Sally A. Brown, Professor Emerita, Princeton Theological Seminary
For centuries, the widow we meet in today’s lection (Mark 12:38-44) has been valorized as an exemplar of self-denying generosity. But in recent years, scholars have argued that Jesus calls attention to this widow, not as an example to be followed, but because she is a victim of self-serving religious leaders who have pressed her to support the Temple, even if it drives her to destitution.
Traditional interpretation has seen the relationship between Jesus’ criticism of certain scribes’ practices (vv 38-30) and the scene in which a widow places her last two coins in the Temple offering (41-44) as one of contrast. The widow’s selfless generosity contrasts with the greedy, self-serving practices of some of the scribes. Right after castigating certain scribes who, entrusted as they sometimes were with guardianship over the property of childless widows, were shamelessly taking advantage of their privileged role in order to “devour widows’ houses” (v 40), Jesus draws attention to a widow who places her last meagre coins in the Temple treasury. These snapshots represent the stark contrast between faithlessness and faithfulness, between self-interest and selfless generosity.
Scholars who argue for a different perspective suggest, first of all, that we are meant to recognize a direct connection between the exploitative oversight of “widow’s houses” by certain scribes and the widow’s (perhaps naïve) reckless action. Second, they stress material that precedes and follows her story: Jesus disrupts the Temple currency exchange (11: 15-18) and later predicts the Temple’s destruction (13:2). Scholars reading from this perspective suggest that we hear Jesus’ tone as he describes the widow’s act as lament, not adulation. In other words, Jesus’ exposé of the scribes’ greed-motivated plundering of widows’ property is part of a larger theme of Temple critique. She is a victim of managers she has trusted and leaders who urge her to give to the point of utter destitution.
Which of these interpretations ought to inform the sermon this week? The question assumes that we must fall entirely to one side or the other of the debate: it must be either about this woman’s selflessness or about deplorable church leaders reducing the vulnerable to destitution. But to do so may be to oversimplify a complex human situation. History suggests that she may well be both the victim of a system that takes advantage of her, and, at the same time, a woman of generous faith.
In the US, giving in proportion to income has been consistently higher among low-income church members than their far wealthier counterparts. This was true when “prosperity gospel” preaching began exploiting the poor by demanding “giving beyond the tithe” so that God can “pour out blessings” and make them rich. Such preaching is abusive and despicable; yet, we cannot let it blind us to the durable faith of those in the pews, forged in the crucible of suffering. Most black congregations in America, born of slavery and Jim Crow racism, outstrip white congregations in per capita generosity.
We do this widow an injustice if we fail to see her stereoscopically. We need to condemn leadership that defrauds people like her through manipulation. Yet, we need not diminish her courageous faith. “The Lord is my light and my salvation; the Lord is the strength of my life; whom shall I fear?” (Ps 27:1) This woman is defiantly devout. She has not let an unjust system destroy her generous spirit.
Insights into Biblical Greek Grammar and Syntax 