Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Standing Firm In Christ

The Widow's Mites

Recommended Posts

Fraudsters is the correct label and brother, ain't that the truth on helping the poor WITHIN your church and without as you witness.

The religious lost love those rules and these fraudsters love them rich tares. Love em so much, they ignore half the NT in their sermons refusing to lose them.

But that aint the only fraud going on in IFB churchs, OH NO SIR, I could write a big, angry, make you feel violent piece of some of these yahoos. But I want to practice charity more.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/18/2015, 10:06:21, Standing Firm In Christ said:

The widow was not tithing.  We can know this for several reasons.

 

1.  The Law was still in effect.  The Law would not end until Jesus' death on the cross.  Ephesians. 2:14-15; Colossians. 2:14

2.  The Law said that God's holy tithe was to be agricultural, not monetary.  Leviticus 27:30-33

3.  Even if the widow had a farm to tithe from, she would not have tithed to the Temple.  She would have taken her tithe to the Levites in the farming community instead.  Numbers 18:24-28; Nehemiah 10:37-38

4.  Only Temple staff tithed to the Temple.  Nehemiah 10:37-38

Did the poor have to give a tithe? I know there was a tithe for the poor. I recall that the tithe had to come out of the person's abundance and they had to own property. Also, there were cases that money could be tithed in place of agriculture although this probably wasn't one of them.

I understand the point you were making but I still see it as Jesus making a comparison between the poor widow's offering and the rich men who were giving and how it's quality over quantity that's important to God. Even after see was robbed she still gave to God.

Share this post


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

Did the poor have to give a tithe? I know there was a tithe for the poor. I recall that the tithe had to come out of the person's abundance and they had to own property. Also, there were cases that money could be tithed in place of agriculture although this probably wasn't one of them.

I understand the point you were making but I still see it as Jesus making a comparison between the poor widow's offering and the rich men who were giving and how it's quality over quantity that's important to God. Even after see was robbed she still gave to God.

Of the congregation, only landowners who had gardens, orchards, or livestock were required to tithe.  The Levites were required to tithe a tithe of the tithe.  Those who owned no land on which to farm could not tithe.  

The poor received tithes every third and sixth year in a seven year cycle.  Years  one, two, four and five in the cycle, they more than likely survived from the corners of farms, from begging alms, and from purchasing food with those alms.  According to Exodus, both rich and poor alike had money.  They were not necessarily considered to be poor because of lack of money, but because of lack of a provider and lack of property on which they could farm.

There were no cases where "money could be tithed."  Leviticus 27:31 makes provision for the crops tithe to be bought back if a farmer so chose to do.  However, that money he bought the tithe back with was not a tithe.  It was redemption money.  Deuteronomy 14:24-26 allowed the children of Israel to sell their Feast tithe if there was a chance of it spoiling on the journey to Jerusalem.  However, once they arrived in Jerusalem, they were to buy food and drink with that money and eat it themselves.   The Feast tithe did not go to the House of God.

According to Numbers 18:27-28 & Nehemiah 10:37-38, the children of Israel could not even tithe to the House of God even if they wanted to.  They tithed to the Levites in the farming communities instead.  Then, in turn, the Levites took a tithe of the tithe to the lHouse of God.  

Again, the widow's house was being robbed.  It was being robbed through the unjust scribes, who were demanding money that God never authorized.  Yes, the poor were required to give a half-shekel to the House of God yearly.  However, it was only certain of the poor that God said were required to observe this law,... males twenty years old or older..  (Exodus 30:13-15)

 

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎20‎/‎2015‎ ‎4‎:‎16‎:‎29‎, Alan said:

Permit me say something about this issue of the Widow and her Mites. And, why some people give their tithes and offerings to the church.

Maybe, just maybe, the poor widow gave her two mites, all that she had, (not because it was commanded by the law and the Pharisees commanded we give the tithe), but  because she loved the Lord and His work and His Temple.

