Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

The Widow's Mites


Recommended Posts

  • Members

You are adding to the text, Alan.  

 

The Scripture shows no commendation in that passage.  But it does show condemnation.

 

The Lord had just warned of the scribes robbing widiw's houses, condemning the ones doing the robbing.  Keeping the passage in context, the Lord was demonstrating how the widows were being robbed... By having to give money to the Temple that was not required by God.  By having to give what she needed to sustain her life.

 

God's requirement, as far as the poor were concerned in giving money to the Temple, was that males twenty years old and up give half a shekel a year.  

Jesus pointed out that the widow was poor.  And that she gave all that she had to live on.  Why would He commend her for putting all she had to live on in the coffers of the thieves in the Temple?

 

Your theory that the widow was being commended makes absolutely no sense whatsoever when the account is read in context.

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
On 9/25/2015 at 10:10 PM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.

SFIC...speaking of reading in context, it would seem that the widow was not the only one that thought giving money to the temple was required.

You conveniently leave out the part of this Scripture that I quoted, and that is because it doesn't fit your vendetta against any sort of giving to the work of The Lord. This may sound harsh, but it is the way I see it in all of your posts regarding giving to God's work.

 I don't see Jesus rebuking all the other people who cast money into the treasury, which he surely would have done if it was not required or wrong. So, are we to believe what the Bible says these people were doing, or your wrongful assertions of what Scripture plainly says?

Your assertion that she was coerced into giving is a private interpretation that is not warranted by the context in question. Even reading in an elementary manner reveals that the Lord was commending her for her unselfish, and sacrificial giving to the work of God.

Just to be clear and honest, your interpretation of this passage is one I have never heard from any other source and I don't believe it is correct, nor is it found in any IFB expositions pertaining to this passage that I have ever seen.
 Rom. 3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? 
 4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
17 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

SFIC...speaking of reading in context, it would seem that the widow was not the only one that thought giving money to the temple was required.

You conveniently leave out the part of this Scripture that I quoted, and that is because it doesn't fit your vendetta against any sort of giving to the work of The Lord. This may sound harsh, but it is the way I see it in all of your posts regarding giving to God's work.

 I don't see Jesus rebuking all the other people who cast money into the treasury, which he surely would have done if it was not required or wrong. So, are we to believe what the Bible says these people were doing, or your wrongful assertions of what Scripture plainly says?

Your assertion that she was coerced into giving is a private interpretation that is not warranted by the context in question. Even reading in an elementary manner reveals that the Lord was commending her for her unselfish, and sacrificial giving to the work of God.

Just to be clear and honest, your interpretation of this passage is one I have never heard from any other source and I don't believe it is correct, nor is it found in any IFB expositions pertaining to this passage that I have ever seen.
 Rom. 3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? 
 4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

My "assertions" are not wrong at all.

 

The scribes were the interpreters of the Law, much like our SCOTUS Justices are.  

 

Context shows how the widows were being robbed.  They were made to give to the Temple where it was detrimental to their welfare.  Sure, the rich were made to give as well.  But two mites is far more needful to a poor widow than two mites would be to the affluent.  

 

What she had to give was unjust, because it robbed her of her living.  

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
On 9/25/2015 at 10:10 PM, Standing Firm In Christ said:
18 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

My "assertions" are not wrong at all.

 

The scribes were the interpreters of the Law, much like our SCOTUS Justices are.  

 

Context shows how the widows were being robbed.  They were made to give to the Temple where it was detrimental to their welfare.  Sure, the rich were made to give as well.  But two mites is far more needful to a poor widow than two mites would be to the affluent.  

 

What she had to give was unjust, because it robbed her of her living.  

Your private assertions are wrong SFIC. While this passage does say that widows were being robbed, it does not say that this window was being robbed by her giving. One of the rules of Bible study is that we go by what the Scripture says, not what it doesn't say. You have to torture the Scripture to make it say what you want it to say, not what it actually says. Nowhere in this Scripture does it say that she "had" to give what she did, you just assume it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
21 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

 

Read this passage along with the delivery Jesus gave in Matthew 23.    Jesus was pronouncing judgment against the religious leaders.  And when He walked out of the Temple, He pronounced judgment against the Temple itself.

 

Jesus was angry at what the leaders of Israel had become, robbers of the poor.  He was angry at what they had done to the House of God.  It had become a place filled with extortion.  

 

It is both disgusting and ridiculous to think that Jesus would be commending a poor widow who made herself destitute by giving all she had to live on to a religious system that He had just exposed as thieves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Jesus said in Matthew 23:15 that the scribes and Pharisees were children of hell.

