Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Standing Firm In Christ

The Widow's Mites

Recommended Posts

  Outline of Biblical Usage:
reduced to beggary, begging, asking alms
destitute of wealth, influence, position, honour
lowly, afflicted, destitute of the Christian virtues and eternal riches
helpless, powerless to accomplish an end
poor, needy
lacking in anything
as respects their spirit
destitute of wealth of learning and intellectual culture which the schools afford (men of this class most readily give themselves up to Christ's teaching and proved them selves fitted to lay hold of the heavenly treasure)

The widow entered the Temple with a status that had been reduced to that of a beggar.  Placing the two mites into the collection, her status became even worse than it previously was.

 

I've no doubt that Jesus' statement was made in pity for that widow and her condition. Under the Law, widows were to be provided for.  Yet, this widow clearly is NOT receiving the care she needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, LindaR said:

Yes it did matter what the Pharisees did with the money.....and today, it still does matter what modern day Pharisees do with our money.

Matthew 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
Matthew 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
Matthew 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
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.

Indeed, on that very day in the temple the Lord Jesus Christ had instructed the people before He delivered His warning concerning the scribes and the Pharisees.  In that instruction the Lord had delivered two commands unto the people, the first to the positive concerning what they should do and the second to the negative concerning what they should not do, as follows:

1.  "All therefore whatsoever they [the scribes and the Pharisees] bid you observe, that observe and do."
2.  "But do not ye after their [the scribes' and the Pharisees'] works: for they say, and do not."

So then, our Lord Jesus Christ instructed the people positively to do all the requirements that the scribes and the Pharisees placed upon them, and instructed the people negatively not to follow the actual behavior of the scribes and the Pharisees themselves (specifically because they themselves did not obey their own requirements).
 

28 minutes ago, LindaR said:

The Bible teaches us to be good stewards of our money.  Do you really believe that Jesus would tell His disciples to give their money to thieves?

No, I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ would instruct His disciples and the people to give their offerings unto God's Temple and House, which the Lord God had consecrated unto Himself and upon which He had placed His holy name, even as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself reported that the givers and the widow were giving "unto the offerings [gifts] of God."
 

32 minutes ago, LindaR said:

Word of Faith teachers are Pharisaical...would you give your money to them? 

No, for they do not represent the very Temple and House of God in our time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

  Outline of Biblical Usage:
reduced to beggary, begging, asking alms
destitute of wealth, influence, position, honour
lowly, afflicted, destitute of the Christian virtues and eternal riches
helpless, powerless to accomplish an end
poor, needy
lacking in anything
as respects their spirit
destitute of wealth of learning and intellectual culture which the schools afford (men of this class most readily give themselves up to Christ's teaching and proved them selves fitted to lay hold of the heavenly treasure)

The widow entered the Temple with a status that had been reduced to that of a beggar.  Placing the two mites into the collection, her status became even worse than it previously was.

Indeed, the word for "poor" in the context can mean "reduced to beggary, begging, asking alms;" yet it can also mean simply "poor, needy," even as your own set of definitions above indicates.  So then, how did you determine from the context that this widow had entered into a condition of being a beggar, as opposed to simply that of being poor and needy?  I ask because I do not observe anything in the context wherein she engaged in any form of begging.

Certainly, whatever poor condition that widow was in when she entered the temple, when she departed she was even more poor; for as the Lord Jesus Christ reported, she had given "all the living that she had."  Yet that has never been a point of contention between us.  Rather, the point of contention has been whether she gave "all the living that she had" out of compulsion, or out of free-willingness.  If indeed she gave out of free-willingness, then she could certainly trust the Lord her God to fulfill His promise that those who sow bountifully shall reap also bountifully.
 

27 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

 I've no doubt that Jesus' statement was made in pity for that widow and her condition.

I myself would certainly agree that our Lord Jesus Christ would have had compassion upon such a poor and needy widow.  (Indeed, I even believe that our Lord Jesus Christ would highly commend such a poor and needy widow for giving so sacrificially "unto the offerings of God.")  However, if you press the idea that the word "poor" in the context means pity or compassion, then I will continue to have a conflict with you.  Furthermore, although I would agree that our Lord would have had compassion upon the widow, I believe this only because of my understanding concerning our Lord's character.  I do not believe this because I observe any terminology of pity or compassion anywhere in the actual passage.
 