Maybe, just maybe, some people in our age, give tithes and offerings (not because it is commanded by the law and the Pharisees command we give a tithe), but because we love the Lord, we love His work, and we love his church.

I honestly believe that the Widow gave all she had because she loved God in heaven and wanted to show her gratitude towards not only towards God in heaven, but help His work, financially, on the earth.

The Lord Jesus commended the widow and her giving of her last two mites because she loved God, loved the Temple, and  loved the work of God. The interpretation that she gave her funds due to coercion, 'robbing,' intimidation, or some other ulterior method or reason, is a perversion of the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, and is not faithful to the words of the Lord Jesus. The interpretation of the widow being 'robbed' according to Mark 12:38-40 is not a correct interpretation. It is a incorrect, forced, and irresponsible interpretation.  "The legs of the lame are not equal: so is a parable in the mouth of fools." Proverbs 26:7

The reason why I, and a lot of other fine, godly saints, give oou tithes, offerings, and service to the Lord Jesus and to the local independent, fundamental, Bible believing church is because we love the Lord Jesus, the church, and the work of the Lord Jesus. It is not because we feel we are 'under the Law,' or 'taught wrongly' or some other insidious interpretation.

To say that I, or the saints who give willingly out of a heart of devotion and love, is through an intimidationof the fear of 'robbing' God, or some other reason of deceit, is a judmental interpretation of another person. That interpretation, and judgment is incorrect, slanderous, and is for the agenda of destroying the work of God through  false teaching.

The widow, and other saints, give out of a heart of love, devotion, sincerity, and one day, in the halls of heaven, the Lord Jesus, as He commended the poor, destitute widow, will say, "His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of the lord." Matthew 25:21

Alan

Edited by Alan
grammer and added a sentence spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 The text nowhere says the Lord was commending the widow.  Nor does the text say the widow gave out of a heart of love.    The text shows the widow was being robbed.

 

Jesus had just warned of those religious leaders.  Then, He goes and sits against the wall facing the Treasury.  There was no other purpose for doing so than to demonstrate how the widows were being robbed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not slanderous to say many are coerced to tithe their money through guilt or fear tactics.

 

I have been in many services in many different denominations that teach tithing through fear and guiltw.  The church that kicked me out was one such church.  There are also many Baptist videos on youtube, sermonaudio, sermonindex, et. Al.; that manipulate the congregations giving through those very same tactics.

 

 

Share this post


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

Again, the widow's house was being robbed.  It was being robbed through the unjust scribes, who were demanding money that God never authorized.  Yes, the poor were required to give a half-shekel to the House of God yearly.  However, it was only certain of the poor that God said were required to observe this law,... males twenty years old or older..  (Exodus 30:13-15)

Brother Robey,

I have refrained from engaging in this discussion to this point.  However, I do wish to express a few thoughts to your above comment.  Your comment reveals the two foundational premises for your interpretation of Mark 12:38-44 --

1.  Premise #1:  The scribes were robbing widows of their material welfare and housing.
2.  Premise #2:  The scribes were robbing widows by compelling them to give more than God required of them.

The first of these foundational premises is clearly supported by the Lord Jesus' statement in Mark 12:40.  However, the second of these foundational premises is not supported by any single statement of the passage.  Rather, it is assumed by your position.  Indeed, that is a fairly bold statement on my part; therefore, I express the challenge -- What single statement of Mark 12:38-44 specifically reveals that the scribes were robbing widows of their material welfare and housing specifically by compelling them to give more that the Lord God required of them?

36 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Jesus had just warned of those religious leaders.  Then, He goes and sits against the wall facing the Treasury.  There was no other purpose for doing so than to demonstrate how the widows were being robbed.

