Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

The Widow's Mites


Standing Firm In Christ

Recommended Posts

  • Members

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.

 

However, I cannot.  I read the verse in the context of the whole account, thereby allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture.  I take into account the fact that God is against the abuse of the poor.  I take into account that the needs of the poor of Israel were to be met.  

 

So many today could care less that a poor widow was made destitute.  So long as their religious organization has the amenities they want, they could care less that another hasn't funds to survive.  Judas Iscariat's bag had to have money in it,... their's do also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 274
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

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.

 

However, I cannot.  I read the verse in the context of the whole account, thereby allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture.  I take into account the fact that God is against the abuse of the poor.  I take into account that the needs of the poor of Israel were to be met.  

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 Scripture.  I believe that any reader of my postings will be able to observe how much I have engaged in a Scriptural discussion and have provided Scriptural evidences for my position.
 

1 hour ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

So many today could care less that a poor widow was made destitute.  So long as their religious organization has the amenities they want, they could care less that another hasn't funds to survive.  Judas Iscariat's bag had to have money in it,... their's do also.

Concerning this, I have no desire (and have not put forth any effort) in this discussion to speak about "the them."  On the other hand, if it is your intention to include me personally in your comments concerning "the them," then I would request that you gather more information about me personally before you so speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

i see no "evidence" for your position whatsoever.

 

there is nothing in the text that the Lord was commending the widow.  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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
11 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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 temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, and said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves."
 

Indeed, it is possible that the widow and the other givers were deceived into thinking that they were giving gifts "unto the offerings of God," when in truth they were giving "into the hands of thieves."  However, is it equally possible that the Lord Jesus Christ was so deceived?  For the Lord Jesus Christ is the very One who reported that they were giving "unto the offerings of God."  Furthermore, He did not report anything whatsoever at all unto His disciples about the givers being deceived; nor did He rebuke any of the givers for giving gifts "into the hands of thieves." 

__________________________________________

Now, earlier in this discussion you made reference unto our Lord Jesus Christ's rebuke against the scribes and Pharisees for binding "heavy burdens and grievous to be bourne" upon the people.  This rebuke is found in 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."  So then, could you explain the instruction that our Lord Jesus Christ delivered unto the multitude and unto His disciples in Matthew 23:2-3 -- "Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not."?

_________________________________________

In Matthew 8:1-3 God's Word gives report concerning our Lord Jesus Christ's healing of a leper -- "When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him.  And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.  And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean.  And immediately his leprosy was cleansed."  Then in Matthew 8:4 we find that our Lord Jesus Christ specifically instructed this healed leper to offer his gift unto the priest at the temple -- "And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them."  If it was a bad thing to give gifts unto that wicked "den of thieves," why did our Lord Jesus Christ give this instruction unto this healed leper?

__________________________________________

Finally, let us consider our Lord Jesus Christ's "den of thieves" rebuke.  Is there any indication in the context of that rebuke concerning the specific activities whereby the thievery was occurring?  In Mark 11:15-17 God's Word give the report -- "And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves; and would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple.  And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves."  It appears from the immediate context that the thievery of this "den of thieves" was occurring by the means of the selling and buying of goods and by the means of the exchanging of moneys, not by the means of freewill gifts being given "unto the offering of God."

Excellent!

Amen and amen!

I was wondering when Matthew 21:12 & 13 and Mark 11:14-17 would be discussed as the context for 'the den of thieves' phrase from the Lord Jesus.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
6 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

rother Wretched,

Please understand that I have not presented a single word of defense for "the doctrine of tithing" throughout this discussion.  On the other hand, I have engaged significantly concerning the correct understanding of the widows giving.  Is it true that our Lord Jesus Christ "was in full rebuke" against "all formalized religious practices" that were fueled by sinful greediness?  ABSOLUTELY.  Yet it is also true that Scripture often presents a contrast between the rejection of the religious leaders against Christ and the reception by the common people for Christ.  As examples, this can be seen in the contrast between Matthew 21:8-11 (see also Luke 19:37-38) and Matthew 21:15-16 (see also Luke 19:39-40) and in the contrast between Mark 12:1-37a and Mark 12:37b.  Even so, the principle of contrasts is NOT foreign to the context.  Furthermore, our Lord engaging in a spirit of "full on rebuke" against the false religious leaders is observed with either possibility, whether He was revealing an example OF their greediness, or whether He was revealing a contrast TO their greediness.  As such, the truth that our Lord was in a spirit of "full on rebuke" against the false religious leaders is NOT an evidence for one of these positions and against the other, since it actually is valid for both of these positions.

