The Widow's Mites

[wretched]

1 minute ago, Jim_Alaska said:

I don't know how you can "know" this. I have been saved for over forty years and have never been exposed to what you outlined above. Might it just be that there are some churches that do it right?  

I am speaking here to the actual "use" of monies received by churches.

Oh sorry Jim, perhaps not everyone here then

[Jim_Alaska]

9 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Please point out, in Mark 12 or Luke 21 where the Lord said anything about the motive of the widow's heart.  

Sure SFIC, as soon as you point out where it says that "This Widow" was robbed or coerced.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Context reveals it.

 

Jesus had finished his scathing rebuke of rhe scribes and Pharisees.  He had ended with a warning to beware of the scribes.

 

why?  Because the were not the pious people they pretended to be.  Instead, they were thieves.

 

now, Jesus ended all that, nd then sat down to watch the treasury.  Why?  This was not His normal practice.  Normally, after ripping the religious leaders for their dishonesty, He would leave the Temple.

 

but this time it was different.  He knew the widow would be coming in.  It was a perfect demonstration of the thievery He had just spoken of.  The widow's living was forcibly appropriated by the thieves.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

3 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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?

2 Corinthians 8:1-5 -- "Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia; How that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality.  For to their power, I bear record, yea, and beyond their power they were willing of themselves; praying us with much intreaty that we would receive the gift, and take upon us the fellowship of the ministering to the saints.  And this they did, not as we hoped, but first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God."

 

2 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Modern Thinking...

Ahhhhh.  So then, the Holy Spirit inspired passage of 2 Corinthians 8:1-5 is "modern thinking" now?  I thought it was New Testament truth.

 

2 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Jesus is pleased when widows give all their living into the treasuries of men who enrich themselves through thievery.

Doesn't sound like the same Jesus that wanted the poor to be provided for to me.

No, our Lord Jesus Christ was pleased when a widow actively gave in sacrifice "unto the offerings of God." 
 

2 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Please point out, in Mark 12 or Luke 21 where the Lord said anything about the motive of the widow's heart.  

In Luke 21:3-4 our Lord Jesus Christ Himself indicated that she, as well as the other givers, were giving "unto the offerings of God."  This also is a part of the context.
 

2 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Given the fact that Proverbs 22 reveals that those who give to the rich will come to want, I highly doubt that Jesus would be pleased by the widow giving all her living to the thieves

Given the fact that 2 Corinthians 9:6 reveals the divine promise that those who sow "bountifully shall reap also bountifully," I can certainly understand how our Lord Jesus Christ would be pleased that the widow sowed so bountifully "unto the offerings of God."

[Pastor Scott Markle]

2 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Jesus had finished his scathing rebuke of rhe scribes and Pharisees.  He had ended with a warning to beware of the scribes.  Why?  Because they were not the pious people they pretended to be.  Instead, they were thieves.

 

Now, Jesus ended all that, and then sat down to watch the treasury.  Why?  This was not His normal practice.  Normally, after ripping the religious leaders for their dishonesty, He would leave the Temple.  But this time it was different.  He knew the widow would be coming in.  It was a perfect demonstration of the thievery He had just spoken of.  The widow's living was forcibly appropriated by the thieves.

Certainly, our Lord Jesus Christ had a strong rebuke against the scribes and Pharisees for their selfish and oppressive greediness.  Certainly, our Lord Jesus Christ lingered in the temple in order to teach a lesson unto His disciples.  Neither of those truths are matters of contention between us.  The matter of contention concerns the character of the lesson that our Lord Jesus Christ was teaching unto His disciples.  Was He communicating further rebuke against the scribes by revealing an example of their greedy oppression against widows?  Or, was He communicating a further rebuke against the scribes by revealing a contrast to their greedy oppression against widows through the generosity of this one widow in giving so sacrificially "unto the offerings of God"?
 

2 hours ago, wretched said:

It is easily seen IMO that the widow was being manipulated into giving and this manipulation came from thieves posing as God's men. The overall context does indicate it because it is consistent throughout the Gospels that our Lord was in full rebuke of all formalized religious practices fueled by man's greed. The "priests" of that day had the same iron handed rule over the hearts of the deceived just as the present day roman pagan "priests" do now.