Actually, the purpose for the Lord Jesus in sitting across from the treasury is specifically stated in the passage.  It is NOT to see "how the widows were being robbed."  Rather, it is to see "how the people cast money into the treasury." (See Mark 12:41)

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


 

1 hour ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Robey,

I have refrained from engaging in this discussion to this point.  However, I do wish to express a few thoughts to your above comment.  Your comment reveals the two foundational premises for your interpretation of Mark 12:38-44 --

1.  Premise #1:  The scribes were robbing widows of their material welfare and housing.
2.  Premise #2:  The scribes were robbing widows by compelling them to give more than God required of them.

The first of these foundational premises is clearly supported by the Lord Jesus' statement in Mark 12:40.  However, the second of these foundational premises is not supported by any single statement of the passage.  Rather, it is assumed by your position.  Indeed, that is a fairly bold statement on my part; therefore, I express the challenge -- What single statement of Mark 12:38-44 specifically reveals that the scribes were robbing widows of their material welfare and housing specifically by compelling them to give more that the Lord God required of them?

Actually, the purpose for the Lord Jesus in sitting across from the treasury is specifically stated in the passage.  It is NOT to see "how the widows were being robbed."  Rather, it is to see "how the people cast money into the treasury." (See Mark 12:41)

Already answered.    The context shows that His statement "They rob widow's houses", His actions, 'watching the people," and his subsequent words, "she hath cast in more" all show that she was being robbed. 

It is hardly a bother for a rich person to put ten percent of their money into a collection plate or box.  However, for the poor to put ten percent in that plate or box, it is taking away from needs,... it is robbing them.  Milk and bread costs the same for rich and poor alike.  A rich household that has five family members who drink a glass of milk a day each runs out of milk on the same day as the poor family with five children who each drink a glass of milk a day. 

The difference being, the rich has the money to purchase another gallon, so the giving of ten percent doesn't take away from his family needs.   The poor, on the other hand,  may not get another gallon until their next welfare check comes in. (Mother raising five of us on Social Security and Dad's pension, I know firsthand how the ten percent she gave each month caused us to lack in many needful things)

The widow was being robbed.

For Alan,

Here is one such video where the congregation is told they are guilty of robbing God and they are cursed if they don't tithe...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPQo_W2qUG8&feature=youtu.be

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ

Share this post


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

Already answered.    The context shows that His statement "They rob widow's houses", His actions, 'watching the people," and his subsequent words, "she hath cast in more" all show that she was being robbed. 

Except that the passage does NOT say -- "which devour widows' houses by compelling them to give money."  In fact, the passage does not at all reveal the method by which the scribes "devoured" the widows' houses.  The method of "compelling them to give money" is your assumption, not the passage's revelation.

Except that the passage does NOT say -- "and beheld how the people were compelled to cast money into the treasury."  In fact, the passage simply indicates our Lord's purpose to watch "how" they were casting in their money, without once indicating that they were doing so because they were compelled in some way to do so.

Except that the passage does NOT say -- "that this poor widow hath been compelled to cast more in, than all they which have been compelled to cast into the treasury."  The idea of compulsion to give is not found in a single word of Mark 12:41-44.  Rather, this idea of compulsion is your assumption, not the passage's revelation.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle

Share this post


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

You Bible nowhere says we are to give a monetary tithe.  Yet you add to the Bible in order to preach one.

the passage about the widow indicates the widow was being robbed by the scribes through the taking of her needed money.  Yet you deny it.

First, I have made no reference to "tithing" in my comments, because Mark 12:38-44 makes no reference to the matter of "tithing."  Even in the event of the passage, there is no indication from the passage that either the other people or the poor widow were giving any form of tithe.  Therefore, bringing the matter of "tithing" into the passage is an assumption, not a matter of Biblical revelation.  No, whether this passage has any value for your position against "tithing" is specifically rooted to whether this passage deals with the matter of compulsion for giving.

Second, I do not at all deny that widows were being robbed of their material welfare by the scribes (although there is no specific indication from the passage that the poor widow of Mark 12:41-44 was one of those widows who had been so robbed).  Furthermore, I do not at all deny that the scribes were robbing widows by "taking" from them (since by definition the idea of "taking" is a very part of "robbing"). 