I am not directing at anyone brother, just venting in general again
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

i see no "evidence" for your position whatsoever.

 

there is nothing in the text that the Lord was commending the widow.  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.

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 motive, you suddenly now know what she was thinking and what was her motive.???
 

Just now, wretched said:

I am not directing at anyone brother, just venting in general again
 

I can accept that.  Then just take my response as responding "in general" as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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 spoke.  All who were there could hear His words, both the rich who cast in their gifts, and the widow who cast her entire living into the treasury receptacle were within range of His voice.

Luke 20:46 (KJV) 46 Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts;

Luke 20:47 (KJV) 47 Which devour widows' houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation.

The people in attendance heard the warning Jesus had just delivered to the disciples.  They were made aware that the scribes were thieves, preying on widows.  They were made aware that the scribes were a condemned lot.

Luke 21:1 (KJV) 1 And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.

There is no great time frame indicated between the delivery of His warning and His looking up and seeing the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.  He spoke, He sat down, (Mark 12:41) He looked up.

Luke 21:2 (KJV) 2 And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.

Here was a widow who had just heard Jesus' warning that scribes were robbing widows house.  And yet, she chose to ignore Jesus' warning.  She rejected the words of the One who would soon put an end to all sacrifice for sin.  She instead gave her last two coins into the very treasury of the men that Jesus was warning of just moments earlier.

Sounds cultic, to some degree.  Cult followers will ignore any warnings from outsiders who are trying to rescue them from danger. This widow chose to continue to give to the corrupt system despite the fact that she heard that widows were being robbed by that system.

Luke 21:3 (KJV) 3 And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all:

Luke 21:4 (KJV) 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.

According to Mark 12:43, Jesus spoke this to His disciples.  Did the rest of those in the Temple hear these words as they had the warning?  We are not told.  The text in Mark states that Jesus called the disciples unto Himself, so it is possible that these words were spoken privately, i.e.; only the disciples hearing.

There is no commendation of the widow in the text at all.  It cannot be possible that Jesus Christ would first expose the corrupt religious system and its thieving staff, and then turn around and praise a widow who chose to reject Him and instead foolishly put all her living into the coffers of that corrupt system.

Seeing the seeming cultic behavior of the widow, (ignoring the warnings from outsiders)  I am once again reminded of a woe levied upon the scribes and Pharisees,...

Matthew 23:15 (KJV) 15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

The widow had been made a proselyte of the religious leaders.  She chose to ignore Jesus' warning.  The corrupt religious system had her fully brainwashed into believing she was giving into the offerings of God, when in reality, they were robbing her of all her living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
9 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

The widow had been made a proselyte of the religious leaders.  She chose to ignore Jesus' warning.  The corrupt religious system had her fully brainwashed into believing she was giving into the offerings of God, when in reality, they were robbing her of all her living.

Ok, now because of the "example" that Jesus gave regarding the zeal of the Scribes and Pharisees in making converts and using the word "proselyte" you automatically assume, with no proof, that this widow was a proselyte to what you call a "cult". But if casting her mites into the treasury made her a proselyte then it must follow that all the others that cast their money into the treasury were also proselytes. Why single out the widow when all were doing the same thing, only to different degrees?

There is no room in your interpretation for the possibility that this widow was giving out of a heart of love for God and being commended by our Lord for her sacrifice. That the religious leaders were robbing widows is not in doubt, Jesus said they were. But does this mean every widow in all of isreal, without exception? Were there no widows that gave offerings out of a sense of love and devotion to God?

You made a big deal out of the word "cast" in relation to the widow. You said " "ballo" indicates a violent action." And yet the rich men are described as doing exactly the same thing, so then it must follow that all were proselytes, all were being forced to give, all were deceived and all were being robbed.

