday night if you weren't here, but that's the context.

Specifically, one of the things He had identified and condemned is the way the leaders of the nation had taken advantage of the most vulnerable, especially defenseless widows. Look again at Mark 12:38. This is Mark's summary of what Matthew gives us in a whole chapter,

In His teaching He was saying, "Beware of the scribes who like to walk around in long robes, and like respectful greetings in the marketplaces, and chief seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets, and they devour widows' houses, and for appearance's sake they offer long prayers; these will receive greater condemnation."

Jesus had just made this point. And now He sits down in the treasury, and He watches it lived out in front of Him. This poor widow has somehow been convinced that she needs to give her last two little copper coins – a few minutes' worth of work to earn those coins. It's all she has; all she has to live on. She will give this money and then, unless someone else is generous with her or unless somehow she manages to get some kind of work, she will not have food to eat. That is completely out of sync with what God commanded in the Old Testament law.

Here is a personal case in point of one poor widow having everything she owns devoured by the false teachers in Israel. She is the victim of what amounts to legal extortion because it was expected that you give and that you be generous, and it was the way you bought God's blessing. And of course, it was a wonderful benefit to the leaders of the nation. Their pockets got fuller, their houses got nicer, and their food became more sumptuous.

So, Jesus is not commending her act. He's condemning their act. He's not commending her sacrificial giving. He is condemning their religious extortion. You say, 'Wait a minute. Is there a way that we can confirm somewhat the truthfulness of this interpretation?' I believe there is. Notice what immediately follows. And by the way, this immediately follows in both Mark and Luke where this account's recorded,

As He was going out of the temple [so He sees this scene unfold; the next thing we're told is He was leaving the temple], one of His disciples said to Him, "Teacher, behold what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!" [Here's one of His disciples carried away with how gorgeous and magnificent this structure that Herod the Great had built was.] And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left upon another which will not be torn down."

Does that bring to mind some of the passages we looked at from the Old Testament where God said, 'You abuse the poor, the disadvantaged, those who are helpless, and My anger and wrath will be kindled.' It's exactly what the context leads us to. The story of the widow is introduced with Jesus' condemnation of the leaders of the nation and is followed by Jesus' pronunciation of judgment on the temple. Jesus is promising as God promised in the Old Testament that He would bring devastating judgment on Israel, on its temple and on its leaders – not only because first century Judaism had become a false religion teaching a false way of salvation as we saw last week, but also because its leaders were taking advantage of the helpless. And God takes that very personally.

So, if that's the correct interpretation, what do we do with it? What lessons are there for us from what happens in this account? First of all, every person must take seriously his or her responsibility to the widows in his own family. God does. Turn over to 1 Timothy, 1 Timothy 5. There's the better part of an entire chapter in the New Testament given to this issue. Look at verse 3. Paul says to Timothy … now remember, Timothy's a young pastor. He's in Ephesus serving there in the church Paul planted. And Paul writes to him, 'Okay, here's how I want you to conduct yourself in the church.'

Honor widows who are widows indeed (who meet certain qualifications); but if any widow has children or grandchildren, they must first learn to practice piety in regard to their own family and to make some return to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God.

Verse 8, "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." I want you to see the context of that verse because we quote that verse often about a man supporting his own immediate family. And obviously that is a legitimate application of that passage, but that's not its primary application. Its primary application is the verse I just read for you. It's to – go back to verse 4. It's for any person who is a child or a grandchild of a widow. Paul says if a person is a child or a grandchild and has a mother or grandmother who is a widow and (verse 8) "doesn't provide for her, that person has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." You and I have a responsibility to our parents and grandparents in the sight of God financially. We cannot take advantage of them for our own enjoyment and pleasure.

A second application of this here in the context is every church must take seriously its responsibility to the widows in that congregation. This passage is a difficult one to interpret, but its heart is easy to interpret. And that is there are certain women, widows in the church who are truly widows, who have no one to support them and who have a record as godly women living out the Christian life. And as a church, we cannot ignore their needs. We must be responsive to their needs.

A final application is that every Christian should hate (as Jesus did, as God does) how false religion and false teachers take advantage of the needy, including widows. They build their multimillion dollar homes on the backs of those who can least afford it. Of course, those who are giving their money often do so sinfully in some desire to buy God off, but those who run those kinds of rackets will face God's extreme judgment. These – remember what Jesus said at the end after He said that scribes and Pharisees devour widows' houses? He said: "… these will receive the severer condemnation." I would hate to be one of those televangelists, one of those health, wealth and prosperity preachers and stand before God someday, having earned my money from those who could least afford it by extorting money from them. You and I must hate that as Jesus hated it. And we must do what we can to care for those who are needy and helpless. That's the application, the shocking lesson really of the widow's mite – completely contrary to what most of us heard.

Let's pray together.

Father, may our heart reflect the heart of our Lord Jesus Christ. Lord, may we have a heart of sacrifice. May we long to express our love and devotion to you but, Father, help us to learn the lesson that this story appears to be teaching in its context. Father, help us to see how much You hate those who take advantage of the needy. Lord, help us to sort through our own lives and our own minds and make sure that we're not in some way doing that in our business practices or, or in our families. Father, help us who have parents or grandparents who really have financial needs to be generous with them as You have been with us. Father, don't let us enrich ourselves on their backs.

And Father, as a church, I pray You would help us to be generous in caring for those who are truly needy and have no one else to care for them. Help us each individually to be generous in giving to our benevolent fund in order to care for them; and when we see those who are in need to, to reach out to them and to help them in whatever way we can personally and individually. Father, give us a heart like our Lord's, like Yours. And Father, may we hate what You hate. And may we love and care for those whom You have made the special object of Your care and attention.

We pray in Jesus' name. Amen.