Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         33
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

The Widow's Mites


Standing Firm In Christ

Recommended Posts

  • Members

It has been said by many that in the story of the widow who put her last two mites in the Temple Treasury was being commended by Jesus after she did so.

I am not so sure this was the case.  Notice:

Mark 12:38-44 And he said unto them in his doctrine, 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: WHICH DEVOUR WIDOWS HOUSES, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation. And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. 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: For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

If one reads the text in context, (beginning at verse 39) one will see Jesus was warning of religious leaders who, "rob widow's houses".  Then, He sits against a wall across from the Treasury.  Lo and behold, a widow comes and drops all her living into the Treasury. 

What I see in that text is Jesus pointing out a destitute women has just been robbed, not that He was commending her.  Her money could have purchased some needed things that she lacked, but she put it in the Treasury?  Why? 

The Scribes, the LawMakers, had demanded her needed money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Replies 274
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. 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: For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

If one reads the text in context, (beginning at verse 39) one will see Jesus was warning of religious leaders who, "rob widow's houses".  Then, He sits against a wall across from the Treasury.  Lo and behold, a widow comes and drops all her living into the Treasury. 

What I see in that text is Jesus pointing out a destitute women has just been robbed, not that He was commending her.  Her money could have purchased some needed things that she lacked, but she put it in the Treasury?  Why? 

The Scribes, the LawMakers, had demanded her needed money.

Seriously??  If such were the case as you pointed out, we would not need the comparison that the "rich cast in much."  Many that were rich does not specify they were all lawmakers and scribes.  Rich were casting in a lot from their abundance but she cast in more.  If Jesus was pointing out they were robbing this poor widow, He would have just pointed out she gave all she had, now she has nothing.  He then goes on to point out she gave more than "all" that gave.  This was everyone giving, not just scribes and lawmakers.  He is pointing out her 100% and "all they" gave less than 100%.  This was not needed to be done if just pointing out that the scribes and lawmakers were thieves. 

And personally I don't see a widow being robbed.  Malachi 3:10&11 applies to her so she is being taken care of. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It was everyone giving, yes.  But more was required of the widow than of the others.  They gave out of their abundance, she gave all.

And yes, He was pointing out that she was being robbed.  Mark 12:38-40 And he said unto them in his doctrine, 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: Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation.

Jesus  was warning of religious leaders who, among other attrocities, were oppressing the widows, depriving them of what rightfully belonged to the widows.

Mark 12:41-44 And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much. And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. 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: For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.


After warning of those unrighteous acts of the religious leaders, Jesus sat down across from the treasury and watched people give.  What was the purpose?  To show how the widows were being robbed.  More was required of them than of the rich that gave to the religious system.

There was no commending in that passage at all, only condemnation.

Malachi 3:10-11 has absolutely nothing to do with Mark 12:38-44.  Israel's tithes were agricultural, not monetary.  She was not tithing in the passage, nor were the rich.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Tithing was a Levitical law. We (saved/church/bride) are not under the law but under grace. I come under fire for this belief often, yet I believe that's exactly what the bible teaches. Now that is not to say we shouldn't give to the church. But we are not obligated to a 10% tithe.  We should give from a cheerful heart (not grudgingly). I heard one preacher tell his congregation: "If you have unpaid bills, you better not be putting money into the plate".  I agree... when bills are manageable then give (willingly) and if you have looming taxes or utility bills needing paid... pay those first. And it would also depends on each person's walk with the Lord... as they are led by the Holy Spirit. Some years I have given a lot more than other years, it depended on true expenses (not talking about wants, but needs) and other years there wasn't as much to give. God knows the hearts/minds and situations. He meets the needs. 

