Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny. Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything–all she had to live on.”
Mark 12: 41-44
This another of the gospel stories I’m convinced has been consistently misinterpreted. Every sermon I’ve ever heard on this passage — and some I’ve preached myself — have read this as a commendation of the widow’s faith, giving all she had to the work of God. They go on to exhort congregations to think about how sacrificially they’re prepared to give.
The only way we could reach such an interpretation of this story is by reading it in isolation, separated from what went before and comes after, so let’s remind ourselves. Jesus has just warned against the teachers of the Law who “devour widows’ houses”, only to see a widow putting the last of her money into the temple treasury. “See,” says Jesus. “Just as I said.”
There disciples aren’t convinced, being too impressed by the magnificence of the buildings — prompting Jesus to warn of the temple’s imminent destruction.
Read in context, this story is a link in the chain of Jesus’ announcement of the end of the temple and the repressive authority it represents.
Far from being a commendation of the widow’s faith, this is a condemnation of those who cause a poor women to destitute herself for the sake of religious observance.
{ 41 comments… read them below or add one }
doug 04.20.11 at 11:47 pm
Why does this have to be looked at “either -or” when in fact there is no reason why there can be parallel, non-contradictory meanings at the same time. Scripture is clear that the womans Faith to give all she had is clearly evident AND the indirect warning of the temples destruction as described in the post. Why condemn in its entirety the clear understanding of the widows Faith to give all she had? It clearly took Faith in the One True God to do such a thing.
Earl 04.25.11 at 2:27 am
A condemnation of whatever? Ah… “No.” Jesus singled out and praised this woman for demonstrating in sincere worship what was so patently absent in the Kabuki that some counted as worship.
Tony Buglass 04.25.11 at 9:06 am
Now I’m worried. I’ve just found myself agreeing with BOTH Doug AND Earl.
Kim 04.25.11 at 10:34 am
But, Tony, Earl - typically - takes the story to be only about “sincere worship”, isolating it from the oligarchic economic system of domination and exploitation which has the temple at its sclerotic heart - and which Jesus consistently attacks in his Jerusalem ministry ( A condemnation of whatever? Ah… “No.”). Doug, too, always fails to see that the prophetic condemnation of false worship - i.e., idolatry - is always linked to what Brueggemann calls the “hierarchical ordering of social power” and the “ideological stratification of social worth”. Court prophets both of them: personal salvation and living at ease with empire and capitalism.
Earl 04.25.11 at 4:09 pm
With all the respect that is duly merited, when it comes to Jesus praise of the widow, objections are unfounded except in conjecture. Appeal to latter day prophets such as WB, etc. are equally uncompelling.
doug 04.25.11 at 4:54 pm
Kim, when Jesus says this “Except a man be Born Again he cannot see the Kingdom of God.” How can one say that this is not “personal Salvation” and an indirect condemntaion of false worship by the very nature that to be Born Again requires the heart, soul and mind Belief “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.”
You condemn capitalism but fail to rebuke the opposite. How about living at ease with the sin of envy of Communism and the S…ism? or when one looks at the parable of the talents which the foundation of the atributes is capitalistic aka investing. If you are so anti-capitalistic then you probably condemn investing being that is an atribute. If one condemns that then one is condemning the very thing which Jesus commended in the parable. And while a “talent” can refer to abilities, if one looks at what the original historical understanding of talent, it was a unit of money that at that time in history was worth about 1 years wage.
http://www.biblestudy.org/beginner/bible-weights-and-measures.html
Again I know that it is about a persons abilities and the use therein in the Kingdom but the fact that Jesus uses investing in a non-condemning way in His parable then one can see two non-contradictary themes running parable at the same time.
Kim 04.25.11 at 7:23 pm
You condemn capitalism but fail to rebuke the opposite. How about living at ease with the sin of envy of Communism and the S…ism?
Er, that might be because the cold war is over. And the notion that “S…ism” is the thin end of the wedge towards Soviet-style communism is too stupid and insulting (to those who live in social democracies) to warrant a response. Capitalism is now the only show in town and, in conjunction with consumerism, it is a life-regime that inherently distorts human desire, though there are possibilities of working and subverting the system at least to ameliorate its inherently pernicious effects.
doug 04.25.11 at 7:42 pm
“Capitalism is now the only show in town and, in conjunction with consumerism”
Tell that to all of the other Communist nations that are in the world.
The fact is the problem with S….ism in the extreme is the problem of the sin of envy and the problem with Capitalism is the sin of greed. The fact is greed and envy are on the same tree and both are equally wrong in the very nature and each in the extreme should be rebuked equally. However, when both are pursued not in an extreme way then one should not rebuke it.