35 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

 Under the Law, widows were to be provided for.  Yet, this widow clearly is NOT receiving the care she needs.

How do you know that this poor widow was not receiving any financial care?  Do you now know how she acquired the monies that she possessed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

How do you know that this poor widow was not receiving any financial care?  Do you now know how she acquired the monies that she possessed?

If she was receiving financial care, then why would she be in possession of only two mites? She may have acquired those two mites through begging for alms.  The fact that she was poor shows that she had been reduced to a begging status.  Had she been receiving financial care, it would not have been necessary for her to beg for a living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, LindaR said:

If she was receiving financial care, then why would she be in possession of only two mites?

I really do not know.  Since the passage does not say anything whatsoever about this, I choose not to make claims without information.  However, I could speculate on a whole number of possibilities in which the widow may have had more just the day before, but had to spend it on food or other things.
 

36 minutes ago, LindaR said:

She may have acquired those two mites through begging for alms. 

She MAY have.  Yet she may also have acquired them through work.  Or, she may have acquired them through help from the temple offering.  Or, she may have acquired them by finding them on the side of the walkway.  Or, she may have acquired them by stealing them from another.  Or, she may have acquired them . . .  (You see, this is what happens when we engage in speculations without any Biblical information whatsoever.)

 

36 minutes ago, LindaR said:

The fact that she was poor shows that she had been reduced to a begging status. 

No, the fact that she was "poor" shows that she was "poor."  There have been multitudes of poor and needy people down through the ages of history who have never been "reduced to a begging status." 
 

36 minutes ago, LindaR said:

Had she been receiving financial care, it would not have been necessary for her to beg for a living.

Yet there is not a single word in the context that indicates that she ever engaged in a single moment of begging in her life.  Building conclusions upon speculations is certainly not the way to "rightly divide the word of truth."  If either God the Holy Spirit or our Lord Jesus Christ intended that we should understand that this widow was a "beggar" and that she had acquired her mites through "begging," they had every ability to specify this information precisely.  Neither of them specified such information; therefore, any claims thereof are an act of adding unto that information which they did specify.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
spelling error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe "ptochos" is revealing that the widow had been reduced to begging and Scott is unwilling to see that fact.

 

When the widow is first seen in the text, there are only three definitions given for "ptochos". (Listed above)  

#3 obviously is not in mind, as the mites were "all her living".  

#2 is also not possible, as she was not "destitute of wealth", having in her possession said mites.

#1 is the only plausible condition of the widow.

 

#2 applies as the definition of "ptochos"AFTER she has been relieved of the two mites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

  Outline of Biblical Usage:
reduced to beggary, begging, asking alms
destitute of wealth, influence, position, honour
lowly, afflicted, destitute of the Christian virtues and eternal riches
helpless, powerless to accomplish an end
poor, needy
lacking in anything
as respects their spirit
destitute of wealth of learning and intellectual culture which the schools afford (men of this class most readily give themselves up to Christ's teaching and proved them selves fitted to lay hold of the heavenly treasure)

 

11 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Or maybe "ptochos" is revealing that the widow had been reduced to begging and Scott is unwilling to see that fact.

 

When the widow is first seen in the text, there are only three definitions given for "ptochos". (Listed above)  (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

#3 obviously is not in mind, as the mites were "all her living".  

#2 is also not possible, as she was not "destitute of wealth", having in her possession said mites.

#1 is the only plausible condition of the widow.

 

#2 applies as the definition of "ptochos"AFTER she has been relieved of the two mites.

Convenient, how you completely disregard definition #5 above -- "poor, needy." 

Now, of the 34 times that this adjective is used in the Greek New Testament, the translators of the King James translation translated the word as "poor" 31 times, and as "beggar" or "beggarly" only 3 times.  I wonder if that might mean anything in relation to the basic meaning of the Greek word "ptochos"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Actually, I did not ignore "poor, needy" at all.  That definition falls under #2, "destitute of wealth."  She was not destitute until AFTER relieving herself of the mites.

image.jpeg

Although the "poor" widow was not "destitute of wealth" until after she had given "all the living that she had" (understanding "destitute of wealth" to mean having no monies at all), she certainly was "poor and needy" before she had given (understanding "poor and needy" to mean having very little monies), since "two mites" certainly can be classified as very little money.  As such, "reduced to beggary, begging, asking alms" is NOT "the only plausible condition of the widow;" for "poor, needy" is certainly also a plausible condition of the widow.