2 Corinthians 9:7 "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver."

I notice the words "or of necessity" , that shows that churches should not demand a set percentage of income (once again, we are not under Levitical law). But it also doesn't mean "give nothing", I'm not saying that at all... because "God loveth a cheerful giver". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Ronda said:

Tithing was a Levitical law. We (saved/church/bride) are not under the law but under grace. I come under fire for this belief often, yet I believe that's exactly what the bible teaches. Now that is not to say we shouldn't give to the church. But we are not obligated to a 10% tithe.  We should give from a cheerful heart (not grudgingly). I heard one preacher tell his congregation: "If you have unpaid bills, you better not be putting money into the plate".  I agree... when bills are manageable then give (willingly) and if you have looming taxes or utility bills needing paid... pay those first. And it would also depends on each person's walk with the Lord... as they are led by the Holy Spirit. Some years I have given a lot more than other years, it depended on true expenses (not talking about wants, but needs) and other years there wasn't as much to give. God knows the hearts/minds and situations. He meets the needs. 

2 Corinthians 9:7 "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver."

I notice the words "or of necessity" , that shows that churches should not demand a set percentage of income (once again, we are not under Levitical law). But it also doesn't mean "give nothing", I'm not saying that at all... because "God loveth a cheerful giver". 

Amen! That is the biblical truth there!!

It's sad to hear Baptist preachers sound so much like the prosperity preachers they denounce, when they come before their congregation and tell them they must tithe even if that means they can't pay their bills or shop for groceries. Then they declare God will honor their faithfulness by sending them whatever amount of money they need to pay those bills and buy those groceries.

J. Vernon McGee told a good story of the depression days when a well-to-do man was speaking highly of himself for continuing to tithe during the hard times while speaking badly of those with virtually nothing (in some cases literally having no money at all) who were not tithing each Sunday. McGee pointed out Christians are not under the tithe laws and when God prospers some it could be He wants them to give more during those times others are unable to give.

As God provides, we cheerfully give, thankful to give what we can. It's such a blessing to spend time with the Lord in prayer seeking His will with regards to our giving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, Critical Mass said:

Seems maybe your are reading too much into this passage. It's pretty clear that Jesus was pointing out about quality and not quantity. Even after they robbed her house she still gave her tithe.

1 hour ago, Critical Mass 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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.

Why some folks give their Tithes and Offerings to the Church

And, in this day and age, a lot of folks give their tithe and offering because they love the Lord Jesus and love the church.

Paul told us to follow the example of the Law to give our finances to the Church

Furthermore, Paul the apostle, who wrote that we are not under the Law, told the Corinthian church to give financially (carnal things), to the church, as written in the Old Testament,  so that the ministers of the gospel can freely preach.

"Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vinyard, and eateth not the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? Say I these things as a man? or saith the law the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, not doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth in hope should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope." 1 Corinthians 9: 7 - 10

Paul quoted Deuteronomy 22:10 In the Old Testament, and in the New Testament, the minister is referred to as an "ox." These statutes, in the Law, were not only written for the Jews in Israel, under the Law, but for the church, under grace.

In 1 Timothy 5:17 and 18 Paul not only repeats this admonition in the care of the ministers at church but he goes one step further (under Grace and the Law): "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especilly they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward." 1 Timothy 5:17 and 18

If a person really loves the church and the minister of God than Paul said to honor him with 'double.' Hmmm? I wonder what 'double' means?

In both 1 Corinthians 9:9 , Paul quoted from the Law as his authority: Deuteronomy 22:10

Deuteronomy 22:10, "Thou shalt not plow with and ox and an ass together."

Also, for your information, the ox was referring to the minister of God and the ass is referring to the ministers of unrigtheousness: such as, the Pharisees, the liberal, the Pope, the lost minister in these lost chuches, the false prophet in the Old Testament and the false teacher in the New Testament, and deceived brethren.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The context of Mark 12:38-44 shows that the widow was being robbed.  

 

i believe that many people give 10% of their money because they love the Lord.  (God's holy tithe was to be agricultural, so the tenth of one's money is not His tithe according to God's Word)  However, many give that ten percent because they are lied to.  Every monetary tithe sermon I have ever heard, the pastor, or preacher runs to Leviticus 27:30 to prove that, "The tithe is the Lord's."  They then run to Malachi 3:10 and tell the people they are robbing God if they don't tithe their money.  Problem is, in running to Malachi, they place the people under the Law.

