The Widow's Mites

[Standing Firm In Christ]

  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.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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?

[LindaR]

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.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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 December 27, 2015 by Pastor Scott Markle
spelling error

[Standing Firm In Christ]

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.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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"?

[Standing Firm In Christ]

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.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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.

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 December 27, 2015 by Pastor Scott Markle
added third paragraph

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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 December 27, 2015 by Pastor Scott Markle
spelling error

[Critical Mass]

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

[Standing Firm In Christ]

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.

 

 

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Penichros - poor, needy

from the base of 

penes - starving, indigent

 

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

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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?

[Standing Firm In Christ]

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

 

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

 

Edited December 27, 2015 by Standing Firm In Christ