Furthermore, it is of some value for us to consider that the translators of the King James translation translated the word "ptochos" in this context as "poor," not as "beggar(-ly)," even as they did 31 times out of the 34 times that this Greek word is used in the Greek New Testament.  I wonder if they had any insight and understanding concerning the case?

 

By the way, if for the sake of your argument I grant that she was a "beggar" widow who had acquired her "two mites" through begging for alms, how does that impact whether or not she gave those "two mites" out of compulsion or out of free-willingness?  Once the money was hers (by whatever means), she could do with it as she pleased, yes? 

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
added third paragraph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an additional support for my position concerning the "poor" widow, it is worthy for us to notice the parallel descriptions for the widow in Mark 12:42 & Luke 21:2.  Whereas in Mark 12:42 God the Holy Spirit inspired the Greek adjective "ptochos" to describe the widow, in the parallel passage of Luke 21:2 God the Holy Spirit inspired the Greek  adjective "penichros."  Now, the Greek adjective "penichros" specifically means "poor, needy," not "beggarly;" therefore, the use of this Greek adjective in the parallel passage of Luke 21:2 informs us as to the intended meaning for the Greek adjective "ptochos" in Mark 12:42.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
spelling error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Two different authors, account told from two viewpoints.  Both are correct.

Luke saw her poor condition.  Mark saw her poor condition.  Mark saw her as poor one in a beggarly status.

 

 

No, one Author -- God the Holy Spirit; and one perspective -- God the Holy Spirit's perspective. 

Indeed, God the Holy Spirit's perspective is that the widow was "ptochos" along with the synonym "penichros."  Now, since the adjective "ptochos" can have a variety of meaning, but the adjective "penichros" only has one meaning, the intended meaning must the meaning of "ptochos" wherein the two adjectives are in perfect unity, that is -- "poor, needy."
 

3 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Penichros - poor, needy

from the base of 

penes - starving, indigent

 

Both Mark, and Luke, were describing a beggarly widow.

First, the Greek adjective "penichros" actually finds its source in the Greek verb "penomai" (a Greek verb that is not used anywhere in the Greek New Testament), which means "to work for one's living," indicating an individual that had to work daily and diligently for survival, that is -- someone who is poor and needy.

Second, even if the Greek adjective "penichros" found its source in the Greek adjective "penes," the meaning of the adjective "penes" is NOT that which God the Holy Spirit intended in Luke 21:2; for He did NOT inspire the Greek adjective "penes" to be used in Luke 21:2.  Rather, God the Holy Spirit inspired the Greek adjective "penichros" to be used in Luke 21:2; therefore, He intended the meaning of the Greek adjective "penichros" to be understood in Luke 21:2.  Now, the meaning of the Greek adjective "penichros" is "poor, needy," even as you acknowledge above.  Therefore, both Mark and Luke under the precise inspiration of God the Holy Spirit were describing a "poor" widow.


By the way, now I am starting to wonder why you feel so comfortable changing that which God the Holy Spirit actually inspired in the Scriptural text?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Critical Mass said:

When you don't like what the bible says go to the Greek.

From what language did the KJV translators translate the Bible into English?  There is nothing wrong with going to the source to find the meanings of words.  It doesn't mean that someone doesn't like what the Bible says when one goes to a Greek dictionary in order to find the meanings of words. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

i have not changed anything that God has inspired at all.  I am in perfect sgreement with God.

I contend that it is you who is "comfortable" with changing what God has inspired.

God the Holy Spirit inspired the Greek adjective "penichros" to be in Luke 21:2, which means only "poor, needy."  Yet you have attempted above to change that Holy Spirit inspired Greek adjective to the Greek adjective "penes," which means "starving, indigent."  So then, which Greek adjective is the right one -- "penichros" or "penes"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Critical Mass said:

When you don't like what the bible says go to the Greek.

I've watched you with interest since you've joined...

You've gone from making small, non-inflammatory posts when you first joined to making overtly challenging posts as time has passed...and now you are moving into making derogatory posts.