 

Is Tithing a Sin

Is tithing money a sin? Yes, it is,... if you are tithing money because, "the Bible commands us to tithe," or because "God's Word says I'll be cursed if I don't."

God's Word decides what is to be tithed, not us. If the preacher's tithe sermon contradicts what is written in God's Holy Word, God is right, the preacher is wrong. If man's belief concerning God's commanded tithe is contrary to what is written in the Bible about God's commanded tithe, God is right, man is wrong. The decision as to what is to be tithed, to whom the tithe is to be given, when, and where it is to be observed has already been written in God's Word.

He said His holy tithe is agriculrural, not monetary. (Lev. 27:30-33) He said it is for the physical descendants of Levi, not for Gentiles on Gentile soil. (Lev. 27:34; Num. 18:24-26; Neh. 10:37-38; Deut. 6:1-3 & 12:1,10-11)

God's Word says that sin is the transgression of the Law. (1 John 3:4) To say that God requires monetary tithes is false, since God's Word says His holy tithe is to be agricultural. To say that God's holy tithe is to be taken to Gentile pastors on Gentile soil is also false, since God said His holy tithes are to go to Levites in farming communities in Canaan.

When those who believe that God's Word commands them to tithe tithe money, (instead of agricultural crops and livestock) and they tithe on Gentile soil, (instead of farming communities in Canaan), and they tithe to a Gentile pastor, (instead of to a Levite) they transgress the very Law they claim to be keeping.

Yes, to tithe money in response to Leviticus 27:30, Malachi 3:10, Matthew 23:23, Luke 11:42 or Hebrews 7:5-9; or in response to any other Biblical command to tithe is,... in fact,... sin..

 

1 Corinthians 9 was not speaking of tithes at all.  Paul was speaking of support for the Apostles in their missions. The tithe belonged to Israel, not to the Church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
59 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

The context of Mark 12:38-44 shows that the widow was being robbed.  

 

Your statement is not correct and is a private interpretation. Mark 12:38-40 is a different situation and has no bearing on the story of the widows mite in Mark 12:41-44

She was not robbed in any sense of the word. The Lord Jesus plainly stated, "... Verily I say unto you, that his poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury. for all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living."

The Lord Jesus did not reference any of His words in reference to the Pharisees, nor did He even reference His words to the Law; He clearly stated that the widow gave "out of her want." The widow "wanted' to give. The widow gave because she had a happy and generous heart of love. The attitude of the Pharisees were not even considered in her mind and heart nor in the mind and heart of the Lord Jesus.

The Lord Jesus did not say, or even allude to, and 'robbing the widow.' Your interpretation is a mis-representation, and judgment, of the widow, and a perverting of the words of the Lord Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Actually, it is you who is incorrect.

 

scenario:

Jesus warns of widows being robbed by the scribes.

He then goes and sits across from the treasury.

For what purpose?

Because He knew the widow was on her way, bringing all her living.

There was no commendation in the account, only a warning against the scribes.

 

"Out of her want" does not mean she wanted to give.  It means she was lacking, yet gave anyway.  Why did she give anyway?  Because she was being forced to give.  She was being robbed.

Want:Transliteration: hysterēsis
Pronunciation: hü-ste'-rā-sēs 
Part of Speech: feminine noun
Root Word (Etymology): from G5302
Outline of Biblical Usage:
want, poverty

 

"out of her want" is not speaking of a desire to give at all.  Look up the root of the Greek for want in Mark 12:44.  It clearly shows she was giving out of her lack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
13 minutes ago, Alan said:

Your statement is not correct and is a private interpretation. Mark 12:38-40 is a different situation and has no bearing on the story of the widows mite in Mark 12:41-44

She was not robbed in any sense of the word. The Lord Jesus plainly stated, "... Verily I say unto you, that his poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury. for all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living."

The Lord Jesus did not reference any of His words in reference to the Pharisees, nor did He even reference His words to the Law; He clearly stated that the widow gave "out of her want." The widow "wanted' to give. The widow gave because she had a happy and generous heart of love. The attitude of the Pharisees were not even considered in her mind and heart nor in the mind and heart of the Lord Jesus.

