John Chrysostom
The Lord did not regard the widow’s offering of two coins simply as the monetary value of two obols (cf. Luke 21:1-4). Why was this? It is because He values the richness of the spirit over material wealth. In terms of money, her situation seems dire; yet when we consider her heartfelt generosity, the treasures of her noble spirit are beyond description.
Read more (427 words)
Yet, why should I express this to those who are unwilling to relinquish their attachment to riches, who treat it as if it were eternal? They give a trifling portion of their abundance and believe they have accomplished all that is required. This is not true charity; genuine charity is exemplified by that widow who gave “all she had, her entire living.” If you cannot match her sacrifice, then at least offer what is excessive in your possession; ensure that all you have is adequate, but without excess. Sadly, few give even a fraction more; and when one possesses a multitude of servants and luxurious garments, all this is superfluous. We have no need or use for what we can do without; it is excess and unnecessary. Let us discern what we truly cannot live without. With just two servants, we could manage; after all, there are those who live without any. If it is possible for some to thrive without servants altogether, what justification do we have for not being satisfied with just two? A home with three rooms would suffice for us; consider that some, with their families, manage comfortably in a single room. You may keep two servants if you choose, but is it really disgraceful, they would say, for a free woman to be accompanied by so few? In truth, it is not shameful for a free woman to travel with two; rather, it becomes shameful to be surrounded by many. You may chuckle at this, but understand that it is truly ignoble to parade with a throng. Like merchants of livestock or slaves, one may think it impressive to be in the company of numerous attendants. This is mere pride and vanity; it lacks prudence and modesty. A free woman should not be validated by the multitude of followers; what virtue is there in possessing many servants? Such things do not define the soul, and that which is not essential to the soul does not grant true freedom. True freedom arises when we are satisfied with little; when we desire much, we become enslaved—worse than the enslaved. Consider this: do not the angels traverse the cosmos alone, without anyone to accompany them? Are they, who lack this need, inferior to us who do? If it is distinctive of angels to be free from dependence, which life is nearer to the angelic: one that requires many servants, or one that needs but few? Is it disgraceful to possess only a limited number of attendants? It is only disgraceful to engage in unholy actions.