Why should any of us listen to anything you have to say about God, his word, or any theological subject? After all...

Screenshot_2015-12-27_16-23-19.thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

God the Holy Spirit inspired the Greek adjective "penichros" to be in Luke 21:2, which means only "poor, needy."  Yet you have attempted above to change that Holy Spirit inspired Greek adjective to the Greek adjective "penes," which means "starving, indigent."  So then, which Greek adjective is the right one -- "penichros" or "penes"?

Given the fact that your interpretation of God's commanded tithe makes it monetary instead of agricultural, I've no reason to trust your interpretation of the widow' mites interpretation.

 

After all, your faulty interpretation of the account of the widow is financially profitable for your church, as is your faulty interpretation of God's tithe.

 

God, the Holy Spirit, inspired the Greek "ptochos" in Mark 12, which means "beggarly, asking alms"  I'll stick with that,... she was beggarly. Luke indicates the widow was poor.  Mark reveals the depth of her poverty, i.e.; beggarly, asking alms.

 

 

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Given the fact that your interpretation of God's commanded tithe makes it monetary instead of agricultural, I've no reason to trust your interpretation of the widow' mites interpretation.  After all, your faulty interpretation of the account of the widow is financially profitable for your church, as is your faulty interpretation of God's tithe.

Interesting attempt either to shut down or side track the debate concerning the correct understanding of Mark 12:38-44 & Luke 20:45 - 21:4 -- by trying to insert the matter of the tithe.  However, the matter of the tithe is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the matter of Mark 12:38-44 & Luke 20:45 - 21:4, since Mark 12:38-44 & Luke 20:45 - 21:4 has absolutely nothing whatsoever at all to do with the matter of tithing.  Nice try, but I have no intention of biting.

 

2 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

God, the Holy Spirit, inspired the Greek "ptochos" in Mark 12, which means "beggarly, asking alms"  I'll stick with that,... she was beggarly.

False.  God the Holy Spirit inspired the Greek adjective "ptochos" in Mark 12:42-43, which means as follows (from your own posting):

On ‎12‎/‎26‎/‎2015 at 6:35 PM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

  Outline of Biblical Usage:
reduced to beggary, begging, asking alms
destitute of wealth, influence, position, honour
lowly, afflicted, destitute of the Christian virtues and eternal riches
helpless, powerless to accomplish an end
poor, needy (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)
lacking in anything
as respects their spirit
destitute of wealth of learning and intellectual culture which the schools afford (men of this class most readily give themselves up to Christ's teaching and proved them selves fitted to lay hold of the heavenly treasure)

Also God the Holy Spirit inspired the Greek adjective "penichros" in Luke 21:2, which means only "poor, needy."  Therefore, I myself will "stick with" both Holy Spirit inspired adjectives, and with the meaning wherein both adjectives are in perfect unity, that is -- "poor, needy."  The widow was a "poor" widow (just as the King James translators translated it).

 

4 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

God the Holy Spirit inspired the Greek adjective "penichros" to be in Luke 21:2, which means only "poor, needy."  Yet you have attempted above to change that Holy Spirit inspired Greek adjective to the Greek adjective "penes," which means "starving, indigent."  So then, which Greek adjective is the right one -- "penichros" or "penes"?

By the way, Brother Robey, your last posting did not provide an answer at all to my above question.  Do you intend to provide an answer?

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
layout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

God the Holy Spirit inspired the Greek adjective "penichros" to be in Luke 21:2, which means only "poor, needy."  Yet you have attempted above to change that Holy Spirit inspired Greek adjective to the Greek adjective "penes," which means "starving, indigent."  So then, which Greek adjective is the right one -- "penichros" or "penes"?

 

3 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Ptochos is the correct Greek word.  The woman was beggarly.

So then, did God the Holy Spirit get it wrong when He inspired the Greek adjective "penichos" to be in Luke 21:2, instead of the Greek adjective "ptochos"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Critical Mass said:

When you don't like what the bible says go to the Greek.

There is nothing wrong with looking at the meaning of words that were originally written in another language and contemporary with the times they were written in.

All languages change with time; many words that we consider archaic have completely different meanings today than they did in the times they were written.

