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

About writing books to "profit off of God":

I Corinthians 9:13,14-

[13] Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the alter are partakers with the alter?
[14] Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

Apparently, God doesn't care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Critical Mass said:

About writing books to "profit off of God":

I Corinthians 9:13,14-

[13] Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the alter are partakers with the alter?
[14] Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

Apparently, God doesn't care.

Shame on you CM, I was taking a sip of coffee when I read this post this morning. It took me 5 minutes to clean my monitor.:lol:

 

Edited by wretched
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There there is this to consider too:

"Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding." Proverbs 23:23

It might also be good to make a distinction between making a living by faithfully following God's calling in their life and those who write books specifically for the sake of profit, often abundant profit and often at the price of lack of sticking to the Word and venturing into the sensational or trying to satisfy itching ears in order to gain more profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Pastor Markle, I see... you then believe that the application of the word "gifts" in Luke 1:1 would suggest that the widow was also casting in "gifts"?

 Luke 1:1  " And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury. "

Luke 1:2-4 "

2  "And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites."

3 "And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all:"

4 "For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had."

I do not see (in verses 2-4) where it states that the widow was also casting in gifts??? I see that she was casting in all of her money. Verse 1 states the "rich men" were casting in "gifts", verse 2-4 does not explicitly tell us that the widow was also casting in "gifts". 

So once again, we would have to determine what then the phrase  "more than they all" would mean in verse 3. Was she casting in more "gifts" than they all? Or was she casting in more money (proportionally to her income) than they all?

**************************************************************************************

A side note (unrelated to this thread, but mentioned in this thread as it has been mentioned in numerous other threads)

to "Invicta": Darby was not the first to teach a pre-trib rapture.

The Early Church-age men such as Barnabas (ca.100-105), Papias (ca. 60-130), Justin Martyr (110-195), Irenaeus (120-202), Tertullian (145-220), Hippolytus (ca. 185-236), Cyprian (200-250), and Lactantius (260-330) 
And in "newer" eras: Joseph Mede (1586-1638), Increase Mather (1639-1723), Peter Jurieu (1687), Philip Doddridge (1738), John Gill (1748), James Macknight (1763), Thomas Scott (1792) and Morgan Edwards (1722-1795) all wrote concerning the Rapture occurring separate from the Second Coming. Even in the more modern church, those like William Witherby (1818) were precursors to John Darby in support of the view. 

Why are there so many "quiet years" between the early Church-age men and the 1500's? I think it probable that the Catholic church had much to do with that! Murdering anyone they considered to be an heretick, and that's a huge reason why the dark ages were dark indeed!
So before make such statements alluding to Darby being the first to teach the pre-trib rapture, maybe we should dig a little deeper into historical documentation, and rely less on what others have told us?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
9 hours ago, Ronda said:

Pastor Markle, I see... you then believe that the application of the word "gifts" in Luke 1:1 would suggest that the widow was also casting in "gifts"?

 Luke 1:1  " And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury. "

Luke 1:2-4 "

2  "And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites."

3 "And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all:"

4 "For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had."

I do not see (in verses 2-4) where it states that the widow was also casting in gifts??? I see that she was casting in all of her money. Verse 1 states the "rich men" were casting in "gifts", verse 2-4 does not explicitly tell us that the widow was also casting in "gifts". 

So once again, we would have to determine what then the phrase  "more than they all" would mean in verse 3. Was she casting in more "gifts" than they all? Or was she casting in more money (proportionally to her income) than they all?

Sister Ronda,

It is precisely accurate to say that Luke 21:1-2 does not employ the word "gifts" directly in the case of the widow.  Grammatically, the word "thither" of verse 2 would refer back to the prepositional phrase, "into the treasury," of verse 1.  Furthermore, the phrase "two mites" of verse 2 would be parallel to the phrase "their gifts" of verse 1.  As such, the parallel of the two verses would be as follows:

Verses 1 -- "And he looked up, and saw      the rich men casting             their gifts    into the treasury."
Verses 2 -- "And he saw also                  a certain poor widow casting     two mites     in thither."

Even so, an individual might be able to claim that there is a contrast in the "type" of giving between the rich givers and the poor widow -- that they were casting in "gifts," whereas she was casting in a compelled form of tax.  However, the context of both Mark 12:41-44 & Luke 21:1-4 appears to indicate that the rich givers and the poor widow were both giving unto the same treasury "offering" and were both giving in the same manner ("casting in").  Thus it would appear that the rich givers and the poor widow were both giving the same "type" of giving -- that either both were giving a compelled form of tax or both were giving a form of gift.