Brother Wretched,

Please understand that I have not presented a single word of defense for "the doctrine of tithing" throughout this discussion.  On the other hand, I have engaged significantly concerning the correct understanding of the widows giving.  Is it true that our Lord Jesus Christ "was in full rebuke" against "all formalized religious practices" that were fueled by sinful greediness?  ABSOLUTELY.  Yet it is also true that Scripture often presents a contrast between the rejection of the religious leaders against Christ and the reception by the common people for Christ.  As examples, this can be seen in the contrast between Matthew 21:8-11 (see also Luke 19:37-38) and Matthew 21:15-16 (see also Luke 19:39-40) and in the contrast between Mark 12:1-37a and Mark 12:37b.  Even so, the principle of contrasts is NOT foreign to the context.  Furthermore, our Lord engaging in a spirit of "full on rebuke" against the false religious leaders is observed with either possibility, whether He was revealing an example OF their greediness, or whether He was revealing a contrast TO their greediness.  As such, the truth that our Lord was in a spirit of "full on rebuke" against the false religious leaders is NOT an evidence for one of these positions and against the other, since it actually is valid for both of these positions.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

I suppose if I ignored the surrounding verses and ripped the one verse out of context, added a motive and commendation to the text, I could arrive at thr same false teaching that you do.

 

However, I cannot.  I read the verse in the context of the whole account, thereby allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture.  I take into account the fact that God is against the abuse of the poor.  I take into account that the needs of the poor of Israel were to be met.  

 

So many today could care less that a poor widow was made destitute.  So long as their religious organization has the amenities they want, they could care less that another hasn't funds to survive.  Judas Iscariat's bag had to have money in it,... their's do also.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

1 hour ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

I suppose if I ignored the surrounding verses and ripped the one verse out of context, added a motive and commendation to the text, I could arrive at thr same false teaching that you do.

 

However, I cannot.  I read the verse in the context of the whole account, thereby allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture.  I take into account the fact that God is against the abuse of the poor.  I take into account that the needs of the poor of Israel were to be met.  

Brother Robey,

You speak as if all of my contributions to this discussion have ignored the context of Scripture and the comparison of Scripture with Scripture.  I believe that any reader of my postings will be able to observe how much I have engaged in a Scriptural discussion and have provided Scriptural evidences for my position.
 

1 hour ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

So many today could care less that a poor widow was made destitute.  So long as their religious organization has the amenities they want, they could care less that another hasn't funds to survive.  Judas Iscariat's bag had to have money in it,... their's do also.

Concerning this, I have no desire (and have not put forth any effort) in this discussion to speak about "the them."  On the other hand, if it is your intention to include me personally in your comments concerning "the them," then I would request that you gather more information about me personally before you so speak.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Standing Firm In Christ]

i see no "evidence" for your position whatsoever.

 

there is nothing in the text that the Lord was commending the widow.  Even the Greek word for 'threw in' in The Mark 12 text and the Greek for 'cast' the Luke 21 text, "ballo", carries with it the picture of a violent or intense action.  It is as if the woman is thinking, "They don't care that this is all that I have to live on," then violently throwing the money into the receptacle,... "Ballo" seems to give more credence to the thought that the woman was being forced to give her money to the thieves.

[Alan]

11 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Indeed.  And the very same Author also indicated that the temple was "the temple of God" and was God's house.

Matthew 21:12-13 -- "And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, and said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves."
 

Indeed, it is possible that the widow and the other givers were deceived into thinking that they were giving gifts "unto the offerings of God," when in truth they were giving "into the hands of thieves."  However, is it equally possible that the Lord Jesus Christ was so deceived?  For the Lord Jesus Christ is the very One who reported that they were giving "unto the offerings of God."  Furthermore, He did not report anything whatsoever at all unto His disciples about the givers being deceived; nor did He rebuke any of the givers for giving gifts "into the hands of thieves." 

__________________________________________

Now, earlier in this discussion you made reference unto our Lord Jesus Christ's rebuke against the scribes and Pharisees for binding "heavy burdens and grievous to be bourne" upon the people.  This rebuke is found in Matthew 23:4 -- "For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers."  So then, could you explain the instruction that our Lord Jesus Christ delivered unto the multitude and unto His disciples in Matthew 23:2-3 -- "Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not."?

_________________________________________

In Matthew 8:1-3 God's Word gives report concerning our Lord Jesus Christ's healing of a leper -- "When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him.  And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.  And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean.  And immediately his leprosy was cleansed."  Then in Matthew 8:4 we find that our Lord Jesus Christ specifically instructed this healed leper to offer his gift unto the priest at the temple -- "And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them."  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?

__________________________________________

Finally, let us consider our Lord Jesus Christ's "den of thieves" rebuke.  Is there any indication in the context of that rebuke concerning the specific activities whereby the thievery was occurring?  In Mark 11:15-17 God's Word give the report -- "And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves; and would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.  And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves."  It appears from the immediate context that the thievery of this "den of thieves" was occurring by the means of the selling and buying of goods and by the means of the exchanging of moneys, not by the means of freewill gifts being given "unto the offering of God."