“If you are so anti-capitalistic then you probably condemn investing being that is an atribute. If one condemns that then one is condemning the very thing which Jesus commended in the parable. And while a “talent” can refer to abilities, if one looks at what the original historical understanding of talent, it was a unit of money that at that time in history was worth about 1 years wage.”
It seems your rebuke falls flat. However, I don’t deny that there are many many people who fall for greed but it isn’t the Capitalism that is the problem but how people operate within Capitalism that is the problem and if people are greedy it is sin. However a person can be a Capitalist and not greedy.
doug 04.25.11 at 7:44 pm
…and within S…ism or for that matter any system if people are envious it is sin.
No one has ever addressed the greediness of S…ism. Greed and envy are not segregated within the economic systems alone. They can be pursued in whatever economic system is being followed specifically.
Earl 04.25.11 at 10:41 pm
“Er, that might be …” etc. Congratulations! You almost made the connection between so-ism and communism! Keep working at it and you’ll get it right.
There is no reason to lament the triumph of Capitalism. The failure so-ism and its more militant cousin communism is the result of people opting for freedom and self-determination. The people are to be applauded! Those who are unable to bring themselves to accept the triumph of Capitalism bring to mind those who, after the fall of the ussr, face the challenge of the marketplace and found themselves longing for the “good ole days” when the central party ran everything for everyone.
Richard 04.25.11 at 10:48 pm
It’s astonishing to me that you can applaud the triumph of consumerism so uncritically, or that you’re prepared to stoop to what amounts to bearing false witness in your closing sentence. But I’m not going to argue. Life is too short.
Earl 04.26.11 at 12:32 am
I beg your pardon. I applauded the triumph of Capitalism as compared to the failure of so-ism and communism. I do not recall lauding irresponsible consumption. But how an individual spends their money is their decision. It is not for a govt. functionary to determine what a citizen will buy and what they will not buy. Nor is it for any govt. agency to try to manipulate patterns of consumption via tax policy, credits, etc. based on someone’s supposed estimate of what is “best” for society. It is true that I do not find fault with the legitimate consumption by consumers of goods and services. No one is all-sufficient. A market economy is the most fundamentally fair mechanism by which a willing seller and a willing buyer may arrive at a price for goods/services. The closing sentence reflects what was presented in a National Geographic article following the soviet era when many former party functionaries and support personnel found themselves struggling to deal with the change from a centrally directed planned economy to a market economy driven by supply and demand. They felt the new reality harsh and unfair. They did not seem to consider if the earlier communist system was harsh or unfair to anyone.
Richard 04.26.11 at 7:08 am
I said I wouldn’t argue, and won’t. But one question: how in the name of sanity was anyone supposed to know that you had a particular NG article in mind in your comment? My psychic powers aren’t all they should be!
Kim 04.26.11 at 10:46 am
A market economy is the most fundamentally fair mechanism by which a willing seller and a willing buyer may arrive at a price for goods/services.
This statement is a wicked thing to say. Earl, you speak with culpable insensitivity to the asymmetrical power relations embedded in world trade, and to the human havoc that the logic of the market and the insatiable thirst for profit, trumping human life, inflict in the Third World. I find it hard to believe that a Christian leader could say such a thing, and with such pious nonchalance.
PamBG 04.26.11 at 11:03 am
Nor is it for any govt. agency to try to manipulate patterns of consumption via tax policy, credits, etc. based on someone’s supposed estimate of what is “best” for society.
Except, of course, when the United States government, for example, destroys the production of rice in Ghana - their staple food - in order to create a market for US rice. Stuff like that is OK, right? Because if the US has the power to subsidize US rice exports to Ghana in order to support US rice farmers, then screw the Ghanaian farmers. Those with power win and those without power loose.
As a Facebook friend just posted “I love the part in the bible where Jesus gives money to the rich and tells the poor to suck it up.”
I have to say that this sort of ignorant pious nonchalance makes me damn furious too.
PamBG 04.26.11 at 11:13 am
The part of this is that people who are ignorant of economics seem to think that if the government doesn’t interfere in trade in a particular sector that this automatically makes the sector a “free market”. The laws of supply and demand as they are popularly conceived by the (wo)man on the street only apply where demand and supply are very elastic: where new suppliers can readily enter a market and consumers are free to choose whoever they wish.
There is already nothing elastic about the supply side of healthcare or health provisions and the market’s inelasticity favors certain providers, prejudices others and generally screws the poor. There is nothing immoral or unethical in trying to redress this power and economic imbalance.