Furthermore, in Luke 21:4 our Lord provided his own assessment of the both the rich givers and the poor widow as follows -- "For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had."  Herein our Lord Jesus Christ specifically assessed that the rich givers were giving "unto the offerings of God."  So then, the question might be asked -- Unto what did the poor widow "cast in all the living that she had"?  In the latter half of the verse and statement, which is the portion concerning the poor widow, that "into what" is not specifically mentioned.  Grammatically, this indicates that the "into what" is understood from the first half of the verse and statement, that is -- "unto the offerings of God."  As such, the parallel of the two halves of the verse and statement would be as follows:

Verse 4a -- "For all these      have of their abundance cast in      unto the offerings of God."
Verse 4b -- "But she              of her penury hath cast in               (unto the offerings of God)     all the living that she had."

Finally, it is worthy of notice that the English word "offerings" in Luke 21:4 is translated from the exact same Greek word as that from which the English word "gifts" in Luke 21:1, that is -- the Greek word "doron."

Even so, I would contend that if there is anything herein concerning the motivation of the widow in giving (and of the rich givers, as well) that is just this -- She thought and believed that she was giving "unto the offerings [gifts] of God."  Indeed, this would reveal that her motive concerned her relationship and spirit toward God.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
spelling error
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2015 at 9:27 PM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

i see no "evidence" for your position whatsoever.


Ahhhh!  So then, do you utterly reject the Biblical factualness of the following “evidences” –

1.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that there is no direct revelation in Mark 12:40 or Luke 20:45 concerning the manner by which the scribes were “devouring widows’ houses”?

2.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that there is no TERMINOLOGY of compulsion anywhere in Mark 12:38-44 or Luke 20:45 – 21:4?

3.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that the Holy Spirit specifically revealed in Mark 12:41 that our Lord Jesus Christ was beholding “how the people were giving” (not, how the scribes were robbing the people or the widows)?

4.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that there is no TERMINOLOGY of anger by our Lord Jesus Christ anywhere in Mark 12:41-44 or Luke 21:1-4?

5.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that only active voice verbs are employed for the giving of both the rich and the widow in Mark 12:41-44 and Luke 21:1-4?

6.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself reported in Luke 21:4 that the giving unto the temple treasury was being given “unto the offerings [gifts] OF GOD”?

7.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that although our Lord Jesus Christ rebuked the scribes for making the temple into “a den of thieves,” God the Holy Spirit still called the temple “the house of God” in the very same context of Matthew 21:12-13?

8.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that (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 provide the reason why our Lord Jesus Christ pronounced the judgment of destruction upon Jerusalem and the temple therein?

9.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that in Matthew 8:4 our Lord Jesus Christ specifically instructed a healed leper to give his gift unto that same temple system?

10.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that in Mark 11:15-17 the thievery of that “den of thieves” was contextually tied to the selling and buying of things and to the changing of monies, not to the giving of offerings unto the temple treasury?

11.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that in Matthew 23:2-3 our Lord Jesus Christ specifically instructed the people and His disciples to “observe and do” “all whatsoever” the scribes and Pharisees bid them do?

12.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that in 2 Corinthians 8:1-5 the believers of Macedonia were commended for giving with “liberality” while “in a great trial of affliction” and in “deep poverty,” desiring even to give “beyond their power”?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

1.  

Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that there is no direct revelation in 

Mark 12:40

 or 

Luke 20:45

 concerning the manner by which the scribes were “devouring widows’ houses”?[/quote]The Greek that the word "devour" is translated from shows the manner,,, "forcibly appropriated".  They took the houses by force.  This could be by going into the houses and kicking the widows out.  It could be through laying burdens on the widows that would take away their ability to maintain and own a home,... thus forcing them out through destitution.

Interesting how the widow arrived at the Temple in poverty and left destitute, eh?

  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that there is no TERMINOLOGY of compulsion anywhere in Mark 12:38-44 or Luke 20:45 – 21:4?

2.
Highly doubtful that the widow was giving of her own volition, especially since Jesus had just revealed to all that the Temple had been made a den of thieves, and that the ones in charge were tobbing widow's houses.

3.  

Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that the Holy Spirit specifically revealed in 

Mark 12:41

 that our Lord Jesus Christ was beholding “how the people were giving” (not, how the scribes were robbing the people or the widows)?[/quote] Forced giving is still giving.  Example:  People are made to fear a curse from God today if they do not give 10% of their money to the Church.  And so, to avoid a curse, they give.  Their giving was forced, yet it was still giving.

  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that there is no TERMINOLOGY of anger by our Lord Jesus Christ anywhere in Mark 12:41-44 or Luke 21:1-4?

4.
 I see Jesus' anger at the fact that the widow wasgiving to an institution that He said had become a den of thieves.  

5.  

Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that only active voice verbs are employed for the giving of both the rich and the widow in 

Mark 12:41-44

 and 

Luke 21:1-4

?[/quote] Again, it does not mean the widow's contribution was not forced.

  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself reported in Luke 21:4 that the giving unto the temple treasury was being given “unto the offerings [gifts] OF GOD”?

6.
Research shows that the money receptacles were named.  The receptacle was marked for "offerings of God," that does not mean they were going to God.

7.  

Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that although our Lord Jesus Christ rebuked the scribes for making the temple into “a den of thieves,” God the Holy Spirit still called the temple “the house of God” in the very same context of 

Matthew 21:12-13

?[/quote] Different day, different context.  The passage in Matthew 21 has absolutely nothing to do with the passage in Mark 12 or the one in Luke 21.

  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that (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 provide the reason why our Lord Jesus Christ pronounced the judgment of destruction upon Jerusalem and the temple therein?

8.
Judgment was pronounced for many reasons.  Many of which are seen in Matthew 23.  One such reason was the robbing of the widow's houses.

9.  

Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that in 

Matthew 8:4

 our Lord Jesus Christ specifically instructed a healed leper to give his gift unto that same temple system?[/quote] You are grasping Scott.  Mark 8 has nothing to do with Mark 12.  The events were at different time frames altogether.

  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that in Mark 11:15-17 the thievery of that “den of thieves” was contextually tied to the selling and buying of things and to the changing of monies, not to the giving of offerings unto the temple treasury?

10.
So, thieves will steal money but not offerings?  LoL  One day, they're thieves.  The next, saints.   Hmmmmm, I don't think so.  

11.  

Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that in 

Matthew 23:2-3

 our Lord Jesus Christ specifically instructed the people and His disciples to “observe and do” “all whatsoever” the scribes and Pharisees bid them do?[/quote] So, it is highly possible that the Pharisees did tell the widow to give her last two mites to their corrupt institurion.  

  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that in 2 Corinthians 8:1-5 the believers of Macedonia were commended for giving with “liberality” while “in a great trial of affliction” and in “deep poverty,” desiring even to give “beyond their power”?

12.
Nothing to do with Mark's passage.

 

what I "utterly reject" is your blatant pulling verses out of context in a feeble attempt to prove that Jesus was pleased that a poor widow is now even poorer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On ‎12‎/‎19‎/‎2015 at 2:17 AM, Critical Mass said:

The money is still going to the temple.

 

On ‎12‎/‎19‎/‎2015 at 2:44 AM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Critical Mass, there is nothing in the text that says the money was going to the Temple.  

Yet there is something in the text which indicates that the money was going "unto the offerings of God." (See Luke 21:4)

____________________________________________________________

 

So then, Brother Robey, you certainly do believe that the context reveals something about the widow's motivations in giving.  Indeed, you believe that the context reveals contradictory motivations.

First, you believe that the widow was motivated by devotion unto the corrupt system of the scribes, as per the following:

On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2015 at 2:19 PM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

This shows a mind that is devoted to the corrupt scribes despite the fact that they were robbing her. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

 

Second, you believe that the widow was motivated by disgust at the scribes for taking her home, as per the following:

On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2015 at 2:19 PM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

This shows a mind that is devoted to the corrupt scribes despite the fact that they were robbing her.  Further, she threw the money in rather than dropping it in.  The Greek suggests a violent action.  Questions would have to be addressed, such as,  Why throw the money in as opposed to just dropping it in?  Why ignore the warning?  Here is a woman who has lost her home, forcibly appropriated by the corrupt leaders in Israel, bringing all she had to live on to the organization governed by her oppressers.  Ignoring Jesus's words, she throws the money into the treasury with purpose.  They'd taken her home from her, they may as well have the rest.  The fact that she threw the money in as opposed to merely dropping it in implies anger and/or disgust.  (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Now, to me this seems a bit contradictory.  Which is it?  Was she devoted to the scribes?  Or, was she disgusted with the scribes?