However, I do certainly deny that the passage makes any indication that the scribes were "devouring widows' houses" specifically by compelling them to give unto the temple treasury.  In fact, the passage does not reveal anything about the manner by which the scribes were "devouring widows' houses."  Therefore, making any statement as to the manner by which the scribes were accomplishing this is formulated by human assumption, not by Biblical revelation.

Now, claiming that the context reveals this is not valid - because the passage does NOT indicate that Jesus was watching how the people were giving by compulsion, because the passage does NOT indicate that either the other people or the poor widow gave what they gave by compulsion, and because in Jesus' comments of comparison between the other givers and the poor widow, He did NOT declare that any single one of them had given by compulsion.

The idea of giving by compulsion is NOT found in a single word of the passage, even including the statement that the scribes were "devouring widows' houses," because the manner by which they did this devouring is not revealed in the statements of the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures.

Share this post


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

It is not slanderous to say many are coerced to tithe their money through guilt or fear tactics.

 

I have been in many services in many different denominations that teach tithing through fear and guiltw.  The church that kicked me out was one such church.  There are also many Baptist videos on youtube, sermonaudio, sermonindex, et. Al.; that manipulate the congregations giving through those very same tactics.

 

 

Again, as Pastor Markle aptly noted the passage never says she gave a 'tithe' that is you assumption. And, you use that assumption to say she was 'robbed' and whoever gives a tithe or offering is doing so through coercion. It is so slanderous to say the widow was coerced. "He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool." Proverbs 10:18

And, what bad experience in the area of tithing that you had is no reason to say that this is as wide spread in independant baptist churches as you presume. "He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool." Proverbs 10:18

Some people are tired of hearing slander in this forum.

Edited by Alan
spelling

Share this post


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

What I see in the text of Mark 12:38-44 is a bankrupt religion bankrupting widows.

And what I see in the text of Mark 12:38-44 is a contrast between selfish scribes and a sacrificial widow.

Indeed, what I see is a contrast between the greediness of the scribes in selfishly taking for their own sake (even at the expense of helpless widows) and the generosity of the widow in sacrificially giving for the Lord's sake (unto the treasury of the Lord's temple).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alan said:

Again, as Pastor Markle aptly noted the passage never says she gave a 'tithe' that is you assumption. And, you use that assumption to say she was 'robbed' and whoever gives a tithe or offering is doing so through coercion. It is so slanderous to say the widow was coerced. "He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool." Proverbs 10:18

And, what bad experience in the area of tithing that you had is no reason to say that this is as wide spread in independant baptist churches as you presume. "He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool." Proverbs 10:18

Some people are tired of hearing slander in this forum.

I never said the widow of Mark 12 was tithing.  You are attempting to twist my words to something I never said.  Read my post again.  I said my mother was robbed by her pastors through the tithe lie just as the widow was being robbed by the demands of the religious leaders of her day.

 

What I see in the text of Mark 12:38-44 is a bankrupt religion bankrupting widows.

Share this post


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

And, you use that assumption to say she was 'robbed' and whoever gives a tithe or offering is doing so through coercion.

Read the whole sentence instead of just part of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎21‎/‎2015‎ ‎11‎:‎20‎:‎40‎, Pastor Scott Markle said:

And what I see in the text of Mark 12:38-44 is a contrast between selfish scribes and a sacrificial widow.

Indeed, what I see is a contrast between the greediness of the scribes in selfishly taking for their own sake (even at the expense of helpless widows) and the generosity of the widow in sacrificially giving for the Lord's sake (unto the treasury of the Lord's temple).

 

Concerning Mark 12:38-44

1.  The Caution to the People

     Mark 12:38 – “And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes . . . .”

     a.  To avoid fellowshipping with them.

     b.  To avoid following their ways.