Can I also say that I saw a fair few hospitals as a UK minister. And, in dealing with my uncle’s recent death and my father’s immanant death, I can tell you that in my honest opinion the regional hospitals here in the US are in worse shape than what I saw in the UK. The major teaching hospital at which I work, which has an international reputation, stands out above all others that I’ve been in. But the Worcester General hospital wasn’t all that far below.
I really don’t buy the myth that US healthcare is all that good. Number 47 in the world does seem right. And worse than the UK’s seems right to me too.
Kim 04.26.11 at 1:31 pm
Here is another way of making the point: “Instead of economy being embedded in social relations, social relations are embedded in the economic system” (Karl Polanyi), which is made all the worse because capitalism is intrinsically based on human conflict, not on caritas, and thus “it fractures the friendship of humanity in God” (Daniel Bell) and is antithetical to shalom.
As I have said, capitalism is the only show in (the global) town. And it would be delinquent of me simply to curse the darkness. There are conversations to be had and things to be done, for example, about Christians taking the lead as advocates of new and environmentally friendly modes of production and wholesome patterns of consumption, and as supporters of global projects like Fair Trade. So, no, I am not just cantankerously cursing the darkness, I am among those who would try to light a few candles. But you, Earl and Doug, you not only accept the darkness, you actually praise it and add your blessing to it in the name of Christ. That is what so many of us find so deeply repugnant and conspicuously anti-Christian.
Earl 04.26.11 at 4:31 pm
“I said I wouldn’t argue…” etc. I have never considered you argumentative. Neither do I now. I apologize for being unclear in my post. However the NG article is not an isolated report. There are numerous sources that describe popular regret at the dissolution of the ussr.
Earl 04.26.11 at 4:50 pm
“A market economy is the most fundamentally fair mechanism by which a willing seller and a willing buyer may arrive at a price for goods/services.
This statement…” etc. The greatest degree of economic justice derives from free people making their own decisions about how they use their money. A manipulated managed economy directed by an agenda driven administration is by nature and practice abusive of and destructive to the individual no matter how loud and long it trumpets its commitment to the greater good of the broader society. The decisions of individuals choosing to participate in and invest in a market economy are more reliable to best anticipate and respond to the needs of society than results that might be produced by any government regardless of what world is in view.
PamBG 04.26.11 at 5:42 pm
Money is god in US culture. Don’t mess with god.
Earl 04.26.11 at 6:01 pm
“Except…” etc. Markets are not confined by artifical boundaries such as borders, etc. Growers are rewarded for producing at the lowest possible cost. Buyers/consumers benefit from that lower cost at the point of purchase and use. A hog producer in North Carolina or a orange grower in Florida is no different than a tomato grower in Uganda. If they can produce at a marketable price, they make a profit. Govt. Subsidization of production reflects the need to maintain a stable supply of food. In the long run it is best for production to be driven by broad market demand. The result will be more sustainable and best able to address demand. A market manipulated by whatever source never produces the best long-term result. This applies to any market including healthcare. There are no exceptions. The current nationalization of healthcare in the United States will produce the same failure that is common to any politically driven agenda predicated on a modern equivalent of bread and circuses to buy votes.
No economic system is completely ideal. The failure of so-ism and communism are the consequences of a fallen mankind. The potential as well as the failure of Capitalism is subject to that same consequence. Beyond complaining positive efforts to solve the human needs of people merit support. That will best be accomplished by persons and groups working with in a free market structure. Fair trade is one example as are Mirco-loans and sustainable and community based production. There are others.
Earl 04.26.11 at 6:08 pm
“Money is god in US culture. Don’t mess with god.” In the United States, money is a medium to facilitate the exchange of goods and services. It is of course superior to barter, etc. It reflects a superior evolved method of exchange. In the United States, the economy is broadly capitalistic driven by supply and demand. It produces the best result for the broadest number of persons when it is not impeded by casual or calculated interference from government agency.
Kim 04.26.11 at 6:25 pm
Yep, Earl clearly worships a god who, in opposition to Yaweh, has a preferential option for the rich, a god to whom human life is cheap, indeed to whom human lives are sacrificed: in short, an idol. His account manages to be both apparently sensible and absolutely insane.
But let Isaiah have the last word (or rather, in anticipation, the penultimate word) - Isaiah who knew that, finally, the only thing to do with idolatry is to mock, ridicule it: Isaiah 44:18.
doug 04.26.11 at 6:57 pm
Kim, Earl doesn’t place money over God so to accuse him of “idolatry” is a clear overgeneralizations and flat out wrong.
