Jump to content
Online Baptist

Recommended Posts

  • Members

  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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 274
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

While I'm thankful for Bro. Alan's testimony that he has never used Malachi 3:10 as a proof text for Christian tithing...and his testimony that he agrees that Christians aren't commanded to tit

I think this topic has been thoroughly discussed. Thanks to all for their input.

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 tha

The widow was not tithing.  We can know this for several reasons.   1.  The Law was still in effect.  The Law would not

We also get upset about Replacement Theology; however, much of today's church practices a form of Replacement Theology (without even realizing it). Today's church has replaced Israe

In fact, excellent post NN! The only thing I would add is that a persons heart needs to be led by the Lord after prayer regarding their giving. While some recognize this, many are very haphaza

1 Kings 17:8-24 Speaks of another widow who gave all she had, in faith. Just like the widow in 1 Kings 17, the widow in Luke 21 was giving all she had in faith too.  As Jesus and the disciples

Read it again slowly bro. You base your ideas on doctrine from men's slanted views as you just proved again. Someone told you this nonsense that you just posted again as if it were

Pastor Markle, I see... you then believe that the application of the word "gifts" in Luke 1:1 would suggest that the widow was also casting in "gifts"?  Luke 1:1  " And

I'm not trying to stir up anything Jim, and unless I misunderstand what you're saying...but that's not a true statement regarding SFIC. He does believe in giving to the work of the

Surprisingly, those who make these threats about God will get the tithe don't believe that giving to the needy or missionaries counts as giving to God, they believe the tithe is onl

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

Luke 21:4 For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had. 2 Chronicles 31: And

It is easily seen IMO that the widow was being manipulated into giving and this manipulation came from thieves posing as God's men. The overall context does indicate it because it is consistent

I suppose if I ignored the surrounding verses and ripped the one verse out of context, added a motive and commendation to the text, I could arrive at thr same false teaching that you do.

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 fac

You're probably right... ...especially when you post a message publicly (that could have been sent privately) and worded in a way to goad the majority of pe

Hmmmm, I wonder what you might consider an "above average" income.  As for myself, I, my wife, and my two children have lived for many years on less than $30,000 per year.  Yet my w

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

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

I have been holding off adding anything to this thread but will add to this last thought as my dad was a pastor for all his life. I have seen him many times be a "as wise as serpents but harmle

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 gree

Titus 2 - 3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;&#1

Alan,  I can't believe you said this to "standing firm"... I have seen others post things which contradict the bible and are clearly not IFB teaching. We even have mods who believe

Indeed.  And the very same Author also indicated that the temple was "the temple of God" and was God's house. Matthew 21:12-13 -- "And Jesus went into the t

Ah, could this be where Invicta and GP got all their theology, from books originally written during the quiet years but later labeled as reformed. The majority of the ideas dreamed

Whoa. I never thought the day would come that I'd hear the poor widow was a hard-hearted rebel for throwing her money into the till. But then nothing surprises me anymore.

There there is this to consider too: "Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding." Proverbs 23:23 It might

Ahhhh!  So then, do you utterly reject the Biblical factualness of the following “evidences” – 1.  Do you utterly reject the Biblical fact that there is no

From what language did the KJV translators translate the Bible into English?  There is nothing wrong with going to the source to find the meanings of words.  It doesn't mean that so

I've watched you with interest since you've joined... You've gone from making small, non-inflammatory posts when you first joined to making overtly challeng

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 rob

That's because there is absolutely no command for Christians to tithe anything to the church. Such isn't even suggested. Unfortunately many Baptist pastors preach otherwise.

I wonder why, if this widow was genuinely being robbed, why did Jesus just sit back and use her as an object lesson? Why didn't he either go up to her privately before she put her money in, and

To "Swathdiver": In regard to Peter Ruckman:  I have not, (nor will I) listen to or read a "sermon" or teaching by that man, as he was not qualified to even be a pastor, having been

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

Let's quote the account of the Widow's Mite from Luke's gospel: Luke 20:46 Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats i

Nonsense Russ, you and this Invicta fella constantly quote external sources written by some "whocares" dudes who write about how some other "whocares" dudes are wrong about this or

dispensation, i.e.; economy/administration.   only the willfully blind can't see it in the KJV text.

