To tithe, or not to tithe. That is the question!

[Frogster]

Mark 12:42-44 (KJV)
And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury. For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

Mark 12:42-44 (NIV)
But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents. Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

Mark 12:42-44 (AMP)
And a widow who was poverty-stricken came and put in two copper mites [the smallest of coins], which together make half of a cent. And He called His disciples [to Him] and said to them, Truly and surely I tell you, this widow, [she who is] poverty-stricken, has put in more than all those contributing to the treasury. For they all threw in out of their abundance; but she, out of her deep poverty, has put in everything that she had—[even] all she had on which to live.
​

No need to assume anything. This is not "scriptural silence". Jesus was pretty clear and unambiguous here. The woman was poverty-stricken and she gave all she had to live on. Pretty straightforward statement.

The "height of presumption" is in questioning whether Jesus really knew what He was talking about when He said she gave "all she had to live on."

i only, only wish, those preachers who live in mansions would do the same

Agreed?

 

[Frogster]

Mark 12:42-44 (KJV)
And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury. For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

Mark 12:42-44 (NIV)
But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents. Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

Mark 12:42-44 (AMP)
And a widow who was poverty-stricken came and put in two copper mites [the smallest of coins], which together make half of a cent. And He called His disciples [to Him] and said to them, Truly and surely I tell you, this widow, [she who is] poverty-stricken, has put in more than all those contributing to the treasury. For they all threw in out of their abundance; but she, out of her deep poverty, has put in everything that she had—[even] all she had on which to live.
​

No need to assume anything. This is not "scriptural silence". Jesus was pretty clear and unambiguous here. The woman was poverty-stricken and she gave all she had to live on. Pretty straightforward statement.

The "height of presumption" is in questioning whether Jesus really knew what He was talking about when He said she gave "all she had to live on."

Lookie here, abundance, or all one has to live on, ignoring family obligations?>>>>>>> 2 Cor 8:14 your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness.

beautiful thing the widow did, but we also have clear imperative text on giving, so lets not ignore that, frog.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

All the hubbub about the widow and her two mites is most generally contextual slaughter.

The widow’s mite is not an example of how to give; it’s an example of how the scribes were “devouring widows’ houses”.

Consider:

1. Jesus actually says NOTHING to commend the widow for what she did. Words of praise are ABSENT. NOTE: THERE ARE NO ADJECTIVES

2. Jesus’ statement is one of RELATING FACTS as He observes (She gave more than they all because she cast in all her living)

3. Jesus says NOTHING about how the widow FELT about what she gave. NOTE: THERE ARE NO ADVERBS.

4. The warning to beware of the scribes “who devour widows’ houses” in vs. 40 parallels Jesus’ use of a widow as His example.

5. If this were a lesson on giving, Jesus could have just as easily chosen a “poor man” as His example – or simply a “poor woman”, but He was very specific in His choice of “a poor widow.” This ties it to His criticism of the Scribes who He said were “devouring widows’ houses in vs. 40.

Scripture repeatedly reveals God’s care for the widows, the poor, the fatherless and the strangers in the land, and also reveals His anger at those who deprive them of what they need to live.

If we have read all of our Bible, the story of the widow’s mites, given IN CONTEXT of Jesus’ condemnation of the religious leaders, should make us cringe.

The story reveals the repetition of their abuses and consequential inevitable judgment.



It makes no sense that Jesus, who was in the middle of a warning to His disciples about the scribes devouring widows’ houses, would absentmindedly interrupt the lesson with a story on giving by poor widows. The continuity of the story, kept within its proper context, is part and parcel of His warning and an illustration of how the scribes were “devouring widows’ houses.”

BTW

 

[Frogster]

All the hubbub about the widow and her two mites is most generally contextual slaughter.

The widow’s mite is not an example of how to give; it’s an example of how the scribes were “devouring widows’ houses”.

Consider:

1. Jesus actually says NOTHING to commend the widow for what she did. Words of praise are ABSENT. NOTE: THERE ARE NO ADJECTIVES

2. Jesus’ statement is one of RELATING FACTS as He observes (She gave more than they all because she cast in all her living)

3. Jesus says NOTHING about how the widow FELT about what she gave. NOTE: THERE ARE NO ADVERBS.

4. The warning to beware of the scribes “who devour widows’ houses” in vs. 40 parallels Jesus’ use of a widow as His example.

