looking up [Jesus] saw the rich people putting their gift into the treasury and he saw the poor widow put in but two mites. I tell you the truth this poor widow has put in more than all. For they all from their excess put in the gift but she from her need puts in all that she has to live on (Luke 21:1–4)
One important point is that the treasury amount given was required by Law. She was not giving from her need to help the poor or for some other reason, including tithing as tithing was not about giving money into the treasury. Jesus warned about the false teaching just before he talked about the widow, saying "they devour widows houses, and make a show with lengthy prayers, these men will be punished severely" (Luke 20:47). How did they devour widows homes? By false teachings of giving.
If we handle scriptures correctly or just apply common sense, if God gives for your need, he does not require you give a portion away, if you did that it would mean you do not have the means to pay, mortgage, rent, or if you own taxes and would loose your home. The religious leaders of that day were much like some today and would destroy widows homes with their teachings of giving and tithing. They take scripture out of context, mishandle it, either out of adhering to traditions of men or driven by their own passions. Either way it is not for God's glory.
Luke says the widow put in two coins. The required amount was half a shekel (Exodus 30:11-16). A shekel was a unit of measurement based upon weight, about 9.8 grams, and usually silver was used. A shekel or silver today would be about $10 USD and half of that $5. It is a small amount even then, but if millions on the census gave that amount would add up.
It is not easy to specify what a shekel and mite then was worth in todays wages, but I have read based upon Roman wages of a soldier at that time, a mite was worth a quadrant which was 1/64 of a denarius and a denarius was about the same worth as a shekel which was about a day's wage for a common worker. Whether this logic is correct or not I do not know, the point is that the required amount for the treasury was not much money and the widow gave two mites so about at 1/16 of what was required.
Also we note the treasury laws stated no one was suppose to give above or under what was required (Exodus 30:11-16). Unless the religious leaders disregarded this law (as they did others, the Pharisees bragged about how they tithed ten percent of all their herbs when they were not required to, so they might have been giving more than required for their own glory). If they were following the law the rich were not giving more money but what was required and the poor widow could not give even what was required but gave from that which she needed to live on.
So the widow broke the law but Jesus did not condemn her for this but said she gave more than all the rest. It is a picture of grace that was to come in the new covenant, and the spiritual significance being "come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost" (Isaiah 55:1). The atonement and the ransom price and redemption would be paid by the blood of Jesus and does not cost money.
Receive the atonement money [required treasury money] from the Israelites and use it for the service of the tent of meeting. It will be a memorial for the Israelites before the Lord, making atonement for your lives (Numbers 18:21-26)
The treasury here was said to be atonement money. Now, to understand the treasury, it was the only giving requiring money. There was also giving of alms to the poor but I have not seen scriptures saying it was required. The tithe, defined by the Mosaic Law, Numbers 18:21-26, was agriculturally based and they were only required to tithe once or possibly several times a year depending on what they grew and harvested. The tithe and offerings were never about money. There were exceptions like when someone who had to travel a long distance to the temple could sell and repurchase when they arrived. These scriptures from the old are often taken out of context and used today to require people to give money.*
Saying money is required is one thing but disregarding the spiritual significance is even worse, as these were shadows of the things to come in Christ. Back then the treasurer received the atonement money, today, it would be sacrilegious to say we give money for atonement. Surely, to say we give offerings and sacrifices, and tithes of money disregards the spiritual significance.
each one must pay the Lord a ransom for his life at the time he is counted (Exodus 30:12)
The Treasury was about money and each person past twenty on the census was required to give a half-shekel once a year. The spiritual significance of the treasury is that it paid the ransom for the person's life, an offering to the Lord, an atonement of money. In the new covenant Jesus paid the ransom, and was the offering that atoned for sin and appeased God's wrath and anger toward sin. To go back to the old would be to fall from grace and sever ourselves from Christ, strong words Paul uses to state the significance of this.
The other giving of money was the alms to the poor, which obviously was given to take care of the poor. This is probably were they gave in excess to be seen by men. I have read there were possibly trumpet-shaped urns that made a lot of noise so people could hear them throwing a lot of metal coins in it. This is the only giving of money that we see the early church require, alms to the poor. Also we see the Gentile church give to the church in Jerusalem who were under heavy persecution, even their property was being seize, which probably explains why they sold everything and pooled their resources so it could not be taken away. The Jewish Christians were being declared heretics for following a false God Jesus thus forfeiting their inheritance under Jewish Law.
We also see giving to Paul while he was in prison, but how much do you need while in prison? Mostly, Paul worked as a tent maker with his own hands to supply for his ministry so that money was not a stumbling block to people receiving the gospel. Oh, if we were to be the same today, the wealth and riches spent on paying billions to make ministers wealthy and building vast structures. Oh, how we break God's laws by traditions. We do not see the early church tithing and passing around offering plates to get money, which is sacrilegious to call it such when you look at the spiritual significance of what Christ did, how the sin offering, food offerings, burnt offerings, incense offering, tithes... were a shadow of things to come in Christ.
Paul confronted the apostles about holding to traditions of the old, but he agreed with them when it came to helping the poor. When Paul returned to Jerusalem after traveling for many years, he met with the other apostles explaining the dispensation of the gospel of grace that had been giving to him to proclaim. Dispensation meaning there were changes in former rules, which Paul writes about in his letters often that we are no longer under the Mosaic Law. The apostles agreed that this was from God, but they only asked for him to give to the poor, which is significant, expressing what was discussed and excluded, like circumcision, offerings, tithing... There was no statement about continuing these only the giving to the poor, which Paul said he had and agreed it was of God.
for if I build up that which was tore down I demonstrate I am a law breaker. For through the Law I died to the Law so that I live to God, having been crucified with Christ (Galatians 2:18)
This is important to note as for all the requirements of the law, circumcision, offerings, tithing, treasury... the apostles only asked for Paul to keep to the giving to the poor (Galatians 2:10). Paul had even confronted Peter about how the Jewish believers were treating the Gentile believers as if still under the Law, unclean, not sitting with them during their meals (Galatians 2). And he spoke how circumcision was not required, but only faith working through love. This also implicitly implies tithing and other festivals, ceremonies, and other such things under the Law were not required. To bring these in is to build back up what Christ tore down (Galatians 2:18).
Today we have a religious system in place were ministers think they are entitled to live off of other people, like the priests in the old testament and unlike Paul. It has gotten so bad even the scriptures are being translated in ways to support these traditions, an example, hopefully I can write about soon, is 2 Corinthians 8-9. But you would not know this unless you knew Greek so I am so glad there are ministries today teaching Greek and providing interlinear Bibles (which has revolutionized the way to read and study the scriptures) so we can look at the real meaning of the words close to its original form and not be led astray.