2.  The Character of the Scribes

     a.  Arrogant superiority.  Mark 12:38-39 – “Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts.”

     b.  Oppressing selfishness.   Mark 12:40 – “Which devour widows’ houses . . . .”

     c.  Pretentious spirituality.  Mark 12:40 – “. . . And for a pretence make long prayers. . . .”

3.  The Condemnation of the Scribes

     Mark 12:40 – “. . . These shall receive greater damnation.”

4.  The Consideration of the Givers

     Mark 12:41 – “And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury . . . .”

      a.  Consideration of the many rich.  Mark 12:41 – “. . .  And many that were rich cast in much.”

      b.  Consideration of the poor widow.  Mark 12:42 – “And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.”

5.  The Commendation of the Widow

     Mark 12:43 – “And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury.”

     a.  Because she gave out of her want.  Mark 12:43 – “For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want . . . .”

     b.  Because she gave a higher percentage, even 100%.  Mark 12:43 – “. . .  But she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know technically that the "tithe" was 10% of a man's agricultural abundance (it was an agrarian society they lived in unlike our consumer/monetary based society of today) but a lot of people use the term when referring to giving in general. "Did you tithe at church today?" can simply mean , "Did you give at church today?" IMO.  It's like how "the house of the Lord" in the OT was historically and doctrinally the tabernacle\temple but Christians spiritually apply those verses to the local church ("I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the Lord" i.e. "let's go to church). I realize you need to get the OT doctrine down straight but you can become so rigid in doctrine you can forget any devotional application to a Christian today. Remember, all scripture is given for instruction in righteousness. It's not some dead book relegated to the past.

This is why I say that the "tithe" is not wrong for today if you teach it in a devotional sense. I see nothing wrong with a man using the OT tithe as a principle for giving 10% of his earnings each week or month. How much a preacher should force the issue is up to debate.  I do have a pastor friend who never passes a plate around but has a box in the back of his church that you put money in if you want to give. He has now moved into his third building because the church keeps growing. I will say though that I do believe that a Christian, even though he may be under grace giving, can still rob God. 

At the heart of this issue, IMO, is that some don't want to be brow beaten into a guilt trip or have another legalistic burden placed upon them. Or perhaps they have been robbed by a greedy pastor or crooked missionary in the past like my brother was who now refuses to give anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no commendation in the text of Mark 12:41ff. The immediate preceding text reveals that widows were being robbed. The immediate text after shows Jesus' anger at the unjust oppression of the widows... He states that the Temple will be destroyed. Why make the statement that the Temple would be destroyed at all, if not because of the unjust actions of its leaders? The prophecy of the Temple's destruction is made due to the actions Christ and His Apostles had just witnessed inside,... a widow being robbed. Context shows no commendation whatsoever.

Share this post


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

I know technically that the "tithe" was 10% of a man's agricultural abundance (it was an agrarian society they lived in unlike our consumer/monetary based society of today) but a lot of people use the term when referring to giving in general. "Did you tithe at church today?" can simply mean , "Did you give at church today?" IMO.  It's like how "the house of the Lord" in the OT was historically and doctrinally the tabernacle\temple but Christians spiritually apply those verses to the local church ("I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the Lord" i.e. "let's go to church). I realize you need to get the OT doctrine down straight but you can become so rigid in doctrine you can forget any devotional application to a Christian today. Remember, all scripture is given for instruction in righteousness. It's not some dead book relegated to the past.

This is why I say that the "tithe" is not wrong for today if you teach it in a devotional sense. I see nothing wrong with a man using the OT tithe as a principle for giving 10% of his earnings each week or month. How much a preacher should force the issue is up to debate.  I do have a pastor friend who never passes a plate around but has a box in the back of his church that you put money in if you want to give. He has now moved into his third building because the church keeps growing. I will say though that I do believe that a Christian, even though he may be under grace giving, can still rob God. 

At the heart of this issue, IMO, is that some don't want to be brow beaten into a guilt trip or have another legalistic burden placed upon them. Or perhaps they have been robbed by a greedy pastor or crooked missionary in the past like my brother was who now refuses to give anything.