Luke 20:45 (KJV) 45 Then in the audience of all the people he said unto his disciples, In the audience of all the people, i.e.; in the hearing of all the people, Jesus

Brother Robey, I do NOT intend to engage in a full discussion concerning the matter of the tithe within this thread (since this thread is NOT about tithing,

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

Well the problem of guessed meanings come into play since any greek linguist today will explain to you that any lexicon you can obtain now is at least four major vernacular changes away from th

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

I don't get it from the internet or from books.  I was brought up in the Brethren who invented this teaching,  I was taught it for the first 20 years of my life. The dispensational

Brother Alan, Wednesday of last week I posted that which you quoted above concerning my intention to present some thoughts concerning the Greek verb "ballo.

Not trying to be offensive-it had to do with your assumption about other's training/teaching as opposed to your, apparently far superior knowledge. Which, by the way, I myself disce

Pastor Markle, I understand your viewpoint. I am happy to see that you also recognize that there is a contextual connection.  However... where you see a contrast, I see a compliment

Well, you really don't have any way of knowing where people have received their training. Personally, I think it may be a mistake if ALL you know you got yourself. Not that we aren'

Double check the bold above friend and reread my post carefully. Did you do it? Now is this what I said? Then reread the second bold; you asked me what I meant by anecdotal, remembe

Where do you get this nonsense. Certainly not from the Word. I suppose you believe everything you hear on the news and read in newspapers too? If you would

Earlier I asked for you to provide your historical source for this claim -- that the phrase, "offerings of God," was the inscription on the treasure box, and thus not actually our L

  what I "utterly reject" is your blatant pullin

The Scriptures were written in Koine Greek (NT) and Hebrew (OT)...not in English.   God promised to preserve His Word long before the English language came into existence (Psalms 12

It is not I that is guilty of "dishonoring the Scriptures. Rather, those who "dishonor the Scriptures" are those who use Mark 12:41-44 & Luke 21:1-4 as proof-text that

In every IFB  church I have been a member of I have always seen the pastor help those in financial need and have never even heard of the 'robbing' of God's saints. I have seen pastors help thos

I would think that if God didn't want us to tithe, He would have clearly said it in a way everyone could see instead of hiding it in every single passage in Scripture. It seems to me (though I

The terminology of the text DOES indicate that the givers, including the widow, gave "unto the offerings [gifts] of God."  Thus the terminology of the text IS that of GIFT-GIVING. 

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

Any twisting of Scripture has come about through the purely personal opinions of SFIC. The Scripture in question does not support his flawed understanding of the facts that are plai

Brethren, Throughout this entire discussion I have been pleased with the way that Pastor Markle has definately proved his contentions: specificly that the w

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

  Yet there is something in the text which indicates that the money was going "unto the offerings of God." (See Luke 21:4) &#1

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 wido

  Convenient, how you completely disregard definition #5 above -- "poor, needy."  Now, of the 34 times that this adject

Thus, I have said that it didn't matter what the Pharisees were doing with the money Jesus told the disciples to still obey them. Also, I agree the the Pharisees didn't blow all the

I know you folks think that those who dismiss reformed "theologies" are the ones skewed by men but you reference other men to make these points. It is outrageously ironic. I know re

There have been many false claims that Darby started the doctrine of Dispensation.  However, as Ronda rightly said earlier, there are many historical writings that place despensation centuries

At the present it appears that the discussion of this thread is "winding down," and that is quite acceptable with me.  However, earlier in the thread I did make a commit

Pastor Markle, I do appreciate your time and study on this matter, as well as answering my questions.  But once again, I respectfully disagree.    &#1

I have no conflict with the meaning of the word "devour" as "forcibly appropriated," but that is not the point of the question.  The point of the question concerns "the manner by wh

Transliteration: oikonomia Pronunciation: oi-ko-no-mē'-ä  Part of Speech: feminine noun Root Word (Etymology): from G3623

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:

  Absolutely not.  For the first sixty or seventy years it was a Calvinist teaching, and not only Calvinist but an extreme for of Calvinist.  If you were no

I never got that from the passage. I always thought she was giving her all in faith; a cheerful giver, holding nothing back, truly trusting God to meet her needs, "worshipping in sp

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

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 an

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

  Concerning Mark 12:38-44 1.  The Caution to the People      Mark 12:38 – “And he said unto them in his d

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 indi

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

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 c

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 la

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

There is nothing in the text to infer that the widow was giving either willingly or cheerfully.  There is evidence that she was being robbed.