Kim, if you are going to claim that Earl worships the god of Capitalism then we are accuse you of worshipping the god of s…ism. See how absurd and ridiculous this all sounds?
doug 04.26.11 at 6:57 pm
Thats capitalism not Capitalism sorry
Earl 04.26.11 at 7:10 pm
“Yep, Earl clearly worships…” etc. Your error is not uncommon.
Kim 04.26.11 at 7:17 pm
Jeremiah 22:16-17.
Paul F. 04.26.11 at 7:26 pm
On a slightly different subject…
I’ve always been struck by the number of Marxists who’ve converted to the Christian faith because Marxism wasn’t subversive enough.
doug 04.26.11 at 7:47 pm
Paul F., I’ve always been struck by the high number of Marxist’s who are atheistic and/or agnostic. They clearly are way more than the number of Marxist’s who “so-called” converted because Marxism wasn’t subversive enough. Whatever that is.
Kim, Earl and myself’s views don’t contradict the passages in Jeremiah. Being a Capitalist doesn’t mean the person doesn’t support the needy and poor. Many Capitalists actually do way more for the poor than people of the opposite. We don’t covet anybody. We don’t desire to shed innocent blood, notice it said innocent. I also believe those who are opposite of Capitalist need to also look at their attitudes to make sure they are not envious or have a “stick it to the man” type attitude within that. Remember greed and envy are on the same side of the coin. We all need to be convicted of the propensity for both and all economic classes can commit these sins.
Kim and anyone else, Earl and I DO care for the poor and needy. It is all about how that is done. I think Earl’s point #21 spells this all out.
PamBG 04.26.11 at 11:32 pm
No economic system is completely ideal. The failure of so-ism and communism are the consequences of a fallen mankind.
No, there is no completely ideal economic system.
What drives me nuts is the unwillingness to see that the Capitalistic system has a group that is privileged and powerful and a group that has no de facto rights or freedoms. It’s like a 300-pound weight lifter pinning a 5 year old boy to the ground and then lecturing the boy on how he should free himself and that’s his freedom and responsibility to do so.
I spent over 20 years working in the financial markets. Corporations are not after free markets or freedom or rights for the average Joe or Jane. They will create oligarchies and corner the market if they can; they will screw suppliers and competitors and anyone else they can get away with screwing is a point of pride. As is working outside the spirit of the law but within its letter.
Big government may not be the answer but big business isn’t either. Unless, of course, you think that money buys human rights and lack of money means you have no human rights. Which is pretty much The American Way.
Christians should know better.
Earl 04.27.11 at 1:28 am
“What drives me nuts…” etc. Capitalism offers the individual the best opportunity of economic participation determined by their own interest. In no system is there any guarantee of equality in position, resource, etc. When students enter school, some are more advantaged than others. Some are more capable. Some come from homes where the father and mother are more engaged and encouraging. Some are more driven to succeed. Some have interest beyond the classroom in sports, etc. Their individual outcomes are even. Only by unfairly restricting some and advantaging others could any artificial equality of outcomes be provided. This pattern is exactly the same for those who participate in competitive sports. It is especially demonstrated in team sports where players must earn a place on the team based on the estimate of the coaching staff as to a individual player’s to contribute to the overall production of the team. The same is true of economic participation and interaction. People do not come to the market with equal resources, knowledge, ability, etc. They come to the market and participate according to what they are willing and able to do with those resources and abilities that are theirs to use.
Business is competitive. From the corner grocery to a multinational corporation, businesses must compete for customers. That competition takes place within the constraints of law which is as it should be in a pluralistic secular society. Business practice predicated upon New Testament Christian ethics requires a similar New Testament structure for society.
The Founding Fathers did not envision an expansive consumptive federal government as the answer to all ills and needs of society. The current federal structure has moved far beyond the essential responsibilities of a central government. Left-wing social liberals have sought to push the federal government toward a welfare state structure. This is exemplified by the recent efforts to nationalize healthcare in the United States. The current bloated structure is a train wreak in progress. Thankfully steps are now being taken to cut wasteful unneeded spending at the federal and state level. Multinational corporations have been in existence for centuries. Today these corporations employ many people. Many many more are employed in private businesses with fewer than 250 employees. These small businesses are best enabled to meet the needs of their customers by the least intrusive restrictive government. Everyone including Christians know this.
PamBG 04.27.11 at 3:01 am
I don’t give a damn encouraging big government!
What I give a damn about is that Americans think that if you don’t have any money you shouldn’t have any human rights. And, YES, that is the central value of our culture, but we’re too blind to admit it.
What I give a damn about is that Americans don’t understand that their “free markets” aren’t free at all.
What I give a damn about is the lack of honesty and the blind faith in the not-free free market.