As Bro. Scott has pointed out, the Greek word for "poor" does not necessarily mean "beggarly". I have been poor in my life; not two cents to rub together, but I was not a beggar because I did not beg. In order to be a beggar I must of necessity beg.

As far as this thread is concerned, it is pitiful that we have to get down to critically examining and arguing over every word to come to the plain teaching of the Scripture in question.

If we look to those brethren who have gone before us, both scholars and lay people, we see a common assertion that The Lord was commending this poor widow. So it is not just one person's interpretation, it has been understood this way down through time.

How can we explain why so many before us have seen The Lord's words as a commendation? The interpreter should conscientiously abide by the plain meaning of the words. This quite often may require using a Hebrew/English or Greek/English lexicon in order to make sure that the sense of the English translation is understood.

I am by no means a grammatical scholar, but I do understand the "plain" meaning of words.

In considering the "contrast" between what Jesus said about how people were casting into the treasury I see Him commending the widow because her act was totally unselfish in contrast to the rich that gave a part, but not all they had.

 2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. In the light of this Scripture a "private interpretation" is plain for all to see in the original post that started this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

 

So then, did God the Holy Spirit get it wrong when He inspired the Greek adjective "penichos" to be in Luke 21:2, instead of the Greek adjective "ptochos"?

No.  As I said previously, Luke reveals she was poor and needy.  Mark reveals to what degree her poverty had gotten.  It placed her in a beggarly state.  Both Luke and Mark were correct, Mark just used a different Greek word to emphasize the depth of her poverty.

31 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

There is nothing wrong with looking at the meaning of words that were originally written in another language and contemporary with the times they were written in.

All languages change with time; many words that we consider archaic have completely different meanings today than they did in the times they were written.

As Bro. Scott has pointed out, the Greek word for "poor" does not necessarily mean "beggarly". I have been poor in my life; not two cents to rub together, but I was not a beggar because I did not beg. In order to be a beggar I must of necessity beg.

As far as this thread is concerned, it is pitiful that we have to get down to critically examining and arguing over every word to come to the plain teaching of the Scripture in question.

If we look to those brethren who have gone before us, both scholars and lay people, we see a common assertion that The Lord was commending this poor widow. So it is not just one person's interpretation, it has been understood this way down through time.

How can we explain why so many before us have seen The Lord's words as a commendation? The interpreter should conscientiously abide by the plain meaning of the words. This quite often may require using a Hebrew/English or Greek/English lexicon in order to make sure that the sense of the English translation is understood.

I am by no means a grammatical scholar, but I do understand the "plain" meaning of words.

In considering the "contrast" between what Jesus said about how people were casting into the treasury I see Him commending the widow because her act was totally unselfish in contrast to the rich that gave a part, but not all they had.

 2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. In the light of this Scripture a "private interpretation" is plain for all to see in the original post that started this thread.

The fact that the Scripture reveals the beggarly condition of the widow, proves that if there is any "private interpretation" being employed, it is by those who are claiming that Jesus was commending the widow.

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LindaR said:

From what language did the KJV translators translate the Bible into English?  There is nothing wrong with going to the source to find the meanings of words.  It doesn't mean that someone doesn't like what the Bible says when one goes to a Greek dictionary in order to find the meanings of words. 

I guess than God couldn't preserve his words in English. We need a dead language to help us understand. A language that we are at the mercy of mostly unsaved reprobates to give us the meaning of. The majority of lexicons and Greek syntaxes are produced by unbelieving reprobates and liberal theologians who are always changing and/or updating the definitions of the "original languages". Many of them can even agree on the definitions.

Every bible corrector uses the Greek to change the bible when he doesn't like what it says in English. Every one. And we see it going on in this case to the point where we have the widow turning out to be a selfish rebel. All supported by the Greek.

You can all give yourselves thumbs up all you want but it's the truth. The primary reason the church is in the mess it is now is because of this. Everyone is a Greek authority changing what the text says plainly in English. Everyone is an expert in dead languages nobody speaks anymore. There are over 360 versions of the bible in English since 1901. I have a list of over 260 English versions since the KJV was translated to 1992. That doesn't include all the paraphrases. There probably has been another hundred since 1992. All because "there is nothing wrong with going to the source to find the meanings of words". No wonder nobody believes the bible anymore.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 46 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...