Third, you believe that the widow was motivated by deception unto utter rebellion against the Lord her Savior, as per the following:

On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2015 at 0:40 AM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Luke 21:2 (KJV) 2 And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.

Here was a widow who had just heard Jesus' warning that scribes were robbing widows house.  And yet, she chose to ignore Jesus' warning.  She rejected the words of the One who would soon put an end to all sacrifice for sin.  She instead gave her last two coins into the very treasury of the men that Jesus was warning of just moments earlier.  (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Sounds cultic, to some degree.  Cult followers will ignore any warnings from outsiders who are trying to rescue them from danger. This widow chose to continue to give to the corrupt system despite the fact that she heard that widows were being robbed by that system.  (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Luke 21:3 (KJV) 3 And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all:

Luke 21:4 (KJV) 4 For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.

According to Mark 12:43, Jesus spoke this to His disciples.  Did the rest of those in the Temple hear these words as they had the warning?  We are not told.  The text in Mark states that Jesus called the disciples unto Himself, so it is possible that these words were spoken privately, i.e.; only the disciples hearing.

There is no commendation of the widow in the text at all.  It cannot be possible that Jesus Christ would first expose the corrupt religious system and its thieving staff, and then turn around and praise a widow who chose to reject Him and instead foolishly put all her living into the coffers of that corrupt system.  (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Seeing the seeming cultic behavior of the widow, (ignoring the warnings from outsiders)  I am once again reminded of a woe levied upon the scribes and Pharisees,...  (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Matthew 23:15 (KJV) 15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

The widow had been made a proselyte of the religious leaders.  She chose to ignore Jesus' warning.  The corrupt religious system had her fully brainwashed into believing she was giving into the offerings of God, when in reality, they were robbing her of all her living.  (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2015 at 11:16 AM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Her Salvation was standing in her presence.  He warned of the thieving scribes.  Yet, she put the mites in their treasury, showing her devotion to their teachings.  Yes, she was showing signs of being a proselyte. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2015 at 2:19 PM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

The fact that the widow heard Jesus warning is obvious.  And yet, she ignored it.  (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Ignoring Jesus's words, she throws the money into the treasury with purpose.  They'd taken her home from her, they may as well have the rest.  The fact that she threw the money in as opposed to merely dropping it in implies anger and/or disgust.  (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

So then, Brother Robey, you actually believe that this poor widow was a wicked rebel against her Lord and Savior and against the message of His Word.  Indeed, you believe that she was "more" of a wicked rebel "than they all."

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
10 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:
1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

 

1.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that there is no direct revelation in Mark 12:40 or Luke 20:45 concerning the manner by which the scribes were “devouring widows’ houses”?

The Greek that the word "devour" is translated from shows the manner,,, "forcibly appropriated".  They took the houses by force.  This could be by going into the houses and kicking the widows out.  It could be through laying burdens on the widows that would take away their ability to maintain and own a home,... thus forcing them out through destitution.

Interesting how the widow arrived at the Temple in poverty and left destitute, eh?

I have no conflict with the meaning of the word "devour" as "forcibly appropriated," but that is not the point of the question.  The point of the question concerns "the manner by which the scribes were 'devouring [forcibly appropriating] widows' houses."  Furthermore, your answer indicates that the passages does not actually reveal this manner; for you can only provide suggested means ("It could be by . . ." "It could be through . . ." Indeed, I present that it could be by or through a manner that you have not even considered.), but you cannot provide the specific means. Why?  Because the passage DOES NOT specifically reveal that manner.  There then was the first "evidence" that I presented for my position and against yours.

 

19 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:
1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

2.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that there is no TERMINOLOGY of compulsion anywhere in Mark 12:38-44 or Luke 20:45 – 21:4?

Highly doubtful that the widow was giving of her own volition, especially since Jesus had just revealed to all that the Temple had been made a den of thieves, and that the ones in charge were tobbing widow's houses.

Ah, so then you find it "highly doubtful" from the perspective of your opinion and assumptions that the element of compulsion was not present; but you cannot actually point to the TERMINOLOGY of compulsion in the passage.  Why?  Because that terminology is not in the passage.  There then was the second "evidence" that I presented for my position and against yours.

