Reply to Scott Luper's Review of My Book on Amazon

To Scott Luper

So you are a CPA. I have letters from CPAs who agree with me and one of them even works for Crown Ministries. Therefore that in and of itself does not mean that you correctly interpret the Word of God.

From your comments in this review, I conclude that you read (1) The tithe of my book, (2) the page count of my book and (3) two pages from chapter two from my book. Other than that I think you are dishonest in proclaiming that you have read the book.

I also believe that God’s Word is true but it must be interpreted according to whom and when it was addressed. God only commanded OT national Israel to obey His Old Covenant law which included tithing, Sabbath-keeping, circumcision, unclean foods and killing disobedient children. This is “rightly dividing the Word.”

God’s promises to tithers in Mal 3:10 was (at 3:10 says) only concerning “FOOD.” It was only addressed to national Israel (1:1-5) and then only to the priests of Israel (1:6; 2:1). The Law was an indivisible whole. One either obeyed all 600+ commands or none of them in the Old Covenant context. That is what Paul was discussing in Galatians 3:10-13. It is simply WRONG to expect God to bless you under the Old Covenant context when He is now dealing with His Church under the New Covenant context.

You like Malachi 3:10. Questions to you: Where did they literally store all of tithes from Israel in such a small area? What did the Levites and priests eat when they lived many many miles from Jerusalem? Have you ever read Nehemiah 10:37-38? In the context of Nehemiah 10, Malachi 3:10 only makes sense if it only referred to the priests who had STOLEN the Levites share of the tithes in Nehemiah 13:5-10.

At this point I do not think that you really read all my book. I do not think that you even read the discussion of Malachi 3. Did you really? If so, then why no comment on my explanation. You act as if I had never even discovered Malachi 3:10.

You wrote “Scripture does not say that this promise has ever been revoked.”

Oh really! (1) I says that the Old Covenant vanished in Heb 8:12. (2) The Temple was replaced by the indwelling Temple of the Holy Spirit. (3) The OT priesthood was replaced by the doctrine of the priesthood of every believer. (4) The sacrificial system which was enabled by tithes ended. (5) The Temple “storerooms” ended and the church-assembly did not even legally have its own buildings to store anything for over 300 years after Calvary. And (6) Hebrews 7:5, 12, 18 clearly say that the “commandment going before” of “tithing” from 7:5 was “disannulled.” And (7) both Ephesians 2:13-17 and Colossians 2:13-17 teach that worship “ordinances” ended at Calvary and tithing was a ceremonial worship ordinance in Numbers 18.

When 1st Corinthians 10 “states that the Old Testament was written for our benefit as Christians” is very clearly was not commanding Christians to obey all 600+ laws of the Old Covenant which God only commanded to national Israel. You want to discard most of them and illegitimately keep tithing.

You wrote “From what's written in this book, "Should the Church Teach Tithing", it's evident that the author, much like the Israelites to whom Mal 3:10 was originally addressed, does not believe that God will honor His words and he has gone to enormous lengths to explain why (288 pages). He has taken great liberties in his interpretations of scripture, which have lead him to very seriously questionable conclusions.”

Wow! You have read (1) the title of my book and (2) how many pages are in it. Have you read my comments on Malachi 3?

If we are to copy what Abraham did because he is the “father of our faith,”
Does that mean that Christians should do as Abraham did? -- (1) lie about our wife to Pharaoh, (2) only tithe pagan spoils of war, (3) only tithe once in our lifetime and (4) give the 90% to the modern equivalent of the King of Sodom.

You wrote: He states: "Melchizedek was a pagan Canaanite priest-king" (page 17).
All this, of course, is absurd theological reasoning.
Note: Most commentaries agree with me. You have no proof otherwise.

You quoted my book: "Melchizedek worshiped the Canaanite gods Zedek and Salem, (so) logically; El Elyon must have also been a Canaanite god" (18);
All this, of course, is absurd theological reasoning.
Note: This is a quotation from the Baptist Wycliffe Bible Commentary.

You quoted me: "Melchizedek could not have been the pre-incarnate Christ" (18).
All this, of course, is absurd theological reasoning.
Note: This is by far the majority conclusion of most church theologians.

You quoted me: "It is very important to understand the difference between the Melchizedek of Genesis 14 and the prophetic and typical Melchizedek of Psalm 110 and Hebrews 7" (18).
All this, of course, is absurd theological reasoning.
Note: Again this is by far the majority hermeneutic of most church theologians.

You quoted me: "'Most High God' was also a common pagan title for both `El' and `Baal' (20); "It is extremely important for a correct understanding of Genesis 14 to realize that `Most High God,' or `God the Most High' (Hebrew: `El Elyon') was a common pagan designation for Baal, and even his father, `El'" (20); "Melchizedek probably worshiped Baal as Most High God and possessor of heaven and earth".
All this, of course, is absurd theological reasoning.
Note: This information came from the Baptist International Standard Bible Encyclopedia and numerous books found in most public libraries. Are you aware that the pagan kings in Daniel called God “God Most High”?

You wrote: Churches depend upon tithes from their members to help the poor, to support missions, to provide for those who dedicate their lives to the wellbeing of others (full-time ministers) and to carry out God's Kingdom purposes in their communities. Without such tithes, churches are unable to carry out these purposes.

My reply: (1) You totally ignore the biblical definition of tithes as discussed in chapter one of my book. (2) Tithes were never used to send out missionaries in the Bible. (3) The early church prospered without teaching tithing; it taught sacrificial freewill giving.

I urge Mr. Scott Luper to step up and openly engage me in an extended contextual discussion of tithing.