Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Standing Firm In Christ

The Widow's Mites

Recommended Posts

Well the problem of guessed meanings come into play since any greek linguist today will explain to you that any lexicon you can obtain now is at least four major vernacular changes away from the ancient greek the Scriptures were originally penned in. Hence the term greek to me.

So, at least four possible meaning changes of the same words and more important sentence structures that also change the meanings of words have occurred. In other words, your lexicons are useless in translating the original greek texts with any added certainty.

Hmm, I wonder if the Lord did this for a reason? Didn't He say His Words will never pass away? He didn't mean the original greek texts obviously. BTW, anyone actually have one of those?

Back to the OP, I think some on here miss the forest for the trees in this subject. The predominant theme of our Lord throughout the Gospels was the rebuke of all forced, manipulated, heart-less religious acts. He has always wanted men and women's hearts to serve Him because they believe Him and because they believe Him, they love Him.

Anyway, I often wonder how many folks in our churches would remain if a truly qualified pastor preached the whole counsel. You know, the things you never hear, like giving all you don't need to your brothers in need. Cancel cable, entertainment, sell your TVs, Ipads, toys, boats, play things, fancy jewelry and give it all to your brothers, sisters and the lost poor. You  know, pick up the cross and follow Him (ring a bell?).

10% is easy, the lost religious love a rule like that, it makes them think they are getting some kind of brownie point. When they miss the point completely.

I wonder how much real power a church like that would have?  Of course, we will never know, we can only read about it with a grain a salt in the Book of Acts.

I know, don't rock the boat because even the closest of us born-again IFBs love our half "made up" religious practices as long as we never have to really go "all the way" capeesh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Critical Mass said:

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.

 

The Scriptures were written in Koine Greek (NT) and Hebrew (OT)...not in English.   God promised to preserve His Word long before the English language came into existence (Psalms 12:6-7).  The King James Bible is the PRESERVED, inerrant and inspired Word of God in the English language, which was translated from the PRESERVED, inerrant and inspired original Greek and Hebrew, neither of which is a dead language.  Neither does the English "correct" the Greek (or Hebrew), as some teach.  The 360 "perversions" of which you speak were not translated from the same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts as the King James Bible.

The English language didn't exist until the fifth to the seventh century AD.   English is a West Germanic language that originated from Anglo-Frisian dialects brought to Britain in the fifth to seventh centuries by Germanic invaders and settlers from what is now northwest Germany and the Netherlands. (Wikipedia). 

Quit with the insults already....the more you insult, the more you show your ignorance about Bible translations.

Share this post


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

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.

First, your above answer does remove my concern that you are willing to change the wording of the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures.

Second, I do apologize for missing this part of your answer above.  It appears that you added it with an "edit," and that you did it while I was in the process of formulating my response to your posting.

Third, concerning your answer itself there is a difficulty.  The Greek adjective "ptochos" (as employed in Mark 12:42 carries a domain of various meanings, even as you yourself have posted (and thereby acknowledged) above, as follows:

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
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)

Even so, in the realm of "rightly dividing" God's Word, it is not appropriate to choose one of these meanings against the others simply on the ground of your own authority and agenda.  Rather, in the realm of "rightly dividing" God's Word, it is necessary to choose one of these meanings against the others on the ground of contextual and Biblical evidences.

With my position I have chosen the meaning of "poor, needy" on the ground of the following evidences:

1.  The meaning of "poor, needy" IS a part of the meaning of the Greek adjective "ptochos."
2.  The meaning of "poor, needy" DOES fit with the Biblical fact that the widow had very little money, that is -- only two mites.
3.  The meaning of "poor, needy" carries PERFECT unity and equivalency with the Greek adjective "penichros" that God the Holy Spirit inspired for the parallel passage of Luke 21:2.
4.  The meaning of "poor, needy" is that which the King James translators understood for the Greek adjective "ptochos" in Mark 12:42-43, and they knew significantly more concerning Greek syntax and grammar than I will ever know.
5.  The meaning of "poor, needy" is that which the King James translators understood for the Greek adjective "ptochos" for the significant majority of its usages throughout the New Testament (31 out of 34 times).
6.  (An argument from silence) There is no specific indication anywhere in the Biblical context that the widow ever actually engaged in the practice of begging, or that she acquire her two mites through the practice of begging.
7.  (An argument from question) If the widow's only source of income was begging, why did our Lord Jesus Christ not instruct that some alms should be given unto her out of "the bag"? (See John 13:29)

 

12 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

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.