I believe that you paint this Scripture with a brush that is much too broad to be an accurate interpretation of what Jesus was teaching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
8 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Her Salvation was standing in her presence.  He warned of the thieving scribes.  Yet, she put the mites in their treasury, showing her devotion to their teachings.

 

yes, she was showing signs of being a proselyte.

You assume a lot that is not in evidence, it is simply your assumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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 supporting a corrupt institution, you might see the big picture.

 

you are taking one piece of a puzzle and forming s picture that looks nothing like the complete story.

5 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

You assume a lot that is not in evidence, it is simply your assumption.

I have presented the evidence that supports my view.  No assumption on my part at all.  I do, however, notice you assuming that Jesus was praising the widow's actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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 - Luke 21:1-4), Jesus warned the disciples to "beware of the scribes...." and repeated some of those grievances from Matthew 23 as to why. 

The entire context of those two accounts of the widow's mites were WARNINGS about the scribes and Pharisees, NOT a COMMENDATION of praise to the widow for giving out of her poverty.  Why was the widow poor in the first place?  Could it be because the corrupt religious system demanded not only her house, but her money?

Mark 12:38 And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces,
Mark 12:39 And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts:
Mark 12:40 Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation.

Luke 20:45 Then in the audience of all the people he said unto his disciples,
Luke 20:46 Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts;
Luke 20:47 Which devour widows' houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On ‎11‎/‎20‎/‎2015 at 8:53 PM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Jesus knew the intents of the heart, no doubt.  However, the text does not indicate the intent of the widow's heart.  (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2015 at 8:33 PM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Jesus had just said that the Temple had become a den of thieves.  The next day, He returns to the Temple, warning others of the thieves.  Along comes a widow, giving under the assumption that she was giving to God. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2015 at 9:07 PM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

She was manipulated into giving to thieves, just as many church members are manipulated into giving ten percent of their monetary income to thieves..  Both the widow and the church goers are deceived into believing God requires it.  (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

 

On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2015 at 9:22 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

That was not my question.  My question was whether or not she thought in her mind and believed in her heart that she was giving a gift unto God.

 

On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2015 at 9:30 PM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

The text does not say what she thought in her mind.  It only reveals that thieves were robbing her and that she was putting money into the treasury of a den of thieves.
(emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

15 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

there is nothing in the text that the Lord was commending the widow.  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.

So does the text NOT reveal what the widow was thinking and believing, or DOES it?  And if the text DOES reveal what the widow was thinking and believing, does it reveal that she believed and thought positively that she was giving unto God; OR does it reveal that she believed and thought negatively that the scribes were taking her necessary welfare?

In some postings you indicate that the text does not reveal what was the intent or belief of the widow's heart or what was the thinking of her mind.  Yet in other postings you indicate that the widow was giving with an assumption (of heart and mind, presumably) "that she was giving to God," having been "deceived into believing" that God required it.  Yet in still other postings you indicate that the widow was giving with the thought of disgust against the scribes because they did not care about her welfare.

 

On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2015 at 8:06 AM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

The forced taxation did little to hurt the rich, yet it oppressed the poor greatly, taking away from that which they needed to survive.

By the way, I have done some historical research in order to discern what I am able about a "forced taxation" unto the temple at the time.  What I have been able to learn thus far is that there was indeed such a temple tax, but that it was only administered against the adult Jewish men, never against the women, the children, the Samaritans, or the "heathen" (Gentiles).

______________________________________________

Brother Robey,

At the present I do not have the time to formulate the entire posting (pastoral responsibilities take priority); however, in the future I intend to provide a posting concerning the Biblical evidence that the Greek verb "ballo" does not inherently or necessarily include the idea of disgust and/or violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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 despite the fact that they were robbing her.

 

further, she threw the money in rather than dropping it in.  The Greek suggests a violent action.

 

questions would have to be addressed, such as,  Why throw the money in as opposed to just dropping it in?  Why ignore the warning?  

 

Here is a woman who has lost her home, forcibly appropriated by the corrupt leaders in Israel, bringing all she had to live on to the organization governed by her oppressers.