 

Tell me Jim, why would Jesus commend a poor widow for funding unsaved children of hell, or for funding a corrupt religious system with all she had to live on?

 

it is not my doctrine that is a "torture to Scripture".  Rather, it is the doctrine that claims Jesus was commending the widow.  That doctrine that has Jesus commending the funding of a corrupt religious system is the doctrine that is a "torture to Scripture".

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

You are adding to the text, Alan.  

 

The Scripture shows no commendation in that passage.  But it does show condemnation.

 

In the context, the Lord Jesus is plainly showing the heart difference from the Scribes, Mark 12:38-40, and the widow in Mark 12:41-44.

Both Pastor Markle and I had brought out this contrast very clearly and concisely and you just ignored both our posts. As you have also ignored and condemned the other fine posts of the brethren. In fact, you have condemned ( On OnlIne Baptist, on your blog, in your book, and on your forum), anybody who decides to give a tithe and offering to the church. This includes pastors who pastor churches. You have called these men of God, 'thieves," and "robbers."

Your condemnation of the widow for giving thorugh coercion and 'robbbery' is not correct. No, SFIC, I am not adding to the text: you are perverting the very words of the Lord Jesus.

Alan

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
35 minutes ago, Alan said:

In the context, the Lord Jesus is plainly showing the heart difference from the Scribes, Mark 12:38-40, and the widow in Mark 12:41-44.

Both Pastor Markle and I had brought out this contrast very clearly and concisely and you just ignored both our posts. As you have also ignored and condemned the other fine posts of the brethren. In fact, you have condemned ( On OnlIne Baptist, on your blog, in your book, and on your forum), anybody who decides to give a tithe and offering to the church. This includes pastors who pastor churches. You have called these men of God, 'thieves," and "robbers."

Your condemnation of the widow for giving thorugh coercion and 'robbbery' is not correct. No, SFIC, I am not adding to the text: you are perverting the very words of the Lord Jesus.

Alan

 

 

There is no "heart difference" demonstrated in the passage whatsoever.  

Jesus doesn't say, "Look what a great thing this widow has done!"  The widow casting in the mites, and His subsequent statement that she had cast in more than all the others was smack-dab in the middle of His condemnation of the actions of the religious leaders and His judgment against the Temple itself.  

The account of the widow was all part of that big picture,... A piece of the puzzle.  It was the actions of the religious leaders in that corrupt system that placed that widow in the destitute position she went home in.  She was poor when she arrived at the Temple.  She was even poorer when she left.

True religion is visiting the widows in their affliction,... not to rob them of the only means they had to survive on.

I am not "perverting the words of Jesus" at all.  I have exegeted the passage, reading verses 41-44 in their proper context.  You and Scott have eisegeted one verse, tking it out of its context, adding some imaginary heart condition of the widow and alleged commendation by Jesus.  In doing so, it is you who has "perverted the Words of the Lord Jesus," not I.

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

It would seem, SFIC, that you are the only one holding to this private interpretation of yours. Can you come up with anyone else that holds to this position? I am not talking about just here at Online Baptist, but anywhere that Bible believing Independent Baptists are?

You claim to be an IFB, but how you can claim that and be so at odds with our fundamental teachings is unfathomable. So it would seem that arguing with you on this issue will remain unproductive since you are convinced in your own mind that your view is correct against all attempts to show you your error. I guess it's a case of SFIC standing alone against historically accurate Scripture interpretations. So be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
46 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

It would seem, SFIC, that you are the only one holding to this private interpretation of yours. Can you come up with anyone else that holds to this position? I am not talking about just here at Online Baptist, but anywhere that Bible believing Independent Baptists are?

You claim to be an IFB, but how you can claim that and be so at odds with our fundamental teachings is unfathomable. So it would seem that arguing with you on this issue will remain unproductive since you are convinced in your own mind that your view is correct against all attempts to show you your error. I guess it's a case of SFIC standing alone against historically accurate Scripture interpretations. So be it.

Funny you would ask that.  I googled the widow's mite just a little over two hours ago and found a very popular preacher teaching the widow was being robbed.  

 

I do not listen to him normally because he does not use the King James Bible.  His name?  John MacArthur.  The sermon is Titled, "Abusing the Poor".

 

what is that first word that the "I" in IFB stands for?  Oh yeah,... Independent.  That could answer the question as to why I don't agree with you on tithing or the widow's mite account.

