David’s Son and Lord; and the Widow’s Mite

S. Mark xii. 35–44

At this juncture our Lord, having replied to the inquiries of all His adversaries, and silenced them by unanswerable arguments, lays aside His defensive attitude and proceeds to interrogate them upon a question of momentous import. All their learned Scribes were agreed that the Messiah would be the Son and Heir of the great king David. They had allowed this one idea of His lineage to take such a complete hold upon them that they had lost sight of another fact, hardly less prominent in the Messianic predictions. Isaiah had foretold in more places than one, that He would be not human merely, but also Divine — not only born of a pure virgin, but at the same time, “The Mighty God,” “Immanuel, God with us.” And yet they had never understood his language aright; its deep inner meaning was a “sealed book” to them; and such passages as these they either treated as Oriental exaggeration, or deliberately declined to notice.

There was a prediction in the Psalter which offered the best possible illustration of their one-sided views. The hundred and tenth Psalm * had been universally accepted as Messianic; but the Jews at large, under the teaching of the Scribes, had seized only upon that portion of it which represented the coming King as a triumphant conqueror. After their country had fallen under the dominion of Rome, their Messianic hopes all took the shape of an intense longing for some Great One who should “restore again the kingdom to Israel.”

It was to that part of this prophecy which they had overlooked, that our Lord now called their attention. They were quite right in receiving it as spoken by David, and inspired by the Spirit of God; but it opened with two expressions which, on the reading of the Pharisees, called for further explanation. One of these sufficed for our Lord’s argument. “The Lord said unto my Lord.” David called the Messiah his Lord. How was that reconcilable with their belief that He was David’s Son? It only admitted of one solution. He of Whom the Psalmist spoke was both his Son and his Lord: his son, as born of a human mother “of the house and lineage of David:” his Lord, as “God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds.” There was no escape from this conclusion consistent with the veracity of the Scriptures, which they never dared to doubt, however far short they fell of their real teaching. Our Lord leaves them without further observation in the dilemma, and they do not appear to have made any attempt to extricate themselves. He might, had it been necessary, have followed it up by showing how the words that came after involved the Divinity of the Messiah. “Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.” It was the seat of the Assessor, of One Who shared the Imperial power of the Divine Kingdom, and of none other. David in the Spirit had seen a prevision of the Ascension, when Christ should sit down on the right hand of the Majesty on High till all enemies should be subdued unto Him; till, like a Mighty Conqueror, He should plant His foot upon the neck of every one who had rebelled against Him. But the simple question was enough; the Pharisees were completely discomfited, and the great crowd 2 which had gathered round our Lord were delighted by what they heard.

What followed this incident we learn more fully from the first Gospel, which records the withering woes with which Jesus denounced in most scathing terms the hypocritical Scribes and Pharisees. S. Mark has preserved the briefest possible summary of them, noticing merely His warnings against their ostentation, their pride, their oppression of the poor and helpless, and their religious hypocrisy.

His last words to them were meant to be deeply symbolical, “Behold, your house is left unto you desolate;” and, as though to suit the action to the word, He turned away to leave the Temple.

It is another of many proofs of His desire to save His adversaries, that He lingered in its courts after He had ceased to speak. It might be that in the calm which succeeded the storm they would reflect upon what had happened, and come to Him even at the eleventh hour; and one more chance was given them. He passed into the great quadrangle known as the Women’s Court, and sitting down, perhaps upon one of the fifteen steps that led up to the Sanctuary, found Himself in full view of the Treasury. It was a corridor in which were fixed thirteen trumpet-shaped chests (neither the number nor shape has ever been explained), for the reception of gifts and offerings, each “trumpet” bearing a separate label to indicate the purpose or object to which its contents would be appropriated. Now, while He was observing the varied demeanour of the crowd of offerers, many of whom, no doubt with much parade, cast in “many coins,” 1 His attention was arrested by the approach of a poor lone widow, who came with the smallest contribution legally admissible. Reading all her condition at a glance, and seeing the strength of faith which led her to throw herself entirely upon the Providence of God, He pronounced her offering more acceptable than all the riches of those who had given to God that which had cost them nothing.

Now there are several thoughts suggested by the circumstance that are worthy of notice.

The first touches the juxtaposition of His censure of the Scribes and the commendation of the widow. The rapacious unfeeling “devourers of widows’ houses,” and the self-forgetting self-sacrificing victim of their extortion, meet together in the Temple, outwardly to engage in the same religious act; but the former, through their ostentation and pride, to incur Divine displeasure, the latter, to win for herself an undying fame by that “self-denial which is the essence of charity.”

Another thought arises out of an expression preserved only in the narrative as given by S. Luke: “All these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God.” Every one of those gifts was by Christ’s verdict dedicated to God. How often do men withhold their support from institutions on the plea that they are dissatisfied with the administration of their funds! There never was a time when the people could, humanly speaking, have more reasonably declined to support the House of God. Religion was never more hollow, nor the priests more rapacious and self-seeking, and yet Christ deliberately says that all that was put into the Treasury was an “offering of God.”

Again, when was it that Christ’s attention was drawn to this poor widow? It was in the brief interval between the most awful denunciations He ever uttered, and the prediction of calamities which reached onward from the overthrow of Jerusalem to the dissolution of the world. Who but Christ, in the midst of thoughts so big with the destinies of the Universe, could have recalled Himself to take notice of a poor woman, and express satisfaction at what He saw her doing? Truly, indeed, was it said of Him, “Who is like unto the Lord our God, that hath His dwelling so high: and yet humbleth Himself to behold the things that are in heaven and earth?”

Note: The belief in a Galilean Messiah of the house of Joseph is said by some to be late. The idea was that there would be two Messiahs; the one of Joseph’s house would engage in battle with the one of David’s, and that the latter would then reunite the scattered tribes, and all would be restored together.

Note: Many later writers and commentators have denied the Davidic authorship. Some have read the title as though it were “concerning David,” others have supposed the Psalm to be a very late composition. Unless we accept the opinion of those who say that our Lord spoke merely according to the views prevalent among His countrymen, there can be no question on the

Note: The imagery is taken from a rude and barbarous age, in which this was often literally done, as is testified to by not a few Assyrian monuments.

Note: “The common people” is misleading. It is simply 6 irows #xlor, the large crowd. /

Note: woWa, not ttoXv; probably K^p/xara is understood. - fxlav, single, by herself.