The Lord Jesus did not say, or even allude to, and 'robbing the widow.' Your interpretation is a mis-representation, and judgment, of the widow, and a perverting of the words of the Lord Jesus.

I think that is rather a forced interpretation SFIC. While I agree with you generally, I don't think you are correct regarding the widow,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
28 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Actually, it is you who is incorrect.

 

scenario:

Jesus warns of widows being robbed by the scribes.

He then goes snd sits across from the treasury.

For what purpose?

Because He knew the widow was on her way, bringing all her living.

There was no commendation in the account, only a warning against the scribes.

 

"Out of her want" does not mean she wanted to give.  It means she was lacking, yet gave anyway.  Why did she give anyway?  Because she was being forced to give.  She was being robbed.

Want:Transliteration: hysterēsis
Pronunciation: hü-ste'-rā-sēs 
Part of Speech: feminine noun
Root Word (Etymology): from G5302
Outline of Biblical Usage:
want, poverty

 

"out of her want" is not speaking of a desire to give at all.  Look up the root of the Greek for want in Mark 12:44.  It clearly shows she was giving out of her lack.

SFIC,

Obviously she was in 'want' or in poverty, that is not the question nor the attitude of her heart. The word 'want' has many meanings, and you neglected to give all of them. You only gave the meaning that you wanted to give and neglected to give, or even say, that there could be another meaning.

May I quote a meaning of the word 'want' from the 1848 Webster's Dictionary? "WANT" 6. to wish for; to desire." the heart motive of this widow was a desire to give to the Lord. she was not even concerned what the Pharisees taught or thought of her actions.

The widow 'wanted' to give her all to the temple. Again, may I quote the Lord Jesus. The Lord Jesus  very clearly said, "... Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living." Mark 12:43 and 44

The widow was a poor widow, she wanted to give to the Lord, to the Temple, to the work of God, out of a heart of love and devotion. Your interpretation is not correct and a perversion of the words of the Lord Jesus. The widow gave joyously and lovingly. Her rewards in heaven are great.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I'm sorry, Alan. I have to agree with "Standing Firm" on the usage of the word "want". I know we aren't supposed to bring the Greek into it, but it denotes "neediness/poverty".   I do believe she desired (out of the goodness of her heart) to please the Lord, and she did desire to give something, just not everything.  Sorry if I have muddied the waters further, I just do agree with the "want" pertaining to her financial status/neediness.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
13 minutes ago, Alan said:

SFIC,

Obviously she was in 'want' or in poverty, that is not the question nor the attitude of her heart. The word 'want' has many meanings, and you neglected to give all of them. You only gave the meaning that you wanted to give and neglected to give, or even say, that there could be another meaning.

May I quote a meaning of the word 'want' from the 1848 Webster's Dictionary? "WANT" 6. to wish for; to desire." the heart motive of this widow was a desire to give to the Lord. she was not even concerned what the Pharisees taught or thought of her actions.

The widow 'wanted' to give her all to the temple. Again, may I quote the Lord Jesus. The Lord Jesus  very clearly said, "... Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living." Mark 12:43 and 44

The widow was a poor widow, she wanted to give to the Lord, to the Temple, to the work of God, out of a heart of love and devotion. Your interpretation is not correct and a perversion of the words of the Lord Jesus. The widow gave joyously and lovingly. Her rewards in heaven are great.

 

You interpret the word "want" from a secular dictionary.

 

I look to the Greek for the interpretation.  The Greek for want carried far less definitions than the secular.

 

Had Jesus meant, "desire" or "wish for," the Greek would have been "aiteo".  He instead used "hysteresis," which speaks of poverty, not desire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I have already said that the word want is meaning poverty; I also said that the other meaning is to desire.

And, even though if you want to only force that one meaning the words of the Lord Jesus is very clear. The poor widow was not robbed in any sense of the word and you are trying to twist the very words of the Lord Jesus to prove a saint is being robbed when they tithe.