My wife and I were voted out of a church membership because of our teaching against the "scriptural tithe"   Funny thing,... What we taught con

None for you  None for you, we know.  For me and my house we happily give of our tithes and offerings; our substance, the firstfruits of all our increase.  

It doesn't matter what motive a preacher has to preach tithing since there are no biblical grounds for such. Christians are not called to give any certain percentage or amount so to preach othe

www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnOlJHTpEV8

You are correct, John.     What's sad is, they will pull all kind of Scripture out of context in an attempt to prove their man-made

I've been studying the topic of tithing both from a Biblical perspective and a historical perspective for nearly three decades now.  How about you? Likewise, I've been

There is no indication in the text that the widow had a desire to give.  Nor do Jesus' words infer what you claim.   no fear, guilt or intimida

Does not a person from the heart have a desire to give? "Keep thy heart with all dilgence; for out of it are the issues of life." Proverbs 4;23

Alan, I do not want to argue and cause strife... I really don't.  But I have to tell you that I see a reason for Jesus talking about the heart motives of the religious leaders JUST PRIOR to tal

Coverdale, (1535) Bishop's, (1568) & Geneva (1587) all say "out of her poverty".  I have no reason to doubt that "out of her want" in the King James means "out of her poverty."

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

You interpret the word "want" from a secular dictionary.   I look to the Greek for the interpretation.  The Greek for want carried

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 s

Nothing intrinsically wrong with a set list of rules in the IFB.  Established rules in any organization is a must if that organization is to run effectively.  One has the choice to

Proverbs 3:9 is NOT about tithing monetary income, gross or net.   Solomon was living in the dispensation of the Law.  The Law stat

Deuteronomy 14:22 Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year. Deuteronomy 14:23 And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in t

So then, is it your belief that the Lord our God is contrary to the sacrificial giving of the poor and needy and would never commend such a practice? 2 Cori

Now, there is a verse in Neh. 10, that states that part of the tithe would be taken into the treasure house. "And the priest the son of Aaron shall be with the Levites, when the Levites take ti

Sister Ronda, I recognize that your posting was directly specifically toward Brother "Swathdiver;" however, I wish to present a response unto your closing c

The fact that the widow heard Jesus warning is obvious.  And yet, she ignored it.   This shows a mind that is devoted to the corrupt scribes de

    So does the text NOT reveal what the widow was thinking and believi

Jesus pronounced 8 "woes" (exclamations of grief) or grievances against the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23.  In the two accounts of the widow's mites (Mark 12:38-44 and Luke 20:45-47 - Luk

Jim,  You accuse me of painting the picture with a broad brush.  I submit that were you not reading with a tunnel-vision bias toward a commendation of a widow supportin

Wait!!!  So, after multiple times of arguing against the opposing position by claiming that there is nothing in the text that reveals what the widow was thinking or what was her mot

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 w

Certainly, our Lord Jesus Christ had a strong rebuke against the scribes and Pharisees for their selfish and oppressive greediness.  Certainly, our Lord Jesus Christ lingered in the

Context reveals it.   Jesus had finished his scathing rebuke of rhe scribes and Pharisees.  He had ended with a warning to beware of the scribe

The many in Matthew 7:21-23 obviously thought they were in fellowship with the Lord too.  As did the Self-righteous man in Luke 18:9-12, I'm sure. God's Word says His h

SFIC, the tithe applies today as it did in the Garden of Eden.  I live it, my church teaches it and our prayers have not been hindered.  We have not been thrown out of church and we do not subs

If this were true then I would be regarding iniquity in my heart and the Lord would not hear me.  However, I've been in sweet fellowship with the Lord these last few days and he's b

False.  The text says that she was giving a gift "unto the offerings of God".