By the way, referencing the instance wherein our Lord Jesus Christ had revealed "that the Temple had been made a den of thieves" is a reference back to Mark 11:15-17 (with parallel passages in Matthew 21:12-13 & Luke 19:45-46).  Now, I myself am willing to grant you the use of this passage in your argumentation.  However, you yourself have actually denied yourself the use of this passage; for in answer to my question #7, you said concerning the very event of this passage, "Different day, different context.  The passage in Matthew 21 has absolutely nothing to do with the passage in Mark 12 or the one in Luke 21."  So then, should we be rejecting the event of Mark 11:15-17 (Matthew 21:12-13 & Luke 19:45-46) as having any relationship to Mark 12:38-44 (Luke 20:45 - 21:4)?  Or, should we be viewing the two sets of passages as having a legitimate relationship?  Or, do you just believe in a double standard, wherein you are permitted to use the passage, but wherein I am not?

 

32 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:
1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

3.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that the Holy Spirit specifically revealed in Mark 12:41 that our Lord Jesus Christ was beholding “how the people were giving” (not, how the scribes were robbing the people or the widows)?

Forced giving is still giving.  Example:  People are made to fear a curse from God today if they do not give 10% of their money to the Church.  And so, to avoid a curse, they give.  Their giving was forced, yet it was still giving.

Indeed, you answer above might have some validity if there actually was some TERMINOLOGY of compulsion in the passage.  On the other hand, considering that the terminology of compulsion is NOT present in the passage, the active voice verbs are somewhat instructive.  The passage does not indicate that our Lord was beholding how something was happening to or against the givers, as passive voice verbs might indicate.  Rather, the passage indicates that our Lord was beholding how the givers were actively engaged in doing something, as the active voice verbs actually indicate.  There then was the third "evidence" that I presented for my position and against yours.

 

39 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:
1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

4.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that there is no TERMINOLOGY of anger by our Lord Jesus Christ anywhere in Mark 12:41-44 or Luke 21:1-4?

 I see Jesus' anger at the fact that the widow was giving to an institution that He said had become a den of thieves.

Ah, so then again you "see Jesus' anger" from the perspective of your opinion and assumptions; but you cannot actually point to the TERMINOLOGY of anger in the passage.  Why?  Because that terminology is not in the passage.  There then was the fourth "evidence" that I presented for my position and against yours.

By the way, again in your answer to this question you made reference unto the event of Mark 11:15-17 (with parallel passages in Matthew 21:12-13 & Luke 19:45-46).  So then, is that actually a "different day, different context," such that "the passage in Matthew 21 has absolutely nothing to do with the passage in Mark 12 or the one in Luke 21," or not?  Remember these are your own words concerning the event of Mark 11:15-17 (with parallel passages in Matthew 21:12-13 & Luke 19:45-46). (Words through which you conclude by accusing me of "blatant pulling verses out of context in a feeble attempt to prove" my position.)

 

48 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:
1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

5.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that only active voice verbs are employed for the giving of both the rich and the widow in Mark 12:41-44 and Luke 21:1-4?

Again, it does not mean the widow's contribution was not forced.

Granted.  Yet it does mean that the focus of the passage is NOT upon how the givers were being moved by an outside force to give (as passive voice verbs would indicate), but that the focus of the passage IS upon how the givers were actively engaged in the practice of giving.  There then was the fifth "evidence" that I presented for my position and against yours.

 

52 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:
2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

6.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself reported in Luke 21:4 that the giving unto the temple treasury was being given “unto the offerings [gifts] OF GOD”?

Research shows that the money receptacles were named.  The receptacle was marked for "offerings of God," that does not mean they were going to God.

First, what EXTRA-Biblical source can you provide which indicates that the name of one or more of the "receptacles" was marked for "offerings of God"? 

Second, it was our Lord Jesus Christ Himself who reported that the givers' giving was being given "unto the offerings of God."  Yet our Lord Jesus Christ did not at all in His report indicate that this was a falsehood.  So then, although it is possible that the giving was not actually "going to God," it is equally possible that the giving was indeed going to the service of God, that is -- to the service of His Temple and to the needs of the poor.  Indeed, I would contend that the latter possibility is the more probable since our Lord Jesus Christ did NOT indicate otherwise.  There then was the sixth "evidence" that I presented for my position and against yours.

 

1 hour ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:
2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

7.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that although our Lord Jesus Christ rebuked the scribes for making the temple into “a den of thieves,” God the Holy Spirit still called the temple “the house of God” in the very same context of Matthew 21:12-13?