Now then, I have already indicated this in a previous posting; but I shall present it again -- 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?  Or, was there some commandment of God that prohibited either beggars or widows from giving "unto the offerings of God"?

Indeed, this is the primary point of contention; so then let us return to it -- Did the widow give out of motive of compulsion or of free willingness?

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
spelling error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2015‎年‎12‎月‎27‎日 at 9:12 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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.
 

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.)

 

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." 
 

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.

Brethren,

Throughout this entire discussion I have been pleased with the way that Pastor Markle has definately proved his contentions: specificly that the widow gave her offerings to God and that the Lord Jesus commended the widow after denouncing the scribes and other hypocrites.

The contentions by SFIC have all been soundly disproven by Pastor Markle by not only the English text (the King James Version), but by the various Greek meanings. The contentions sounded out by SFIC throughout this entire discussion are his own opinions (or interpretations of the scriptures), and are not supported by any scripture at all: either in the English  or the Greek language. The twistings of the scripture and the miss-use of the Greek by SFIC does not change the commendation of the Lord Jesus one whit.

The Holy Spirit always, may I repeat always, leads His men by the truth of the sciptures. The Lord Jesus said, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come." John 16:13 Pastor Markle has presented the truth of the matter of the widow and her mites. Both by the English King James Version and the usage of the Greek meanings.

The widow gave her all, her two mites, as an offering to God, because she loved God and the work of God. The widow purposely, without any coercion from anybody, gave her two mites and the Lord Jesus publicly commended her for her offering. The widow is an shining example for all of us in our service to the Lord Jesus. In spite of all of the hypocrites, internet theologians, Charismatic charlatans, and other fleshly led sinners and saints: we need to serve the Lord with purpose and cheerfulness of heart.

Alan

Edited by Alan
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott has NOT proven his contentions at all.  There is absolutely NOTHING in the English text, nor in the Greek that indicates the widow gave her last two mites willingly.  

Nor is there any indication in the text that Jesus was commending the widow.

But, the text does indicate the widow was robbed, put in a beggarly position as I have maintained since my OP.  The widow was made destitute by a corrupt Temple system, a system that Jesus identified as "a den of thieves".

The twisting of the Scripture is clearly on behalf of Scott, Jim & Alan,... not by me.  Easy to see why.  Their making the widow joyous and making Jesus happy at the destitute widow's actions helps to convince others to part with money that is otherwise needed for one to survive on.

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ

Share this post


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

The twisting of the Scripture is clearly on behalf of Scott, Jim & Alan,... not by me.  Easy to see why.  Their making the widow joyous and making Jesus happy at the destitute widow's actions helps to convince others to part with money that is otherwise needed for one to survive on.

Any twisting of Scripture has come about through the purely personal opinions of SFIC. The Scripture in question does not support his flawed understanding of the facts that are plainly laid out in plain language. He has to invent circumstances based solely on his own bias against giving in any manner, at any time and for any reason.

Historical Baptist teaching on this Scripture is in direct opposition to the flawed reasoning of SFIC. When asked to prove otherwise he pulls up a sermon by John MacArthur, a died in the wool Community Church charlatan.

Contrary to his assertions concerning Bros' Scott, Alan and I that I quoted, he steadfastly refuses to entertain any possibility that Jesus was teaching a contrast between the rich who gave some and the widow who gave all. It is in this sense that we see the commendation of our Lord to and for this poor widow.

As for me, I have no reason to try to convince others to part with their money. That has no place in this thread what-so-ever, but is simply another ploy on his part to distract from the real teaching of this text.

But then again, this is from the man who, in the very beginning stated that no one would ever convince him that Jesus was commending the poor widow. This statement was absolutely correct and bears solid testimony to the fact of his being unteachable.   2Tim 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 

Share this post


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

Scott has NOT proven his contentions at all.  There is absolutely NOTHING in the English text, nor in the Greek that indicates the widow gave her last two mites willingly.  

Nor is there any indication in the text that Jesus was commending the widow.

But, the text does indicate the widow was robbed, put in a beggarly position as I have maintained since my OP.  The widow was made destitute by a corrupt Temple system, a system that Jesus identified as "a den of thieves".

