Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

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.
  • Recent Achievements

  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Eagle One

      Havent been on for years, but have been studying with Jews for Jesus weekly Bible Study which has been wonderful.  Not sure any of your views on that group, but if you are from a Jewish background a great place to be grounded in the word and to learn.
      · 0 replies
    • Barbara Ann

      I am a researcher and writer at Watch Unto Prayer which I started 25 years ago. On this website there are many well-documented articles and audio programs by myself and other researchers whose ministry is to expose the endtime apostasy of the Church. Now more than ever Christians need information in order to identify and avoid the various deceptions that are in nearly all the churches.
      My husband and I attended the IFB Bible Baptist Church of James Knox a couple of years ago. We left the church after we were informed by the assistant pastor that we were not allowed to express views to other members that do not agree with the views of the pastor and leaders of the church. We were not introducing heresy but expressing our views concerning the State of Israel. We had never been in a church which forbade private conversations on issues where there are diverse opinions. This we recognized as cultlike control of church members. To inform Christians, my husband, who is also a researcher and writer, started a website on the subject: Zionism Exposed: A Watchman Ministry.
      · 0 replies
    • Free Spirit

      Jesus said:"I am the truth, the way, and the life. No man can come to The Father, but by Me."
      · 0 replies
    • Richg  »  BrotherTony

      Brother Tony, I read your reply on Anderson, I know you all think I'm argumentative but, when you don't agree.....the first thought I had is, I wish you would introduce me to the guy that hasn't sinned, maybe David, that had a man killed so he could commit adultery, yet, he was & is a man after Gods own heart, or maybe Paul the guy that persecuted and had Christians killed, or maybe Richg or Kent H, or even you ! I used to listen to personalities also when I was younger but today and for some time, my only concern is, does it line up with scripture & to me its hilarious that you think "I'm in a fix" LOL, I interpreted what we've discussed perfectly, not because I'm smart, but because with an open mind to things of God, its an easy read.
      · 1 reply
    • Richg  »  Jerry

      I thought you wanted me to stop talking to you !
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...