Excellent!

Amen and amen!

I was wondering when Matthew 21:12 & 13 and Mark 11:14-17 would be discussed as the context for 'the den of thieves' phrase from the Lord Jesus.

Alan

[wretched]

6 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

rother Wretched,

Please understand that I have not presented a single word of defense for "the doctrine of tithing" throughout this discussion.  On the other hand, I have engaged significantly concerning the correct understanding of the widows giving.  Is it true that our Lord Jesus Christ "was in full rebuke" against "all formalized religious practices" that were fueled by sinful greediness?  ABSOLUTELY.  Yet it is also true that Scripture often presents a contrast between the rejection of the religious leaders against Christ and the reception by the common people for Christ.  As examples, this can be seen in the contrast between Matthew 21:8-11 (see also Luke 19:37-38) and Matthew 21:15-16 (see also Luke 19:39-40) and in the contrast between Mark 12:1-37a and Mark 12:37b.  Even so, the principle of contrasts is NOT foreign to the context.  Furthermore, our Lord engaging in a spirit of "full on rebuke" against the false religious leaders is observed with either possibility, whether He was revealing an example OF their greediness, or whether He was revealing a contrast TO their greediness.  As such, the truth that our Lord was in a spirit of "full on rebuke" against the false religious leaders is NOT an evidence for one of these positions and against the other, since it actually is valid for both of these positions.

I am not directing at anyone brother, just venting in general again
 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

30 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

i see no "evidence" for your position whatsoever.

 

there is nothing in the text that the Lord was commending the widow.  Even the Greek word for 'threw in' in The Mark 12 text and the Greek for 'cast' the Luke 21 text, "ballo", carries with it the picture of a violent or intense action.  It is as if the woman is thinking, "They don't care that this is all that I have to live on," then violently throwing the money into the receptacle,... "Ballo" seems to give more credence to the thought that the woman was being forced to give her money to the thieves.

Wait!!!  So, after multiple times of arguing against the opposing position by claiming that there is nothing in the text that reveals what the widow was thinking or what was her motive, you suddenly now know what she was thinking and what was her motive.???
 

Just now, wretched said:

I am not directing at anyone brother, just venting in general again
 

I can accept that.  Then just take my response as responding "in general" as well.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Prior to an hour ago, I had not looked into the meaning of "threw in".  So, yes, after looking into the meaning, I do believe she threw the money in because of compulsion,... Compulsion which she resented.

"ballo" indicates a violent action.  Why would she violently throw the money in, if not due to being forced to give? 

Edited December 16, 2015 by Standing Firm In Christ

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Luke 20:45 (KJV) 45 Then in the audience of all the people he said unto his disciples,

In the audience of all the people, i.e.; in the hearing of all the people, Jesus spoke.  All who were there could hear His words, both the rich who cast in their gifts, and the widow who cast her entire living into the treasury receptacle were within range of His voice.

Luke 20:46 (KJV) 46 Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts;

Luke 20:47 (KJV) 47 Which devour widows' houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation.

The people in attendance heard the warning Jesus had just delivered to the disciples.  They were made aware that the scribes were thieves, preying on widows.  They were made aware that the scribes were a condemned lot.

Luke 21:1 (KJV) 1 And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.

There is no great time frame indicated between the delivery of His warning and His looking up and seeing the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.  He spoke, He sat down, (Mark 12:41) He looked up.

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.

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.

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.

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,...

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.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Standing Firm In Christ

[Jim_Alaska]

9 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

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.

Ok, now because of the "example" that Jesus gave regarding the zeal of the Scribes and Pharisees in making converts and using the word "proselyte" you automatically assume, with no proof, that this widow was a proselyte to what you call a "cult". But if casting her mites into the treasury made her a proselyte then it must follow that all the others that cast their money into the treasury were also proselytes. Why single out the widow when all were doing the same thing, only to different degrees?

There is no room in your interpretation for the possibility that this widow was giving out of a heart of love for God and being commended by our Lord for her sacrifice. That the religious leaders were robbing widows is not in doubt, Jesus said they were. But does this mean every widow in all of isreal, without exception? Were there no widows that gave offerings out of a sense of love and devotion to God?

You made a big deal out of the word "cast" in relation to the widow. You said " "ballo" indicates a violent action." And yet the rich men are described as doing exactly the same thing, so then it must follow that all were proselytes, all were being forced to give, all were deceived and all were being robbed.

I believe that you paint this Scripture with a brush that is much too broad to be an accurate interpretation of what Jesus was teaching.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

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.