Different day, different context.  The passage in Matthew 21 has absolutely nothing to do with the passage in Mark 12 or the one in Luke 21.

Ah, yes, there it is.  Although you have employed the event of Mark 11:15-17 (with parallel passages in Matthew 21:12-13 & Luke 19:45-46) many times throughout this discussion in favor of your position, you now seek to utterly deny the relationship of that passage to the events of Mark 12:38-44 & Luke 20:45 - 21:4.  So then, again I ask my questions -- Should we be rejecting the event of Mark 11:15-17 (Matthew 21:12-13 & Luke 19:45-46) as having any relationship to Mark 12:38-44 (Luke 20:45 - 21:4)?  Or, should we be viewing the two sets of passages as having a legitimate relationship?  Or, do you just believe in a double standard, wherein you are permitted to use the passage, but wherein I am not?

By the way, in that context God the Holy Spirit DID still call the temple the temple and the house of God, and that only days before the events of Mark 12:38-44 & Luke 20:45 - 21:4.  Furthermore, I presented this argument specifically because you continued to claim that our Lord Jesus Christ would not have intended that anyone should give unto that "den of thieves."  Yet God did not view the temple strictly as "a den of thieves."  He still recognized it as His own temple and house, and He certainly could approve of individuals giving unto His temple and house.  There then was the seventh "evidence" that I presented for my position and against yours.

 

1 hour ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:
2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

8.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that (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 provide the reason why our Lord Jesus Christ pronounced the judgment of destruction upon Jerusalem and the temple therein?

Judgment was pronounced for many reasons.  Many of which are seen in Matthew 23.  One such reason was the robbing of the widow's houses.

Indeed, there were various reasons revealed in the various passages that I presented above.  However, the reason for which I made this point was because of the following statement that you made here:

"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? 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."

In your above statement, you seem to indicate that the only reason for which our Lord Jesus Christ mentioned that the temple would be destroyed was the way that its leaders were oppressing the widows.  Certainly, this is NOT the only reason, as per the above passages.  Indeed, since the other passages present reasons such as the rejection of the Lord as Lord and Savior and the utter hypocrisy of the leaders, the event of Mark 12:41-44 & Luke 21:1-4 did not necessarily have to be a motivator for our Lord's pronouncement against Jerusalem and the temple therein.  Even so, you argument above is quite weak in its validity.  There then was the eighth "evidence" that I presented for my position and against yours.

 

1 hour ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:
2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

9.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that in Matthew 8:4 our Lord Jesus Christ specifically instructed a healed leper to give his gift unto that same temple system?

You are grasping Scott.  Mark 8 has nothing to do with Mark 12.  The events were at different time frames altogether.

Certainly, the context of this passage is completely different; however, the reason for presenting this passage is because you asserted that the temple was "a den of thieves" (as per our Lord's declaration) and that the Lord would not be in favor of giving unto this "den of thieves."  Indeed, you presented the following here:

"Jesus had just said that the Temple had become a den of thieves.  The next day, He returns to the Temple, warning others of the thieves.  Along comes a widow, giving under the assumption that she was giving to God.

She was not.  Rather, she was giving to thieves.

Why would Jesus be commending her for putting her living into a den of thieves?  Obviously, He would not."

Yet in Matthew 8:4 our Lord Jesus Christ specifically instructed an individual to give unto this "den of thieves."  So then, I ask the question -- If it was a bad thing to give gifts unto that wicked "den of thieves," why did our Lord Jesus Christ give this instruction unto this healed leper?  There then was the ninth "evidence" that I presented for my position and against yours.

 

1 hour ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:
2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

10.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that in Mark 11:15-17 the thievery of that “den of thieves” was contextually tied to the selling and buying of things and to the changing of monies, not to the giving of offerings unto the temple treasury?

So, thieves will steal money but not offerings?  LoL  One day, they're thieves.  The next, saints.   Hmmmmm, I don't think so.  

Indeed, they might steal from the offerings.  Yet that is not really the point.  The point is that we have the revelation of God's own Word concerning the matter of Mark 11:15-17, but we only have conjecture and assumptions concerning the possibility that your presented.  I myself would prefer to stand on the ground of God's own Word, without overmuch conjecture and assumption.  There then was the tenth "evidence" that I presented for my position and against yours.