 

Ignoring Jesus's words, she throws the money into the treasury with purpose.  They'd taken her home from her, they may as well have the rest.  The fact that she threw the money in as opposed to merely dropping it in implies anger and/or disgust.

 

and yes, the rich threw their money in as well.  They were made to give into the system just as the widow was.  The difference between the two?  The rich love their money.  The poor need their money.  But the widow's money was more precious,... it was all her living.

 

This year, in Florida, an elderly cancer patient was put out of his apartment by the church that owned the apartment,... even though the patient was up-to-date on his rent..  The church subsequently sent the cancer patient a bill for alleged owed funds.  A perfect picture of what had happened to this poor widow.  She'd lost her home as this man did.  To top it off, the corrupt system robbed the man afterwards through alledged dues just as this widow was being robbed further.

 

interesting that so many show no regard to the plight of the poor.  If they don't give to the institution, the poor are accused of being in the wrong and looked down on.  And so, out of manipulation and/or fear, they give.

 

Sorry Scott, but your view of the account just does not make sense.  As I said previously, you will never convince me of the alleged commendation you teach.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 12/15/2015 at 6:28 AM, swathdiver said:

A Ruckmanite, Hyper-Dispensationalist.  His doctrines are protestant and not baptistic.  Ever listened to his sermon on "The Deeps"?

As for the widows mites, these verses used to support such a position are out of context and therefore not biblical.  Another example of why knowledge of english and grammar rules are so important.  

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 divorced twice and married 3 times, and it is a disqualification of him being a pastor according to the word of God. 

In regard to pastor Peacock: I do not agree with his teaching on "the deeps".
I did not say I agree with everything the man teaches. Nor do I agree with EVERYTHING that comes out of the mouth of any one IFB preacher.  However, I do agree with the majority of IFB tenets and principles of teaching. There are IFB pastors who do teach against tithing, which is I brought his name up as an example of one (of several) IFB pastors who teach against tithing.

In regard to dispensationalism: It truly is an IFB teaching.
The prominent Protestant view is "covenenant theology" (replacement theology)
So to say that pastor Peacock's doctrines are "protestant and not baptistic" is not truthful, since most Baptists do understand and teach dispensationalism (rightly dividing as 2 Tim. 2:15 tells us), whereas most other protestant churches do not teach dispensationalism.

As far as whether or not pastor Peacock himself is a "hyper-dispensationalist"... that depends on your definition of "hyper-dispensationalists", as those opinions vary. As I stated previously, I agree with some, but not ALL off this pastors teaching. I (myself) believe in following 2 Tim. 2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."  So for me (myself) I believe we are to study like a workman (it takes time and prayerful devotion to study like a workman, and not just a quick once-over, but in depth, in context study, which also require line-upon-line and precept upon precept comparison and contrast from other relevant subject matter located throughout the bible), and I (myself) also believe in rightly dividing... noting where a dispensation has an obvious difference to another dispensation, noting the "rules" God used toward mankind in each dispensation which differ from the past dispensation, etc. So I don't know if you consider this to be "hyper-dispensationalism", there are differing opinions on what the term even means. 

In regard to the widow's mites you stated: "these verses used to support such a position are out of context and therefore not biblical"
An issue arose over whether or not the word "widow" in Mark 12:40 was in fact relevant to the "widow" noted in Mark 12:42-44.
When taken IN CONTEXT (since the verses are 2 verses apart), I believe it is no coincidence Jesus uses the word "widow" in all the verses in context.
Had the verses in regard to the widow giving her last 2 mites occurred someplace else in the bible, I might have come to the conclusion that it could be a commendation. However, since the verses in regard to the widow giving her last 2 mites occurred in context with the verses of the widow's houses being devoured... I conclude there IS a contextual connection.