The twisting of the Scripture is clearly on behalf of Scott, Jim & Alan,... not by me.  Easy to see why.  Their making the widow joyous and making Jesus happy at the destitute widow's actions helps to convince others to part with money that is otherwise needed for one to survive on.

SFIC,

You are the one who departed from the truth and raised doubt concerning the veracity of the commmendation of the Lord Jesus and you are the one who has used unsupported scriptual asscusations against the widow. You are the one who twisted the plain teaching of the Bible by twisting the scriptures and the Greek meanings to prove your own interpretation of the scriptures.

Pastor Markle did prove his contentions and you are unwilling to accept the truth of the matter. Pastor Markle used the English texts that are mentioned in this discussions, and the appropriate Greek meanings, truthfully, honestly and sincerely.

The widow was not 'robbed' as you contend. She was publicly honoroured by the Lord Jesus Christ and her rewards in heaven will not only be far above the rewards of the scribes and other hypocrites but will probably far above than a lot of us in our age. The Lord Jesus plainly said, "... but she of her penury hath cast in all her living that she had." Luke 21:1

As I stated in my previous posts, the widow is a shining example of all of us.

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, there is nothing in the text that indicates willingness and/or desire to give by the widow.  Yet you claim that is what happened.

 

the texts do show the poor widow was made destitute by the corrupt Temple system.  Yet, you want to force a commendation by Jesus.

 

strange.

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see it as commendation either, although I admit at first glance looking only at the statement made by the Lord I thought so from a pretext in my mind when I first considered it.

The chapter context and certainly the context of all the Gospels say otherwise.

When considering the overall context of rebuke for the greed of filthy lucre of these religious leaders, it sheds a different light on Jesus' statement here about the widow as an objective one, as if He were merely stating the facts about how she gave all she had but the overall context is how she was sinfully manipulated by these leaders.

I often get angered to hear of how poor families that come to IFB churches for help are turned away from the coffers by the money handlers with the excuse that they can't be trusted and will only keep coming back. But when it comes to tithing, the same people will angrily say, it doesn't matter what is done with the money, you are tithing to the Lord.

I think the context of the Gospels overall indicate our Lord's Will in giving is to give to the brothers and sisters in need and the widows and fatherless even if we are being despite-fully used in some or many cases LONG BEFORE he would want us to provide filthy lucre to supposed leaders.

And I am in no way implying that anyone in this thread is like this but I have known of some in the past and hear of whole generations of them coming up in the last 20 years.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In every IFB  church I have been a member of I have always seen the pastor help those in financial need and have never even heard of the 'robbing' of God's saints. I have seen pastors help those in finanical need so many times I find it hard to read, and believe, some of these posts on this thread. In all of the IFB churches that I have been affliliated with, either by membership, or, as a missionary, I have always seen the pastor use the tithes and offerings of God's saints properly, spiritually and pleasing to the Lord. As a missionary I have personally, numerous times, been with a pastor to help those in financial need, whether they were a church member or not, a lot of times using their own funds. And, if the need was greater than what the pastor had in his personal wallet, he contacted the church treasurer to use church funds.

Yes, there are exceptions to this rule and it seems that SFIC is using the exceptions to dishonor the scriptures and IFB churches in general.  

Alan

 

 

Edited by Alan
correct a phrase; and a word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • It is not I that is guilty of "dishonoring the Scriptures.

Rather, those who "dishonor the Scriptures" are those who use Mark 12:41-44 & Luke 21:1-4 as proof-text that the widow was willfully giving and that Jesus was commending said giving when there is nothing in said texts that indicates such.

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 Kings 17:8-24 Speaks of another widow who gave all she had, in faith. Just like the widow in 1 Kings 17, the widow in Luke 21 was giving all she had in faith too.  As Jesus and the disciples watched,  rich men were throwing in their money and giving of their own free will. The widow threw in her paltry mites of her own free will too. The Bible does not say she was being forced; it says she gave. Jesus was showing the disciples that the amount of money is inconsequential: it's the heart that counts and the widow was trusting God with all her heart. God knew this extraordinary woman was about to do and He wanted the disciples to see it, that's why He was there at that moment in time. It wasn't necessarily to "commend" the woman; it was meant to show us what is lacking in our own hearts. Because no matter what we give, few of us have forsaken all or given all like this widow did.

