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 is not I that is guilty of "dishonoring the Scriptures.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 274
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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

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

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

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

gift (18x), offering (1x)

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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

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

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
9 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

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

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

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

9 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
14 minutes ago, musician4god1611 said:

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

God did put it for us to see.

 

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

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

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

God did put it for us to see.

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

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

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

Brother Robey,

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2015 at 9:27 PM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Even the Greek word for 'threw in' in The Mark 12 text and the Greek for 'cast' the Luke 21 text, "ballo", carries with it the picture of a violent or intense action.  It is as if the woman is thinking, "They don't care that this is all that I have to live on," then violently throwing the money into the receptacle,... "Ballo" seems to give more credence to the thought that the woman was being forced to give her money to the thieves.

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

Prior to an hour ago, I had not looked into the meaning of "threw in".  So, yes, after looking into the meaning, I do believe she threw the money in because of compulsion,... Compulsion which she resented.

"ballo" indicates a violent action.  Why would she violently throw the money in, if not due to being forced to give? 

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

Concerning the Greek verb “ballo.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 8 Guests (See full list)

  • Recent Achievements

  • 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...