The Widow's Mite - Mark 12:38-44; Luke 21:1-4

Sitting at the temple, teaching his disciples, “Jesus sat over against the treasury, and behold how the people cast money into the treasury: and may that were rich cast in much.” I don’t know if the group had been sitting in that spot the whole time or if they had just recently moved over there. But let’s go back and review what had just happened as context for what was coming next. Jesus had just spent a lot of time being questioned by the various Jewish leadership groups and answering in ways that were confounding and instructive. He’d also asked them some questions Himself and then given a lengthy denouncement of these leadership groups for their hypocrisy and for polluting God’s law. One important thing that Mark notes Jesus saying that I didn’t cover last time is important when moving forward. Jesus says, “Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts: which devour widow’s houses, and for a pretense make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation.”

Remember that “scribes” aren’t simply transcriptionists like I had imagined, they are the masters of Jewish law, they are, essentially, the high priced veteran attorneys of our day. What could it possibly mean to “devour widow’s houses?” In an article entitled, “Devouring Widow’s Houses” the author of confidenceandjoy.com gives some excellent background saying, “In the lands and times of the Bible, women did not share the same rights as men. Business matters that both women and men in the United States take for granted today were inaccessible to women. The limitations became quite challenging for a married woman who became a widow, especially if she had property. In order for her to conduct business affairs, she would need to decide on a trustee. A widow would often send a message to the Rabbi, asking for help. The Rabbi in turn would send several men to her so she could choose who she wanted to handle her affairs, and many times those sent would be Scribes or Pharisees… So when these so called ‘holy men’ arrived at a widow’s house, they not only discussed how well they would handle her affairs, but they also prayed in front of her. And many times it was their long and ‘pious’ prayers that influenced the widow to legally allow one of them to be her trustee and take over her business affairs. The new trustee then takes over. The devouring of her house means that he cheats and swindles her. He makes deals to profit himself, sells property and basically she ends up with nothing; what she had is devoured.”
This is a very similar set up that we have today, when someone has anything, a house or business or something like that, they protect it by putting it in a trust, or if they don’t then after that person dies, everything goes to probate court. In both of these cases, attorneys are needed to sort through papers and accounts and deed, to make sense of what’s going on and to dispose of the property best. The question is, best for who? I don’t know how much of a problem it is here in this country right now, but I can imagine how it will play out. I would imagine that ancient Jewish society is similar to ours in that when a man dies, his adult children ensure that their mother is taken care of. As far as appointing a “scribe” as a trustee, I don’t know why a grown son couldn’t serve the same purpose, taking care of his father’s assets and caring for his mother. But there would be those situations where a man would die and for some reason, there would be no trusted male to take over the estate, so the woman would turn to her ecclesiastical leader for guidance and help. Well, just so happens that a good friend of his specializes in this sort of predicament and he’d be happy to refer her to his friend.
I feel like this widow would be particularly at risk because going to the scribe indicates that she has no other options as far as people who care enough about her to help her with her estate. This not only forces her to rely solely on the scribe but it also tells him that no one will be watching what he does with her money, so if he squanders is, the only person that will care will be the widow woman with no rights in the first place. It probably wasn’t the most prominent source of their income, but it must have been common enough for it to be noticed in society as something that happens occasionally. Referring friends who strip a woman of all her resources is definitely one way that the religious leaders “devour” a widow’s house, but it certainly isn’t the only way.
As an almost, “for instance” Jesus calls the attention of his disciples to “a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: for all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.” This has always been a tough concept for me because I knew that ancient Judaism ran on the law of tithing, which is 10% of your income, so why did this woman give all the money that she had? And why did Jesus praise her for doing so? If tithing was the law and self-reliance was the goal, why would giving away all her money, therefore making her reliant on the generosity of others be what Jesus focused on in his praise? If that’s the higher law, give away all your money and see what happens, then why don’t we all do that, if that’s the end goal? The way that this account is portrayed as one of faith and sacrifice would make it appear as though my perception was accurate, but I don’t think that it is, not with the entire context considered.  