Yes, people, rich men, even "clergy", oppress and "devour" widows; we all know that, but that is not the context of this particular passage.

Edited by heartstrings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luke 21:4 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.

2 Chronicles 31: And Kore the son of Imnah the Levite, the porter toward the east, was over the freewill offerings of God, to distribute the oblations of the LORD, and the most holy things.

This is the only other place where offerings of God is used in the whole King James Bible. Note they were of freewill. 

The KJV translates Strongs G1435 (offerings in Luke 21:4) in the following manner:

gift (18x), offering (1x)

This too would lead one to believe it was a gift.

To help us understand this is two separate thoughts the translators start a new paragraph in Mark at verse 41. And they started a new Chapter in Luke. 

Matthew 6:24 ¶ No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Matthew 6:25 ¶ Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

The widow lived that statement in front of our Master. I think that is why Jesus raised her up by pointing out she was really the biggest giver.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been holding off adding anything to this thread but will add to this last thought as my dad was a pastor for all his life. I have seen him many times be a "as wise as serpents but harmless as doves". Several times he would wisely "investigate" the situation of someone wanting help. Both by talking with the askee and sometimes a phone call or two to verify. Some times he would offer a temporary job and the "applicant" would just mysteriously leave. Proverbs 18:13 comes into play( I won't quote it, if you really want to see what it says you will look it up) . Also another scripture I read plays into this .  Proverbs 29:9 reminded me of this thread.

There was a lion walking through the jungle and came upon a smaller cat. He grabbed him and demanded" Who' s the king of the jungle?" The small cat said , " You  are Oh mighty lion!" The lion felt satisfied and went on and came upon a monkey. He cornered him and demanded "Who''s the king of the jungle?!" The monkey replied shakily "You are oh mighty lion!" Very pleased he went on. He came upon an elephant and confronted him and demanded "Who's the king of the jungle!?" The elephant looked at him and grabbed him with his trunk , shook him and dropkicked him about 2 hundred yards. The lion got up an yelled at the elephant "Well you don't have to get mad cause you don't know the answer!"

So my question is where do you fit in this story.

More to the point some one is standing firm in his  own opinion and not bringing ANY glory to our Lord and Saviour.

There are so MANY things we could talk about that would bring glory to God and edify the listener.

My other question is where are the moderators in this issue?

I will not respond any more to this . I will not answer a fool according to his folly and "some men's sins are open before hand and some they follow after" God will answer everything that needs to be answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So many, it appears, take pleasure and great pride in ignoring the fact that there is no commendation at all in the story of the poor widow.  Jesus did NOT say, "this wonderful widow."  Yet, so many want us to believe He did.  Nothing to even indicate a smile of enjoyment on either the widow's face, or on the face of the Lord Jesus Christ.  Yet, so many want to make it so.

clearly, the widow was robbed and many don't care at all.  They'd rather see the corrupt increase in riches and the poor live in their poverty.  

Proverbs 29:7 comes to mind whenever I see evidence of the poor oppressed.

 

 

Share this post


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

So many, it appears, take pleasure and great pride in ignoring the fact that there is no commendation at all in the story of the poor widow.  Jesus did NOT say, "this wonderful widow."  Yet, so many want us to believe He did.  Nothing to even indicate a smile of enjoyment on either the widow's face, or on the face of the Lord Jesus Christ.  Yet, so many want to make it so.

Our Lord Jesus Christ did not have to say, "this wonderful widow."  He only had to point out that she did "more" proportionally than all the other givers in her giving "unto the offerings [gifts] of God."  Doing "more" is a statement of comparison.  If that comparison of "more" is in something positive and good, such as giving "unto the offerings of God," then it in itself serves as a word of commendation.

Now, the primary contention in this discussion concerns the motivation of the widow for her giving, as follows:

1.  Either the widow was motivated to give out of compulsion by some form of authority from the scribes.
2.  Or the widow was motivated to give out of free-willingness from her heart toward the Lord God.

So then, what evidence in terminology is available for either position?

1.  On the one hand, Brother Robey continually declares that "there is nothing in the text that indicates willingness and/or desire to give by the widow," and continually presses that the widow was being robbed through her giving because she was being compelled to give.  Yet Brother Robey has NOT been able to point out any terminology of compulsion in the context whatsoever at all.