 

1 hour ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:
3 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

11.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that in Matthew 23:2-3 our Lord Jesus Christ specifically instructed the people and His disciples to “observe and do” “all whatsoever” the scribes and Pharisees bid them do?

So, it is highly possible that the Pharisees did tell the widow to give her last two mites to their corrupt institurion.

Not necessarily.  Yet the point is if indeed they had given an instruction concerning the giving of that event (which I am granting for the sake of your argument, but do not actually believe myself), then our Lord Jesus Christ had just commanded the people to obey.  Certainly, obedience unto a commandment of the Lord Jesus Christ is worthy of approval, yes?  There then was the eleventh "evidence" that I presented for my position and against yours.

 

1 hour ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:
3 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

12.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that in 2 Corinthians 8:1-5 the believers of Macedonia were commended for giving with “liberality” while “in a great trial of affliction” and in “deep poverty,” desiring even to give “beyond their power”?

Nothing to do with Mark's passage.

Again, I agree that the contexts of the two passages are different.  However, the reason for presenting the truth of this passage was because you seemed to indicate that the Lord God would be contrary to anyway giving unto His offerings if they were already in poverty and if their giving was sacrificial and would place them in a condition of deeper poverty.  Indeed, you presented the following here:

It is foolish to even entertain such a notion that God is pleased when one who has little to survive on is giving all her means to thieves.

In response I presented the truth of 2 Corinthians 8:1-5 and asked the following question -- So then, is it your belief that the Lord our God is contrary to the sacrificial giving of the poor and needy and would never commend such a practice?  I believe that 2 Corinthians 8:1-5 reveals that the Lord our God is not contrary to such sacrificial giving.  There then was the twelfth "evidence" that I presented for my position and against yours.

 

2 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

What I "utterly reject" is your blatant pulling verses out of context in a feeble attempt to prove that Jesus was pleased that a poor widow is now even poorer.

Actually, in the above you will find that I only employed two passages that were significantly out of the context of the events in Mark 12:38-44 & Luke 20:45 - 21:4.  Yet both of those passages concerned the matter of giving and of our Lord's view thereof, which means that they both are in the context of the subject matter at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
6 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Thus it would appear that the rich givers and the poor widow were both giving the same "type" of giving -- that either both were giving a compelled form of tax or both were giving a form of gift.

Pastor Markle, I do appreciate your time and study on this matter, as well as answering my questions.  But once again, I respectfully disagree. 

 

6 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Even so, I would contend that if there is anything herein concerning the motivation of the widow in giving (and of the rich givers, as well) that is just this -- She thought and believed that she was giving "unto the offerings [gifts] of God."  Indeed, this would reveal that her motive concerned her relationship and spirit toward God.

And once again, I respectfully disagree.  I do not believe it reveals her motivation of "gifts", even with the grammatical analysis, I come to a different conclusion. I conclude her motivation isn't truly given, and I back up to the statement I made previously: I conclude that the phrase  "more than they all" (in verse 3) would refer to the widow casting in more money (proportionally to her income) rather than more "gifts" by simple grammatical reading of the sentence(s) structure(s). 

I I respect your position, I just don't agree.

But rather than to continue on (myself) in this thread of conversation (in regard to the "widow's mites"). I will once again bow out of this topic as well. Since I've given my thoughts on the matter, and my own prayerful study conclusion (for clarification...not to say yours isn't prayerful study as well), I think it would be redundant for me to continue to expound on this thread.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It really doesn't matter what they priests were doing with the money the law was in place and was to be followed. Even if the priests were spending money on hookers you were still supposed to give.  Matthew 23:1-3. It wasn't the responsibility of the widow to know how her offerings were being spent.

Now, this may be different in the church age and it may be wise to know how the money is spent but I do believe they Lord will bless a Christian who is giving even if his money may not have been appropriated right. Hopefully you have leaders in your church that you can trust.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
21 hours ago, Ronda said:

 

Why are there so many "quiet years" between the early Church-age men and the 1500's? I think it probable that the Catholic church had much to do with that! Murdering anyone they considered to be an heretick, and that's a huge reason why the dark ages were dark indeed!
So before make such statements alluding to Darby being the first to teach the pre-trib rapture, maybe we should dig a little deeper into historical documentation, and rely less on what others have told us?

 

 

Ah, could this be where Invicta and GP got all their theology, from books originally written during the quiet years but later labeled as reformed. The majority of the ideas dreamed up by popes and Jesuits? Hmmmm, Yup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...