5. If this were a lesson on giving, Jesus could have just as easily chosen a “poor man” as His example – or simply a “poor woman”, but He was very specific in His choice of “a poor widow.” This ties it to His criticism of the Scribes who He said were “devouring widows’ houses in vs. 40.

Scripture repeatedly reveals God’s care for the widows, the poor, the fatherless and the strangers in the land, and also reveals His anger at those who deprive them of what they need to live.

If we have read all of our Bible, the story of the widow’s mites, given IN CONTEXT of Jesus’ condemnation of the religious leaders, should make us cringe.

The story reveals the repetition of their abuses and consequential inevitable judgment.



It makes no sense that Jesus, who was in the middle of a warning to His disciples about the scribes devouring widows’ houses, would absentmindedly interrupt the lesson with a story on giving by poor widows. The continuity of the story, kept within its proper context, is part and parcel of His warning and an illustration of how the scribes were “devouring widows’ houses.”

BTW

good work.

 

[probinson]

One of our resident pastors on this forum often says that scripture is so simple, you need help to misunderstand it.

I give you, Exhibit A.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Context usually tends to cause bloody wounds in the overly tender hides of those who have nothing but emotional argumentation as their flimsy wardrobe.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Hey, Frogster. I never told you about this, but a "pastor" told me a couple weeks ago that homosexuality in a "loving" relationship isn't condemned ANYWHERE in scripture.....that only rape and ceremonial homosexuality are condemned in places like Romans 1.

If the title/label "pastor" had any real meaning in relation to being the authoritative bastians of TRUTH against falsehoods, then we'd all be in a heap of confused trouble today. Don't you agree?

Pastor-centricity is a traditional disease of choice by spiritual weaklings. It's always good to meet up with those who rely on consistent (non-subjective) rules for grammatical and lingual analysis, hermeneutics and exegesis, and who refuse to inject into scripture human emotionalism as an excuse for eisegetical misrepresentations, and outright fraud.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Oh, and just in case the "extreme" itch crops up and needs scratching by some religious hounds, my statements do not imply that ALL who serve in the capacity of shepherding others are of the ilk who promote perpetually pastor-centric behavior. There are some great men of faith out there who seek to actually equip others for the flight of maturity in the faith rather than spoon-feed a mass of people, holding them in perpetual, static reliance upon them for never-ending draughts of religiously spiked milk.

BTW

 

[Frogster]

Hey, Frogster. I never told you about this, but a "pastor" told me a couple weeks ago that homosexuality in a "loving" relationship isn't condemned ANYWHERE in scripture.....that only rape and ceremonial homosexuality are condemned in places like Romans 1.

If the title/label "pastor" had any real meaning in relation to being the authoritative bastians of TRUTH against falsehoods, then we'd all be in a heap of confused trouble today. Don't you agree?

Pastor-centricity is a traditional disease of choice by spiritual weaklings. It's always good to meet up with those who rely on consistent (non-subjective) rules for grammatical and lingual analysis, hermeneutics and exegesis, and who refuse to inject into scripture human emotionalism as an excuse for eisegetical misrepresentations, and outright fraud.

BTW

tooootally agree. Everyone is always bemoaning the condition of the church, but the fish stinks at the head, as my old italian mom used to say, pastor gets a free ride.

His pulpit looks like a mini mount sinai, a mountain of gloom.

not all, some are ok.

 

[New_Wineskin]

Pastor-centricity is a traditional disease of choice by spiritual weaklings

Par for the course .

 

[Ashlantal]

We should give 10% .

 

[Frogster]

oh.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

We should give 10% .

Based upon what?

If you say because Jesus said so, then you better remain consistent and also claim that we should all offer up burnt sacrifices. After all, Jesus also instructed a man to do that very thing.

If you say because someone with the label of "pastor" stamped on their forehead said so, then I'd ask again, based upon what?

If he says because Jesus said so, then the above answer remains the same.

If you say because Malachi said so, then I'd have to ask why you think you personally are still under the Law? I'm not. Most everyone else here isn't.

If you say because Abraham did, then I'd have to ask that you prove such a claim, because scripture doesn't say any such thing.

(That's a whole bunch of if's. Now for the 'then'.)

Then we might better understand the basis of your 'should'.

BTW

 

[K2K]

We should give 10% .

We should talk to the Lord and listen!!

 

[Ashlantal]

Based upon what?