If your brother's pastor is using the Word of God to preach the lie that God requires your brother to give 10% of his income to the Church, then your brother is right not to give anything.  A pastor that handles the Word of God deceitfully should not be supported.

Share this post


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

I know technically that the "tithe" was 10% of a man's agricultural abundance (it was an agrarian society they lived in unlike our consumer/monetary based society of today) but a lot of people use the term when referring to giving in general. "Did you tithe at church today?" can simply mean , "Did you give at church today?" IMO.  It's like how "the house of the Lord" in the OT was historically and doctrinally the tabernacle\temple but Christians spiritually apply those verses to the local church ("I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the Lord" i.e. "let's go to church). I realize you need to get the OT doctrine down straight but you can become so rigid in doctrine you can forget any devotional application to a Christian today. Remember, all scripture is given for instruction in righteousness. It's not some dead book relegated to the past.

This is why I say that the "tithe" is not wrong for today if you teach it in a devotional sense. I see nothing wrong with a man using the OT tithe as a principle for giving 10% of his earnings each week or month. How much a preacher should force the issue is up to debate.  I do have a pastor friend who never passes a plate around but has a box in the back of his church that you put money in if you want to give. He has now moved into his third building because the church keeps growing. I will say though that I do believe that a Christian, even though he may be under grace giving, can still rob God. 

At the heart of this issue, IMO, is that some don't want to be brow beaten into a guilt trip or have another legalistic burden placed upon them. Or perhaps they have been robbed by a greedy pastor or crooked missionary in the past like my brother was who now refuses to give anything.

Our church has a box at the back. Well two actually, one on each side.  When it was decided that the plate would no longer be passed around, some said the giving would drop.  In fact it increased. That was more than 20 years ago and we have never had need to reconsider the decision. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎4‎/‎2015‎ ‎5‎:‎37‎:‎52‎, Pastor Scott Markle said:

 

Concerning Mark 12:38-44

1.  The Caution to the People

     Mark 12:38 – “And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes . . . .”

     a.  To avoid fellowshipping with them.

     b.  To avoid following their ways.

2.  The Character of the Scribes

     a.  Arrogant superiority.  Mark 12:38-39 – “Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts.”

     b.  Oppressing selfishness.   Mark 12:40 – “Which devour widows’ houses . . . .”

     c.  Pretentious spirituality.  Mark 12:40 – “. . . And for a pretence make long prayers. . . .”

3.  The Condemnation of the Scribes

     Mark 12:40 – “. . . These shall receive greater damnation.”

4.  The Consideration of the Givers

     Mark 12:41 – “And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury . . . .”

      a.  Consideration of the many rich.  Mark 12:41 – “. . .  And many that were rich cast in much.”

      b.  Consideration of the poor widow.  Mark 12:42 – “And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.”

5.  The Commendation of the Widow

     Mark 12:43 – “And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury.”

     a.  Because she gave out of her want.  Mark 12:43 – “For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want . . . .”

     b.  Because she gave a higher percentage, even 100%.  Mark 12:43 – “. . .  But she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.”

Pastor Markle,

Thank you for the excellent study and observations on the commendation of the Lord Jesus towards the widow and the hypocitical giving of the Scribes. The Lord Jesus is plainly showing us the contrast between the Scribes and the widow and her mites.

The Lord Jesus knows the heart attitude of all those who give. The Lord Jesus is giving us the start contrast of those who give 'grudgingly' and those who give 'cheerfully and purposely' out of a heart of love. The widow who gave her all is our example to follow as we give our time, talents, and treasures.

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no indication of willful giving in Mark 12:38ff.

There is no indication of commendation in Mark 12:38ff.

 

context shows robbery was being witnessed right before the eyes of the Lord and His Apostles.

 

Why anyone would think that Jesus would commend someone for being robbed by thieves is beyond incredible,... especially in view of the fact that He warns us to beware of thieves.

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   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 51 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

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...