 

as to tithing being a "Baptist Fundamental", that is debateable since monetary tithing among Baptists is relatively young.  John Harvey Grime wrote in 1932 that should a Baptist Church ever begin to teach the monetary tithe doctrine, it would cease to be Baptist.  

 

Leaning on what JHG stated, this would mean that I am more "Baptist" than you or Alan.  LoL

 

by the way,... I am not in error.

 

 

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

are you familiar with B.H. Carroll?  He was a late 19th-early 20th century Baptist minister.  When asked to address the topic of tithes, he said:  "Oh, men, forsake this new heresy not taught in the Bible, not accepted in any Statement of Faith, not taught by any reputable scholar or commentary."

It appears that modern Baptists have added Fundamentals" to the Baptist Statements of Faith that were never "Fundamentals" to begin with.  Early Baptists saw monetary tithing as "heresy."

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
7 hours ago, Alan said:

SFIC, why don't you just stick to your own blog (and your own book on tithing), and promote your own interpretation of the words of the Lord Jesus, and the other scriptures on your own blog, to those who are likeminded instead of forcing your teachings on us. Your teaching is repugnant.

Alan

Alan,  I can't believe you said this to "standing firm"... I have seen others post things which contradict the bible and are clearly not IFB teaching. We even have mods who believe in post-trib and other non-IFB stances here!!! I've seen Calvinist, replacement theology, and preterism on this site as commonplace discussion (sadly). 

BUT this topic of tithing is not one of those places where I believe it's "off-limits" to discuss.  "Standing firm" has given OT verses to support his stance.  It's obvious there are many of us here divided over this very subject of tithing. I believe many have brought forth their own study findings supported with verses and reasons which are contrary to yours, and I believe many have brought forth verses and reasons which agree with yours. I think both sides have made valid points (from their own interpretation and understanding of scripture).  And I don't think it was kind or Christian-like to tell "Standing Firm" that his teaching is "repugnant".  Others may feel the same about your stance, yet we all have come here to discuss bible topics such as these.  There ARE Independent Fundamental Baptist pastors who do actually preach against tithing. One of them is Dr. David Peacock from Jacksonville, Florida.  I've heard many of his sermons on sermonaudio.com and he also brings forth the same verses "Standing Firm" has.  He's not the only IFB pastor who has been teaching this. My uncle was also an IFB pastor all of his adult life (from age of mid-20's to late 70's when he went on to be with the Lord). He also taught against tithing, tithing was (he said and showed scripturally) a Levitical law, he (my uncle) also stated that we are not under Levitical law, nor are we under Mosaic law, but we are under grace... and his church never suffered because of it either... people gave willingly of a cheerful heart. They built new buildings (for a school), ran buses for children, sent money to missionaries, and paid for kids to go to bible camp in the summer (if they were needy and desired to go), they also had Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners which were taken to elderly and shut-ins.  ALL of this was done without requiring an unbiblical tithe.

There are MANY other topics being discussed/ have been discussed which also actually DO need to be called repugnant... but discussing tithing (either pro or against) should not be considered repugnant. I'm sorry we have parted ways in this one matter, however, I felt compelled to speak up in defense of "Standing Firm" because I (for one) do NOT find his stance repugnant. He has as much right as you and I (or anyone else) to defend his position, and he did so with scripture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

SFIC...You conveniently leave out the part of this Scripture that I quoted, and that is because it doesn't fit your vendetta against any sort of giving to the work of The Lord.

I'm not trying to stir up anything Jim, and unless I misunderstand what you're saying...but that's not a true statement regarding SFIC. He does believe in giving to the work of the Lord...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brother Robey,

First, please understand that I have not engaged and do not intend to engage the matter of tithing in this discussion.  I have only engaged and do only intend to engage in this discussion concerning the correct understanding of Mark 12:38-44.
 

On ‎12‎/‎4‎/‎2015 at 10:37 AM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

There was no commendation in the text of Mark 12:41ff. The immediate preceding text reveals that widows were being robbed. The immediate text after shows Jesus' anger at the unjust oppression of the widows...

Except that in the passage there is no use whatsoever of the word "anger" or any of its cognates or any of its synonyms.  Nor is there any usage of such in the parallel passage of Luke 20:45 - 21:6.  So then, should we accept what God the Holy Spirit inspired in these passages as they stand; or should we accept such with Brother Robey's assumptions, additions, and adaptations included?
 

On ‎12‎/‎4‎/‎2015 at 10:37 AM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

He states that the Temple will be destroyed. Why make the statement that the Temple would be destroyed at all, if not because of the unjust actions of its leaders?