If you say because Jesus said so, then you better remain consistent and also claim that we should all offer up burnt sacrifices. After all, Jesus also instructed a man to do that very thing.

If you say because someone with the label of "pastor" stamped on their forehead said so, then I'd ask again, based upon what?

If he says because Jesus said so, then the above answer remains the same.

If you say because Malachi said so, then I'd have to ask why you think you personally are still under the Law? I'm not. Most everyone else here isn't.

If you say because Abraham did, then I'd have to ask that you prove such a claim, because scripture doesn't say any such thing.

(That's a whole bunch of if's. Now for the 'then'.)

Then we might better understand the basis of your 'should'.

BTW

Look at the poll . The majority of people agree that we should give 10% . And Jesus came to fulfill the law not abolish it . Besides, we should want to help our church out and give to God . I sure do . Why are people so against this ?

Burnt sacrifices were use to atone for sin . Jesus has already paid the penalty for everyone's sin . Why would you even bring up burnt sacrifices like we still need them ... ?

 

[K2K]

Look at the poll . The majority of people agree that we should give 10% . And Jesus came to fulfill the law not abolish it . Besides, we should want to help our church out and give to God . I sure do . Why are people so against this ?

Burnt sacrifices were use to atone for sin . Jesus has already paid the penalty for everyone's sin . Why would you even bring up burnt sacrifices like we still need them ... ?

You must enter throught the small door!

Listening to Jesus will have you fulfilling the Law which is based upon love!

A man asked Jesus what he must do to get to heaven. Jesus told him to sell all he had and give it to the poor! Then come follow Him.

 

[Ashlantal]

You must enter throught the small door!

Listening to Jesus will have you fulfilling the Law which is based upon love!

A man asked Jesus what he must do to get to heaven. Jesus told him to sell all he had and give it to the poor! Then come follow Him.

This I believe . I want to follow the law because I am saved . God loves me and I love Him , and I want to please Him because I'm grateful .

The Torah (the law) is not bad , they are instructions and guidelines . I want to please God . It brings joy to my heart to think about following God's instructions . People fight against them so much ... apostasy ?


In a nutshell :

John 14:15
If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

If we are saved we love God ... evidence of loving God is keeping His commandments . It's not hard to see this at all . Works are a natural RESULT of salvation , NOT a requirement . This is how faith and works go hand in hand .

 

[K2K]

This I believe . I want to follow the law because I am saved . God loves me and I love Him , and I want to please Him because I'm grateful .

The Torah (the law) is not bad , they are instructions and guidelines . I want to please God . It brings joy to my heart to think about following God's instructions . People fight against them so much ... apostasy ?


In a nutshell :

John 14:15
If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

If we are saved we love God ... evidence of loving God is keeping His commandments . It's not hard to see this at all . Works are a natural RESULT of salvation , NOT a requirement . This is how faith and works go hand in hand .

In a nutshell - the Law never saved anyone!! Jesus saves - so follow Him.

He said His sheep hear His voice. He said, Behold I stand at the door and knock, and if anyone hears His voice He will come into them and eat with them and them with Him.

If you indeed love Him - talk to Him and listen to what He has to say to you!! He explain that the Father and Him are one and that they would come and make their abode in you. So seek Him!!

 

[K2K]

If we are going to keep His commandments, don't we have to hear them?

Isaiah explained that in that day you would hear a voice behind you everytime you turned to the left or to the right.

Yet Moses explained that God had not given them ears to hear even to this day. And there is much written about how with their ears they barely hear and with their eyes they don't see.

 

[GaryArnold]

This I believe . I want to follow the law because I am saved.

Then FOLLOW the law, don't change it.

THE FIRST TITHE
Leviticus 27:30-33 defines this tithe as a tenth of crops and animals in herds and flocks.
Numbers 18 gives the ordinances, or instructions, for this tithe, and commands this tithe be taken to the Levites.
Purpose of this tithe: to support the Levitical Priesthood.

SECOND TITHE
Deuteronomy 14:22-27: aka The Festival Tithe - a tenth of crops, plus add to that the firstborn animals, and take to the yearly feasts.
Purpose of this tithe: “that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always”

THIRD TITHE
Deuteronomy 14:28-29: aka The Three-Year Tithe aka The Poor Tithe - a tenth of crops, kept at home, and invite the Levites, widows, orphans, stranger to eat.
Purpose of this tithe: to feed the poor.