First, let’s consider the widow. For whatever reason, she has decided that all her money, though it’s not much at all, needs to be in the treasury at the temple. The IM comments, “The fact that the widow gave ‘all that she had’ exemplified her sincere devotion to God, in contrast to the pretense of the scribes. Elder James E. Talmage of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained why the Lord commended the widow even though her offering was a relatively small donation: ‘The rich gave much yet kept back more; the widow’s gift was her all. It was not the smallness of her offering that made it especially acceptable, but the spirit of sacrifice and devout intent with which she gave.’ Elder Talmage also stated: ‘Whether it be the gift of a man or a nation, the best, if offered willingly and with pure intent, is always excellent in the sight of God, however poor by other comparison that best may be.’” The widow surely believed that by giving everything she had to the temple, she would in turn be cared for by God. We don’t have any follow up with her, so we don’t know, but one article I read asked if she went home and starved to death because she had no money, then answers “of course not, God provided for her needs.” While it seems very likely that that is true, it’s important to know whether or not Jesus is telling us that we must give all we have to please him, or if he was trying to illustrate some other point.
We give all we have when we try to do as Jesus would do, we try to be kind, we try to be helpful, we try to serve, we live modestly and give charitably. We might not have to give up all of our money and turn to begging, to give all that we have and all that we are. The widow wouldn’t be condemned or blessed any less at all for obeying what her religious leaders told her to do, even if it wasn’t right. It’s like one of our prophets said once, I don’t remember who it was but it was one of the really early ones after Joseph Smith. He said something like, “if the prophet ever misleads you into doing something that’s wrong, do it, and you’ll be blessed for it. But don’t worry, the Lord would strike me down dead before he’d let anything like happen,” or something like that, the sentiment is the same. Even if she was following wrong counsel, she was still being obedient to her leader’s teaching, so her blessings would be the same. It’s with that thought in mind that I believe that she was probably taken care of when she got home.
Many of the articles that I read comment of the missed interpretation of this account in which Jesus blasts the Jewish leadership for taking advantage of those they were supposed to be caring for. One comment from “The Story of the widow’s Mite: So We Have It wrong?” from christianpf.com points out that Jesus did not commend the widow for giving all her money to the temple, “words of praise are ABSENT. NOTE: THERE ARE NO ADJECTIVES.” Only facts of the story were note by Jesus, there is no description of “how the widow FELT about what she gave. NOTE: THERE ARE NO ADVERBS… It makes no sense that Jesus, who is in the middle of a warning to His disciples about the scribes devouring widow’s houses, would suddenly interrupt the lesson with a story is part and parcel of His warning and an illustration of how the scribes were ‘devouring widow’s houses.’”
So if there is another way to look at this account, what would it be? One article entitled, “Devouring Widow’s Houses” Kevin Gasser from Staunton Mennonite Weblog notes that the widow gave all her money, “not 10%, but 100%. Who told her that she needed to give all of her money? And what promises did they make to her, saying if she gave more, she would be all the more blessed? People don’t naturally give all that they have away. Evidently, she was being fed a line.” We’ve already seen how the scribes even got involved in the estates of widows, and honestly, even if this was their full time thing, I think most people would understand that they have to eat too, they have families to feed, and if that’s their profession then no one would fault them for taking care of themselves. But that’s not where Jesus is condemning them, he’s condemning them when they take more than they need to the detriment of someone who is vulnerable.
Does this happen in our society today? Abso-frickin-lutely. I remember my dad telling me once that one of the bishops or stake presidents in Utah told him that his favorite place to do business was in the temple. That’s disgusting to me. My mom grew up in a small town in northern Utah and said that whenever a business deal would go down, everyone would go to the bishop for the final say, or the bishop would get the best deals, or all these things where people would use their calling as “you can trust me” guarantee. Spoiler alert: you can’t trust them, they would almost always screw you. These types of dealing would leave people in positions of feeling taken advantage of and leave the church because of it, and it’s understandable. I think it was Thomas B Marsh who was in the First Presidency at one time who left the church because he took a legal matter to the church leadership and when they sided against him, he left. It happens, and this would be an exact example of someone using their church status as a reason to let them have the upper hand or allow them to take advantage of a situation. It’s really important to keep business out of your calling, and to keep your calling out of your business. Another example would be calling those in your ward directory and asking them for an appointment to buy the new stuff you’re selling. That’s not as bad as taking advantage of an elderly widow, but still inappropriate. It can be a fine line, but an important one. It’s also very important to make sure that you act fairly and compassionately and honestly at all times.