In regard to grammar and rules being important: Yes, they certainly are.  
Verse 40 notes the widow's houses being devoured, then verse 41, 42, and 43 start each verse/sentence with the word "And"
I believe the "AND" here in each verse is conjuctive denoting "used to connect words of the same part of speech, clauses, or sentences that are to be taken jointly."
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
37 minutes ago, Ronda said:

In regard to the widow's mites you stated: "these verses used to support such a position are out of context and therefore not biblical"
An issue arose over whether or not the word "widow" in Mark 12:40 was in fact relevant to the "widow" noted in Mark 12:42-44.
When taken IN CONTEXT (since the verses are 2 verses apart), I believe it is no coincidence Jesus uses the word "widow" in all the verses in context.
Had the verses in regard to the widow giving her last 2 mites occurred someplace else in the bible, I might have come to the conclusion that it could be a commendation. However, since the verses in regard to the widow giving her last 2 mites occurred in context with the verses of the widow's houses being devoured... I conclude there IS a contextual connection.

In regard to grammar and rules being important: Yes, they certainly are.  
Verse 40 notes the widow's houses being devoured, then verse 41, 42, and 43 start each verse/sentence with the word "And"
I believe the "AND" here in each verse is conjuctive denoting "used to connect words of the same part of speech, clauses, or sentences that are to be taken jointly."

Sister Ronda,

I recognize that your posting was directly specifically toward Brother "Swathdiver;" however, I wish to present a response unto your closing comments as quoted above.

Throughout my postings on the matter of Mark 12:38-44, I have not presented any denial of a contextual connection between Mark 12:38-40 & Mark 12:41-44.  In fact, I fully acknowledge that there is indeed a contextual connection between them.  However, I have expressed contention concerning the character of that contextual connection --

1.  Is it a contextual connection wherein Mark 12:41-44 provides an example of the scribes' greediness in "devouring widows' houses"? (As Brother Robey holds)

Or,

2.  Is it a contextual connection wherein Mark 12:41-44 provides a contrast to the scribes' greediness in "devouring widows' houses"? (As I myself hold)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

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 tithes: and the Levites shall bring up the tithe of the tithes unto the house of our God, to the chambers, into the treasure house."  I am wondering why, if the tithe was ALWAYS foodstuffs, they would go into the treasure house, which I would assume was the same things as the treasury. Unless part was sometimes brought as money by those who perhaps didn't have the farm to bring the tithes from their fields, their 'tillage', so instead brought money for support.

And that brings my question, What was the treasury for? This is something mentioned in the OT, as well. I suspect it was much like what we do today in churches, money taken to maintain the temple, perhaps separate from the tithe, like our offerings given to support the ministries and building needs, bills, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Treasury - 214 'owtsar o-tsaw' from 686; a depository:--armory, cellar, garner, store(-house), treasure(-house) (-y). see HEBREW for 0686

 

The treasury in this verse was a storehouse where many things were stored.  

That it was a garner shows it held grain.  That it was an armory shows it held weapons.  And yes, it as a treasury as well in that it held the holy things of the Temple.  (See Nehemiah 13)

 

Tithe money instead of food?  No, the commanded tithe was food.  However, if one wanted to buy back the tithe with money, he could do so buy paying the assessed value of that which he wanted to buy back,... plus twenty percent more than the assessed value.

 

this money was redemption money.  Redemption money was not taken into the treasury.  It was given to Moses, and he distributed it as needed.

Sorry for the large text in the last post.  The copy of the Hebrew changed the format, and it would not let me decrease the size of the font when I tried.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Treasury - 214 'owtsar o-tsaw' from 686; a depository:--armory, cellar, garner, store(-house), treasure(-house) (-y). see HEBREW for 0686

 

The treasury in this verse was a storehouse where many things were stored.  

That it was a garner shows it held grain.  That it was an armory shows it held weapons.  And yes, it as a treasury as well in that it held the holy things of the Temple.  (See Nehemiah 13)

 

Tithe money instead of food?  No, the commanded tithe was food.  However, if one wanted to buy back the tithe with money, he could do so buy paying the assessed value of that which he wanted to buy back,... plus twenty percent more than the assessed value.

 

this money was redemption money.  Redemption money was not taken into the treasury.  It was given to Moses, and he distributed it as needed.

Sorry for the large text in the last post.  The copy of the Hebrew changed the format, and it would not let me decrease the size of the font when I tried.

 

If you also lived a great distant from the temple you could give money instead of food.

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...