22 minutes ago, Alan said:

Again, may I quote the Lord Jesus. The Lord Jesus  very clearly said, "... Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living." Mark 12:43 and 44

The widow was a poor widow, she wanted to give to the Lord, to the Temple, to the work of God, out of a heart of love and devotion. Your interpretation is not correct and a perversion of the words of the Lord Jesus. The widow gave joyously and lovingly. Her rewards in heaven are great.

Are we to take the words of SFIC above the very words of the Lord Jesus?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
51 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

You quoted Alan, did you mean Alan's interpretation is forced?

Did I?  Sorry no I was referring to you.  I don;t know how that happened.  Sorry to Alan as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The very words of Jesus also stated in Mark 12:40 " 40 Which devour widows' houses ...." I see the words tying into the next sentences as well... so "Standing Firm" has brought out those words of Jesus also... in context of the verses together. So no, I am not taking mankinds words above the Lord Jesus... I am fully taking ALL that Jesus has to say about it, not just limited to verse 43 and 44.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   2 Members, 1 Anonymous, 6 Guests (See full list)

  • Recent Achievements

    • Mark C earned a badge
      First Post
    • Razor went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Mark C earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      First Post
    • KJV1611BELIEVER earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Popular Now

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 0 replies
    • Razor

      “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
      ― Mark Twain
      · 1 reply
    • Razor

      Psalms 139 Psalm 139:9-10
      9. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; 10. even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy righthand shall hold me. 
       
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West  »  Pastor Scott Markle

      Advanced revelation, then...prophecy IS advanced revelation in the context of the apostles.
      I really do not know where you are going with this. The Bible itself has revelations and prophecies and not all revelations are prophecies.
      Paul had things revealed to him that were hid and unknown that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs.
      How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Eph 3:3-9
      And I do not mean this as a Hyper-dispensationalist would, for there were people in Christ before Paul (Rom. 16:7). This is not prophecy for there are none concerning the Church age in the O.T..
      Israel rejected the New Wine (Jesus Christ) and said the Old Wine (law) was better, had they tasted the New Wine there would be no church age or mystery as spoken above. to be revealed.
      It was a revealed mystery. Sure there are things concerning the Gentiles after the this age. And we can now see types in the Old Testament (Boaz and Ruth) concerning a Gentile bride, but this is hindsight.
      Peter could have had a ham sandwich in Acts 2, but he did not know it till later, by revelation. But this has nothing to do with 1John 2;23 and those 10 added words in italics. Where did they get them? Did the violate Pro. 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Where did they get this advance revelation? Was it from man, God or the devil?
        I just read your comment and you bypassed what I wrote concerning book arrangement, chapters being added and verse numberings and such. There is no scripture support for these either, should we reject these?
      Happy New Year
      · 0 replies
    • Bro. West

      Seeing it is Christ----mas time and I was answering question on Luke 2:33 concerning Jesus, Mary and Joseph . I thought it would be fitting to display a poem i wrote concerning the matter.
      SCRIPTURAL MARY