2.  On the other hand, I myself have continually declared that our Lord Jesus Christ was commending the generosity of the widow in her giving, and that He was doing so in direct contrast to the greediness of the scribes, which they demonstrated specifically through "devouring widows' houses" (that is -- that the very class of individuals, "widows," whom the scribes were so greedily oppressing, could demonstrate so much greater a proportional abundance in giving).  In support of my position I HAVE been able to point out the terminology of gift-giving right in the very text of Scripture; for our Lord Jesus Christ Himself assessed and reported that the givers, including the widow, were giving "unto the offerings [gifts] of God."

So then, which position actually does have the terminology of the Scriptural text in its support?  Indeed, until Brother Robey can point out some terminology of compulsion in the actual text of Scripture (in opposition to the terminology of gift-giving that is indeed present there), his position is the one that is proclaimed without the support of that which God's Word reports.
 

9 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Clearly, the widow was robbed and many don't care at all.    

Clearly, many of us do not see any evidence that this particular widow was being robbed in this particular moment wherein she gave her two mites "unto the offerings of God."

It is not that we do not "care at all" about widows being robbed and having their houses devoured.  It is that we do not see any evidence that the Scriptural account in Mark 12:41-44 & Luke 21:1-4 presents such a case.  Indeed, we are willing to join in firm unity with the rebuke that our Lord Jesus Christ pronounced against the scribes in Mark 12:38-40 & Luke 20:45-47.  Indeed, we would whole-heartedly agree with the truth of Proverbs 29:7, and would even add such passages as Proverbs 19:17 & Proverbs 22:9 (which passages do raise the question as to why our Lord Jesus Christ did not require the disciples to give any alms unto that "poor widow," if the case of the event is as you view it).
 

9 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

They'd rather see the corrupt increase in riches and the poor live in their poverty.  

Actually, that the temple treasury "increased in riches" by "two mites" is not really that important to me.  What is important to me is that "the poor widow" get credit where credit is due unto her for her proportionately generous giving "unto the offerings [gifts] of God."  Furthermore, I am quite grieved when the character of that poor, yet generous widow is slandered, in that she is presented as some type of wicked rebel against her Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that if God didn't want us to tithe, He would have clearly said it in a way everyone could see instead of hiding it in every single passage in Scripture. It seems to me (though I am human, and thus could be wrong), that some could use any verse in the Bible to advance their viewpoint on tithing, whichever side they may be on. I weary of people twisting God's Word.

Share this post


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

The terminology of the text neither shows the widow giving willingly, nor does it show that there was a commendation by the Lord 

The terminology of the text DOES indicate that the givers, including the widow, gave "unto the offerings [gifts] of God."  Thus the terminology of the text IS that of GIFT-GIVING.  Furthermore, the terminology of the text DOES indicate that from our Lord's perspective the widow gave MORE (proportionally) in this gift-giving "unto the offerings [gifts] of God." 

On the other hand, the terminology of the text does NOT include a single word concerning compulsion for giving, which is the very premise of Brother Robey's position.  Since Brother Robey cannot erase the terminology of gift-giving, and that toward God, in the phrase, "the offerings [gifts] of God," and since he cannot produce any terminology of compulsion for giving (that is -- without actually changing the very words of Scripture), his position lacks the foundation of the actual Scriptural terminology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, musician4god1611 said:

I would think that if God didn't want us to tithe, He would have clearly said it in a way everyone could see instead of hiding it in every single passage in Scripture. It seems to me (though I am human, and thus could be wrong), that some could use any verse in the Bible to advance their viewpoint on tithing, whichever side they may be on. I weary of people twisting God's Word.

God did put it for us to see.

 

1.Leviticus 27:30-34 states that the tithe command was given to the children of Israel.

2.  Psalms 147:19-20 states that the commands given to Israel were given to no other nation.

 

Hence, people living outside of Israel were not commanded to tithe by God.

Share this post


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

God did put it for us to see.

1.Leviticus 27:30-34 states that the tithe command was given to the children of Israel.

2.  Psalms 147:19-20 states that the commands given to Israel were given to no other nation.

Hence, people living outside of Israel were not commanded to tithe by God.

Brother Robey,

I do NOT intend to engage in a full discussion concerning the matter of the tithe within this thread (since this thread is NOT about tithing, but IS about the widow's giving of her mites).  However, I do wish with this posting to express my recognition of at least two valid points that you bring into the discussion on tithing (in order that you may recognize that I am not committed to the "tithing precept" for New Testament believers, as you might believe).

