Pages

Thursday, August 04, 2016

RUSSELL E KELLY REBUTS DAVID JARZABEK ON TITHING, PART 2



DAVID P JARzABEK REBUTTED ON TITHING (PART 2) BY RUSSELL KELLY, August 4, 2016

DAVID P. JARZABEK: I skipped chapters 28 through 31 because “they add little to the debate on tithing” and “it is the Scriptures that determine doctrine and not history.”

RUSSELL EARL KELLY: Chapter 28 is on Acts 20:16-35 at the end of Paul’s 3 missionary journeys. It proves that Paul preferred to be self-supporting and proves that he even encouraged other church elders to follow his example (20:35). Although I agree that full-time gospel workers are often beneficial, it is not commanded in God’s Word. Next, chapter 29 is the Secular History of Tithing. It proves that tithing was not taught by the vast majority of early church fathers and that they were not supported by tithes. It proves that tithing did not enter the Christian church as a doctrine for over 500 years after Calvaryand first became a church law in A. D. 777. It traces tithing in the U. S. A. to the 1870s.

David: [On chapter 15, Luke 18:9-17, pages 122-125] “Dr. Kelly and others say that tithing was a matter of giving to the poor.”

Russ: This is a lie. I have never taught such. Read my book. The first Levitical tithe went to the Levites and priests; part of the second festival tithe went to the poor; and the entire third-year tithe went to the poor. Both the second and third tithe anticipated that Levites would be among its recipients as part of the poor.

David: “He never says ‘give to the temple’ but ‘give to the poor.’

Russ: Another lie because it is out of context. Read the bottom of page 123. In my discussion of Luke 18:18-23 about the rich young ruler, I wrote in bold print “Notice that Jesus did not say to the rich young ruler, “Sell all that you have, pay tithes to the priests, and give the rest to the poor.”

David: “What we did see in the New Testament church is offering after offering to help the poor saints in Jerusalem.”

Russ: That is correct. We did not see any discussion of tithing. The word only appears in Paul’s writings in Hebrews 7. The HOLY tithe was still only food from inside HOLY Israel (16 texts, including Mt 23:23), Paul would never ask tithes from Gentiles outside HOLY Israel.

David: [On Chapter 16, Acts 15 and 21, the Jerusalem Councils, pages 126-132.]
“This chapter deals with that part of the law of Moses which the new converted Gentiles were supposed to keep – actually none of it.”

Russ: Correct – none of it. It restricts Gentile Christians from performing former pagan acts which were especially offensive to Jews. Jarzabek totally ignores Acts 21:20-21. I think he merely skimmed through the book for seemingly contradictory phrases to rebuke. I would ask him to tell me he has read every word of the book. Acts 21:20-21 proves that the Jewish Christians of Judea were still supporting the temple system through tithes and offerings approximately 30 years after Calvary because they were still “zealous of the law.” Therefore they were not supporting gospel workers with tithing. Read the texts.

David: [On chapter 17, Hebrews 8 and 2 Corinthians 3, pages 133-139]
“Actually the Apostle Paul did use OT principles to teach NT doctrine.”

Russ: It would be idiocy to deny that Paul used the Old Testament since the New was not yet in existence. However post- Calvary writers re-apply much of what the O. T. teaches through the lens of Calvary, faith and grace. That which carries over has been clearly taught in New Covenant terminology.

David: Jarzabek quotes me quoting Theodore Epp, founder of Back to the Bible: “the law of love is at the heart of the OT law system” and says ”my point.”

Russ: He ignores my quotations from great conservative theologians such as Scofield, Epp, Unger and Zodhiates who agree with me that tithing is not a post-Calvary doctrine.

David: David continues from his first rebuttal the failure to define words he uses such as “principle,” “tithe” and “law.”

Russ: We could never have an honest debate if he cannot define and defend his terms from God’s Word.

David: “I will argue that the Levitical priesthood’s main source of support was the tithe; then why don’t we do it under the New Covenant?”

Russ: I confidently say that commentaries written by highly educated theologians do not say that “the priesthood’s main source of support was the tithe.” Read Numbers 18. The priests only received one tenth of the whole tithe which went first to their Levite servants (Num 18:21-28; Neh 10:37b-38). While the Levites only received tithes from the people, priests received many many more benefits from everyday temple worship.
I proved from chapters 1 (page 8), 9 and 10 (pages 61-72) that Levites and priests received income from numerous trades and that non-food producers inside Israel did not tithe. Read those chapters.

David: “Listen closely, the tithe of the new testament is radically different for it no longer supports the Levites and the priests.”

Russ: According to Numbers 18:20-28, the SOLE PURPOSE of the Levitical ltithe was to (partially) support Levites and priests (Hebrews 7:5). It was never “changed” (Heb 7:12) to gospel workers (Heb 7:18). I am angered at David’s absence of validating texts. His “proof-texts” are “Thus saith ME! (HIMSELF!)”

David:  “I’m surprised that he [Dr. Kelly] doesn’t notice that the tithe was for the gospel in general.”

Russ: I await gospel texts to validate this remark. Merely saying something is true does not make it true. One cannot respond to a non-statement.

David: [On chapter 18, the Law of Christ, pages 140-146]
“Would I [Dr. Kelly] support Christians who by faith response decide to give 10% of his income to the church?”

Russ: Of course. His 10% is a freewill choice ---not law. My question to David “Would you deem equally welcome a poor widow who has nothing remaining after providing shelter, medicine and food for her family?”

David: “If the tithe is not to be used as a minimum, then what is the minimum sacrificial offering to be used in the area of finances according to the word of God?”