What I give a damn about is that Christians don’t give a damn about people.
PamBG 04.27.11 at 3:21 am
One other comment: valuing people over capital doesn’t necessarily require any government interference.
All it requires is a change of values. All it requires is for us to believe that people are created in the image of God instead of that capital is god.
Too bad that Christian minsters keep preaching that seeking the greatest return that the market will bear is the highest economic ethical good.
Richard 04.27.11 at 7:34 am
Earl — you write as if The Market was some sort of natural phenomenon like gravity or the gulf stream. It isn’t.
Kim 04.27.11 at 8:23 am
Earl doesn’t believe in gravity. Gravity is the pseudo-scientific propaganda of socialists who want to restrict his freedom to jump as high as the hell he wants - and he’ll stab anybody who tries to stop him with that bowie knife Jesus commands him to carry. As for the Gulf Stream, he is doing all he can with his anti-ecological economics to turn it into a stagnant pond, and - cunning plan - thus reduce socialist Britain to an icebox.
And don’t you just love Doug’s compassionate capitalists, bless, who are doing all they can for the poor - as long as they get a tax break with their charity? That the impoveishment of the many for the profits of the few is structural, that the lauded freedom of choice of the few is systemically occluded - he just doesn’t get it.
Conclusion: Doug and Earl are either knaves or fools. I reckon the former is the latter, and the latter the former.
Richard 04.27.11 at 8:42 am
K & F are not the only alternatives Kim - your earlier diagnosis of “possessed” is more accurate in my view.
Richard 04.27.11 at 8:48 am
Apropos of nothing at all, your comment reminded me of some graffiti allegedly seen at MIT: “Gravity doesn’t exist: the earth sucks”!
Kim 04.27.11 at 9:39 am
You are right, Richard (#36): there is no question that Capitalism is a Pauline principality, a demonic power. So Mark 9:29.
Earl 04.27.11 at 7:38 pm
Raging against reality is as rewarding as to try to command the wind. Reality is that life is not equal. It never has been. The American preference for free markets as opposed to government manipulated markets controlled to advantage and advance a partisan political agenda and buy votes to support political position is understandable. They have seen the consequences of such control in the so-ist and communist structures favored in old europe. Freedom to self-determine ones own financial course is always a positive. It is always affirmed by Christians. If one wants to see a society directed by a Christian ethic, one must win that society to a personal faith in Christ as Savior and Lord. To expect that a society will reflect a Christian ethic absent that personal commitment is a failure of logic.
Re: “The Market…” The market is not singular but plural. There are markets in which exchange is made. Like gravity, it is a reality… like gravity. And like gravity, it only causes hurt when one fails to give it due regard. One may jump off a building and safely enjoy defying gravity. It will not hurt you. But the impact of your disregard will jolt you into a painful reality. The same is true of the reality of market and economic realities. One may disregard those realities.
Ramblings about bowie knives and so-ist Britain are nothing more than crude cartoon comments that merit no serious response. Estimates of knaves or fools reflect labored thinking that is archaic and uninformed. Beyond late-night viewing of The Exorcist, it would have to be supposed that those making reference to possession have some personal experience dealing with it. Perhaps examples might be offered of successful engagement in such work. The Gospels repeatedly recount instances in which Jesus successfully engaged in such work. The witness of Scripture is that during the era of the Primitive Church, the Apostles engaged in such work (Acts 8:7ff, 16:16ff). It would be quite significant if anyone could present evidence of their having successfully imitated that remarkable work of the Apostles. Of course Scripture indicates that in such work, failure has extreme consequences. (Acts 19:15ff). Jesus Himself reminded his followers that they must take seriously demands of such work the difficulty of which is so great that only by much prayer can one expect to be effective (Mk. 9:29).
Richard 04.27.11 at 8:45 pm
You’re missing the point Earl. I just can’t decide whether you’re doing it on purpose or not.
Gravity is a physical fact of the universe.
In contrast, ‘Markets’ are socially constructed. The way they work varies from one culture to another according to whatever are the norms of that culture. That’s a simple and unarguable fact. It just is.
Earl 04.28.11 at 1:21 am
“You’re missing the point Earl. I just can’t decide whether you’re doing it on purpose or not.” Miss the point? Perish the thought!
“Gravity is a physical fact” … etc. Why of course gravity is the norm of life on earth. And, wherever you find people, you find markets. Markets are the norm of any modern logical social construction. This is best demonstrated in Capitalism. Anything else is irrational as it is are less efficient. This is best exemplified in so-ism and communism. Those economies that best utilize the potentials of market structures will out compete those which for whatever reason, social, cultural, etc., fail to take best advantage of those structures.