1.  I fully recognize that there is NOT a single command in the New Testament for New Testament believers to give a tithe of anything.
2.  I fully recognize that there is NOT a single example in the New Testament of a New Testament believer giving a tithe of anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2015 at 9:27 PM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

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.

On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2015 at 10:37 PM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

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? 

At the present it appears that the discussion of this thread is "winding down," and that is quite acceptable with me.  However, earlier in the thread I did make a commitment to deliver a presentation concerning the Greek verb "ballo."  Therefore, I do not wish to fail in that commitment.  If the following posting re-heats that engagement, well then shame on me.

Concerning the Greek verb “ballo.”

The Greek verb “ballo” does not inherently, necessarily, or automatically require the idea of violence or aggravation in action.  The basic meaning of the verb “ballo” is that of a casting motion with the arm.  Certainly, this meaning can include a very forceful, or even violent motion.  Yet this meaning also includes that of a dropping action, or even simply that of a setting action.  

The Greek verb “ballo” is used 125 times in the Greek New Testament (if my count is correct).  Let us then consider some examples of usage from the Greek New Testament to determine if this Greek verb inherently, necessarily, and automatically indicates a more violent and/or aggravated manner of action.

Certainly, the New Testament DOES include occasion where the verb indicates more violent action.  Such may be observed in those passages wherein the verb is used concerning those who are cast into hell or the lake of fire. (See Revelation 19:20; 20:10, 14, 15; etc.)  Such may also be observed in those passages wherein the verb is used concerning those who are cast into some form of prison. (See Acts 16:23, 24, 37; ect.)

Yet in Matthew 4:18 the Greek verb is translated with the English verb “casting,” as follows – “And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.”  Although in this context the verb would indicate a more forceful action, certainly it does not indicate violence in action.

In Matthew 9:17 the Greek verb is translated twice with the English verb “put,” as follows – “Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.”  Certainly, herein the verb would not indicate violence in action.

In Matthew 25:27 the Greek verb is translated with the English verb “put,” as follows – “Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.”  Certainly, herein the verb would not indicate violence in action.

In Matthew 26:12 the Greek verb is translated with the English verb “poured,” as follows – “For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial.”  Certainly, herein the verb would not indicate violence in action.

In Mark 4:26 the Greek verb is translated with the English verb “cast,” as follows – “And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground.”  Certainly, herein the verb would not indicate violence in action.

In Mark 7:30 the Greek verb is translated with the English verb “laid,” as follows – “And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed.”  Certainly, herein the verb would not indicate violence in action.

In Mark 7:33 the Greek verb is translated with the English verb “put,” as follows – “And he took him aside from the multitude, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spit, and touched his tongue.”  Certainly, herein the verb would not indicate violence in action.

In Luke 13:19 the Greek verb is translated with the English verb “cast,” as follows – “It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it.”  Certainly, herein the verb would not indicate violence in action.

In Luke 16:20 the Greek verb is translated with the English verb “laid,” as follows – “And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores.”  Certainly, herein the verb would not indicate violence in action.

In John 5:7 the Greek verb is translated with the English verb “put,” as follows – “The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.”  Certainly, herein the verb would not indicate violence in action.

In John 13:5 the Greek verb is translated with the English verb “poureth,” as follows – “After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.”  Certainly, herein the verb would not indicate violence in action.

In Revelation 4:10 the Greek verb is translated with the English verb “cast,” as follows – “The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying . . .”  Certainly, herein the verb would not indicate violence in action.


Now, with some historical research we understand that the temple “treasury” contained 13 offering receptacles, and that each receptacle was shaped like an old-style trumpet, with a narrow mouth and a broad base.  Even so, it was not possible for an individual simply to set his or her offering into the offering receptacle.  Indeed, “casting in” was precisely the motion that was required.  Yet this would not automatically indicate that the “casting in” was some form of violent or aggravated action.

Share this post


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

Comparing a person lying down with another throwing money?  Seriously?

the text in Mark says she threw in the mites.  Throw is far from lay.  Lol

The point was that these passages all employ the SAME GREEK VERB, and thereby indicate that this Greek verb does NOT INHERENTLY mean "violent action."

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   3 Members, 0 Anonymous, 47 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...