Yet the Holy Spirit reported that she was giving a gift, not that she was being robbed or compelled.  Holy Spirit, or Brother Robey?  Choices, choices.  I choose - the Holy Spirit.&

People put into the offerings of God all the time every Sunday.  Yet, it has been proven time and again that many do so out of manipulation and coercion.  Given the fact that this account is in

First, if indeed it was a gift as God the Holy Spirit indicated in Luke 21:1-4 (and I myself have no intention whatsoever of questioning God the Holy Spirit on the matter), then you

Brother Robey, Do you recognize that you have now engaged in circular reasoning?  Earlier you used your viewpoint that Jesus was angry as evidence that the

SFIC, this thread is about the widow's mites, yet you continue to insert tithing into the thread. This is not "my doctrine", your argument is with God's Hol

Did you not read what I prefaced my post with?  I do NOT listen to John MacArthur.  This was the very first time I ever listened to him. no, I don't denounc

So, you will listen to John MacArthur, and denounce all real Baptists on this forum? John is not a Baptist, he is a Community Church man. Believes in Lordship Salvation Too. He may be popular,

 

In the Bible, the tithe is not even mentioned in the account of the Garden of Eden.  To teach that it was in the Garden of Eden is to add to the Word of God.

Brother Robey, You speak as if all of my contributions to this discussion have ignored the context of Scripture and the comparison of Scripture with Scriptu

Posted Images

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
36 minutes ago, LindaR said:

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

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

36 minutes ago, LindaR said:

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

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

 

36 minutes ago, LindaR said:

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

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

36 minutes ago, LindaR said:

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

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

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
spelling error
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
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"?

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

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

image.jpeg

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

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

 

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

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
added third paragraph
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
spelling error
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
6 hours ago, Critical Mass said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
6 hours ago, Critical Mass said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

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

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

 

2 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

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

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

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

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

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

 

4 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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

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

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
layout
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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

 

3 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

31 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LindaR said:

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

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

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

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

 

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

  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Alan

      Happy Birthday John Young! God Bless! 🍰
      · 1 reply
    • KJV ME!

      Now it is time for me to step out of my shell and let go... I AM STRICT KJV!... In scripture God said he would preserve his word... Well did he or didn't he?... If there is every translation under the sun, then he didn't but I KNOW HE DID!... The preserved word of God called the KJV is for the English people has been around for over 400 years and what is interesting to me, is the KJV was translated in 1611 and the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620... Coincidence?... A new book the preserved KJV word of God for the New World... So take that you KJV naysayers... I have been reading, studying and digging through the KJV for over 50 years... My belief is 100% Christ and scripture says so... Glad to be here and its time to take these shackles off!   
      John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
      I am... Brother Ramsey
       
      · 1 reply
    • stan1964stanssb

      Praise God I found such a powerhouse of the outpouring of His Spirit and unapologetic in regards of the defense of the KJV Bible. When I became a Christian back in 1984, I was told to get & read the KJV. It's been my choice all these years.
      · 0 replies
    • 1Timothy115  »  Ukulelemike

      Mike,
      RE: This is why I am here, why are you?
      Also, the land in Egypt wasn't land God gave them it was land Joseph through Pharaoh gave them. God gave them Canaan.
      Dave 
      · 1 reply
    • Alan

      Praise the Lord! Sherry and I, safe, tired, and joyful,  are back in Taiwan.
      · 0 replies
  • Popular Now

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      27,623
    • Total Posts
      279,911
  • Topics

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Alan

      Happy Birthday John Young! God Bless! 🍰
      · 1 reply
    • KJV ME!

      Now it is time for me to step out of my shell and let go... I AM STRICT KJV!... In scripture God said he would preserve his word... Well did he or didn't he?... If there is every translation under the sun, then he didn't but I KNOW HE DID!... The preserved word of God called the KJV is for the English people has been around for over 400 years and what is interesting to me, is the KJV was translated in 1611 and the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620... Coincidence?... A new book the preserved KJV word of God for the New World... So take that you KJV naysayers... I have been reading, studying and digging through the KJV for over 50 years... My belief is 100% Christ and scripture says so... Glad to be here and its time to take these shackles off!   
      John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
      I am... Brother Ramsey
       
      · 1 reply
    • stan1964stanssb

      Praise God I found such a powerhouse of the outpouring of His Spirit and unapologetic in regards of the defense of the KJV Bible. When I became a Christian back in 1984, I was told to get & read the KJV. It's been my choice all these years.
      · 0 replies
    • 1Timothy115  »  Ukulelemike

      Mike,
      RE: This is why I am here, why are you?
      Also, the land in Egypt wasn't land God gave them it was land Joseph through Pharaoh gave them. God gave them Canaan.
      Dave 
      · 1 reply
    • Alan

      Praise the Lord! Sherry and I, safe, tired, and joyful,  are back in Taiwan.
      · 0 replies
×
×
  • Create New...