      I WALK NOT ON WATER NOR CHANGE IT TO WINE
      SO HEARKEN O’ SINNER TO THIS STORY OF MINE
      I, AM A DAUGHTER OF ABRAHAM SINNER BY BIRTH
      A HAND MAID OF LOW ESTATE USED HERE ON EARTH
      MY HAIR IS NOT GENTILE BLOND, I HAVE NOT EYES OF BLUE
      A MOTHER OF MANY CHILDREN A DAUGHTER OF A JEW
      FOR JOSEPH MY HUSBAND DID HONOUR OUR BED
      TO FATHER OUR CHILDREN WHO NOW ARE ALL DEAD
      BUT I SPEAK NOT OF THESE WHO I LOVED SO WELL
      BUT OF THE FIRST BORN WHICH SAVED ME FROM HELL
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               2
      WHEN I WAS A VIRGIN UNKNOWN BY MAN
      THE ANGEL OF GOD SPOKE OF GOD’S PLAN
      FOR I HAD BEEN CHOSEN A FAVOUR VESSEL OF CLAY
      TO BARE THE SON OF THE HIGHEST BY AN UNUSUAL WAY
      FOR THE SCRIPTURE FORETOLD OF WHAT WAS TO BE
      SO MY WOMB GOD FILLED WHEN HE OVER SHADOW ME
      BUT THE LAW OF MOSES DID DEMAND MY LIFE
      WOULD JOSEPH MY BETROTHED MAKE ME HIS WIFE
      I THOUGHT ON THESE THINGS WITH SO NEEDLESS FEARS
      BUT A DREAM HE RECEIVED ENDED ALL FEARS
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                              3
      THEN MY SOUL DID REJOICE IN GOD MY SAVIOR
      HE SCATTERED THE PROUD AND BLESS ME WITH FAVOR
      O’ THE RICH ARE EMPTY, THE HUNGRY HAVE GOOD THINGS
      FOR THE THRONE OF DAVID WOULD HAVE JESUS THE KING
      BUT BEFORE I DELIVERED THE MAN CHILD OF OLD
      CAESAR WITH TAXES DEMANDED OUR GOLD
      TO THE CITY OF DAVID JOSEPH AND I WENT
      ON A BEAST OF BURDEN OUR STRENGTH NEAR SPEND
      NO ROOM AT An INN, BUT A STABLE WAS FOUND
      WITH STRAW AND DUNG LAID ON THE GROUND
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
                                                  4
      MY MATRIX WAS OPEN IN A PLACE SO PROFANE
      FROM THE GLORY OF GLORIES TO A BEGGAR’S DOMAIN
      SO WE WRAPPED THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE HEATHEN A STRANGER
      NO REPUTATION IS SOUGHT TO BE BORN IN A MANGER
      HIS STAR WAS ABOVE US THE HOST OF HEAVEN DID SING
      FOR SHEPHERDS AND WISE MEN WORSHIP ONLY THE KING
      BUT HEROD THAT DEVIL SOUGHT FOR HIS SOUL
      AND MURDER RACHEL’S CHILDREN UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
      BUT JOSEPH MY HUSBAND WAS WARNED IN A DREAM
      SO WE FLED INTO EGYPT BECAUSE OF HIS SCHEME
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY SO TRUST ME NOT
                                               5
      SO THE GIVER OF LIFE, THE ROCK OF ALL AGES
      GREW UP TO FULFILL THE HOLY PAGES
      HE PREACH WITH AUTHORITY LIKE NONE BEFORE
      PLEASE TRUST HIS WORDS AND NOT THE GREAT WHORE
      HER BLACK ROBE PRIEST FILL THEIR LIPS WITH MY NAME
      WITH BLASPHEMOUS PRAISE, DAMMATION AND SHAME
      THERE ARE NO NAIL PRINTS IN MY HANDS, MY BODY DID NOT ARISE
      NOR, AM A DEMON OF FATIMA FLOATING IN THE SKY
      THERE IS NO DEITY IN MY VEINS FOR ADAM CAME FROM SOD
      FOR I, AM, MOTHER OF THE SON OF MAN NOT THE MOTHER OF GOD
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, SO TRUST ME NOT
      6
      FOR MY SOUL WAS PURCHASED BY GOD UPON THE CROSS
      FOR MY SINS HE DID SUFFER AN UNMEASURABLE COST
      I WILL NOT STEAL HIS GLORY WHO ROSE FROM THE DEAD
      ENDURING SPIT AND THORNS PLACED ON HIS HEAD
      YET, IF YOU WISH TO HONOR ME THEN GIVE ME NONE AT ALL
      BUT TRUST THE LAMB WHO STOOL IN PILATE’S HALL
      CALL NOT ON THIS REDEEMED WOMAN IN YOUR TIME OF FEAR
      FOR I WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER NEITHER WILL I HEAR
      AND WHEN THE BOOKS ARE OPEN AT THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
      I AMEN YOUR DAMNATION THAT TRUST NOT HIM ALONE
      MY FLESH SAW CORRUPTION MY BONES THEY DID ROT
      MY PAPS ARE NOT HOLY, O’ SINNER TRUST ME NOT

                       WRITTEN BY BRO. WEST
       
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...