I believe that the answer to this question can be discerned through the following passages:

1.  Luke 19:41-44.
2.  Mark 12:1-12 in parallel with Matthew 21:33-46 & Luke 20:9-19.
3.  Mark 12:38-40 in parallel with Matthew 23:1-38 & Luke 22:45-47.
 

On ‎12‎/‎4‎/‎2015 at 10:37 AM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

The prophecy of the Temple's destruction is made due to the actions Christ and His Apostles had just witnessed inside,... a widow being robbed. Context shows no commendation whatsoever.

Actually, the prophecy of the temple's destruction is made due to the things revealed in the passages that I have presented above, with special consideration being given to Luke 19:41-44.
 

On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2015 at 8:06 AM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Mark 12:40a "Which devour widows houses,..."

 

devour - Greek 'katesthio'

Outline of Biblical Usage: to consume by eating, to eat up, devour - of birds, of a dragon, of a man eating up the little book.  metaph. - to devour i.e. squander, waste: substance;
to devour i.e. forcibly appropriate: widows' property; to strip one of his goods; to ruin (by the infliction of injuries); by fire, to devour i.e. to utterly consume, destroy, of the consumption of the strength of body and mind by strong emotions

 

the whole purpose of Jesus sitting against the wall was to demonstrate to His followers how the widow's living was being "forcibly appropriated." She was forced to give all her living by the scribes of the Law, just as we are forced to pay taxes by the scribes of our laws.

Except through inspiration God the Holy Spirit revealed that the purpose of the Lord in this case was to behold "how the people cast money into the treasury." (see Mark 12:41)  So then, whereas God the Holy Spirit indicated that the Lord's purpose was to behold "how the people" were giving, Brother Robey indicates that the Lord's purpose was to behold how the people were being robbed.  So then, should we accept that which God the Holy Spirit revealed as the Lord's purpose; or should we accept Brother Robey's assumptions, additions, and adaptations?

Furthermore, we should recognize that the verb phrases "being robbed" or "being compelled" are in the passive voice, indicating that the action of these verbs is being performed upon the subject of the verb by a force that is outside the subject of the verb.  On the other hand, the verbs "cast" and "threw" are in the active voice, indicating that the action of these verbs is being performed by the personal engagement of the subject of the verb.  Throughout Mark 12:41-44 we do not find even a single verb concerning the giving of money that is in the passive voice.  Indeed, in this passage every single verb that concerns the matter of giving money is in the active voice.  Therefore, according to the Holy Spirit inspired grammar of this passage, the focus is upon the personal, active giving of the givers.  The focus in NOT upon the robbing or compelling of the givers by a force outside of themselves.
 

On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2015 at 8:06 AM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Jesus was not commending the widow on her giving at all.  

Actually, the question as to the matter of commendation or not is rooted to the usage of the word "more."  The adverb "more" is a word of comparison, indicating that some action is being performed in a greater manner.  If the particular action is a spiritually positive action (such as giving a gift unto the offerings of God), then indicating that an individual is performing this action more than others is by definition a commendation of that individual.  However, if the particular action is a spiritually negative action (such as robbing others by compelling them to give that which the Lord God has not required), then indicating that an individual or group is performing this action more than others is by definition a condemnation of that individual. 

So then, in Mark 12:41-44 who is described by our Lord Jesus Christ as doing "more"?  The widow.  And with whom is she compared by our Lord Jesus Christ?  With the many that were rich.  And about what action of the widow and the rich does our Lord Jesus Christ indicate that the widow was doing "more"?  The action of casting money into the treasury of the temple.  Even so, the comparison is as follows:

1.  The rich gave to the treasury.
2.  The widow gave MORE to the treasury.

Throughout Mark 12:41-44 the scribes are not at all mentioned in relation to this giving, and the matter of compulsion to give is not at all referenced.
 

7 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

The Scripture shows no commendation in that passage.  But it does show condemnation.

The Lord had just warned of the scribes robbing widiw's houses, condemning the ones doing the robbing.  Keeping the passage in context, the Lord was demonstrating how the widows were being robbed... By having to give money to the Temple that was not required by God.  By having to give what she needed to sustain her life.

Brother Robey, as I am certain that you may have discerned, it is my position that the givers of Mark 12:41-44, including both the rich people and the poor widow, were giving gifts unto the offerings of God.  Furthermore, it is my understanding that you would disagree with the position, and that you would rather hold to the position that the givers were giving a type of temple tax that they were being compelled to give by the false authority of the scribes.  Am I correct in my assessment of your position?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...