Russ: Listen to yourself. “Sacrificial” does not set limits up or down!!! A poor widow who gives a dollar is sacrificially giving far more than a rich man who gives a thousand dollars. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp? Yet many churches demand the widows’ FIRST ten per cent and send her home hungry and cutting pills in half. If tithing were the “answer,” there would be no poverty because everybody would tithe. Yet the largest group of “tithe-payers” is among the poorest.

David: “How poor does one have to be to not give at all?”

Russ: Have you ever been so poor that you did not know where your next meal was coming from or have anything to buy medicine with to keep you alive?. If you have never been there (or worked street missions as I have), you have no right to ask that question.

David: “At what point does one give more than 10%?”

Russ: When 10% is not missed as sacrificial. There is no post-Calvary standard. Why don’t you explain 2 Cor 8:12-14? “For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not. For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened: But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality.”
This is the “equality principle of grace giving”: There is no set standard percentage. Each gives as he/she can; the rich give more and the poor give less – an equality results. Now, that is fair, decent and post-Calvary.

David: “The tithe has structure; decently and in order.”

Russ: As a carpenter, Jesus Himself did not qualify as a tithe-payer. The “structure” of the HOLY tithe, as found in Leviicus 27:30-34, was only food from inside HOLY Israel. That “structure” never changed except when dishonest preachers miss-appropriated it for themselves. “Decently” and “in order” better describes 2 Cor 8:12-14 above.

David: [On chapter 20, Ephesians 2 and Colossians 2; pages 170-175]
“Some things have been carried over from the law to the new covenant.”

Russ: Yes, but who and what makes that decision? You tend to leave that decision up to every Bible student and that causes the mass confusion we see in churches today.  What is YOUR “consistent” hermeneutic?  Mine is: “That part of pre-Calvary theology which has been brought over into the New Covenant has been clearly RE-STATED after Calvary in terms of the New Covenant – grace and faith” (1 Cor 9:14).  Don’t criticize my hermeneutic unless you have a better one! Be consistent. Mine is true dispensational.

David: [On chapter 21, 1st Peter 2:9-10, the priesthood of the believer, pages 76-180]
“The structure of the NT leadership and the function of the tithe is completely different from that of the Old Covenant.”

Russ: No text. Just his own word! How does not rebut non-sense (no-sense, no logic?). I was tempted to stop the attempted reply right here. Jarzabek is getting his information outside of God’s Word! Yet he began this video by saying that he was skipping chapters 28 to 31 because “they add little to the debate on tithing” and “it is the scriptures that determine doctrine and not history.” For him, “thus saith David Jarzabek” is his authority!

David: After quoting Ephesians 4:11-13,he says “the kingdom of priests does not take away the leadership of gospel workers.”

Russ: No, it doesn’t, but your statement does not magically prove that the Bible commands that gospel workers must be full time and must be supported by the first 10% of one’s income either.

David: “I believe that the New Testament is clear that the tithe is the means of support of those who live by the gospel.”

Russ: Again, no texts; merely a declaration of “I believe.” This approach would be laughed out of a real debate or thrown out of a real court. I could say exactly the opposite, but my words do not make something true or false.

David: [On chapter 24, 1 Tim 5:17-19, Double Honor, p210-216]
“First Timothy 5:17 is “not speaking of discipline.”

Russ: Again, I get the feeling that Jarzabek has only skimmed my book. As a PH. D. candidate, I performed my research extremely carefully. There are 17 reasons listed in my chapter to re-inforce my conclusions. The followings are excerpts from the book which is both whole and free online at www.tithing-russkelly.com.

One: Greek scholars who translated the most respected versions refused to translate "double honor" as "double pay."
Two: The context of "double honor" in 5:17 is that of rebuking wrongdoers in the church, and not "salary." Verses 1-16 and 19-20 are clearly discussions of discipline. Immediate context must be the primary determining factor.
5:1 rebuking, disciplining older men in the church
5:3-16 honoring, disciplining widows in the church
5:17-18 Give double honor to elders who labor in the word.
5:19-20 Rebuke [ministering] elders openly that sin.
5:21 Do not be impartial [honor first; rebuke last resort].
5:22 Do not be hasty in discipline [remember their honor].
5:24 God will judge sins.
It is absurd to say that 1-16 and 19-24 concern rebuking and discipline while 17-18 refer to double salary!  The argument for double salary is completely out of context with “rebuke” from verses 1 and 19.] Those elders who continue in their sin are to be rebuked before the whole church (v. 20). In rebuking church leaders, it appears that the one-to-one first stage is omitted. Compare and contrast these principles with those of Matthew 18:15-17.
Three: If "wages," or "salary," were the intended meaning for "honor" in verse 17, then the inspired writer would have certainly used a better word than "honor," timees. See the discussion of "living," zoee, at First Corinthians 9:14.
Four: [I performed a word study of every usage of the Greek word used for “honor.”]
Five: In his pastoral letter to Timothy, Paul used honor, timees, four (4) times: 1:17; 5:17; 6:1,16 –never as pay. Extremely noteworthy is 6:1 "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed."
Six: [More detailed word study.]
Seven: Why would Paul tell the church to give Timothy a double salary when he himself refused any at all (1 Cor. 9:12, 15; Acts 20:33-35)? Was not his companion, Timothy, included in the injunction, "I have shown you all things, how that so laboring you ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35)?
Eight: In 5:18 the ox is being honored while it is treading the grain. The emphasis here is on the fact THAT it is being honored.
Nine:  In the context of First Timothy 5:17-18, the ministering elder’s "reward" is the "double-honor," or double-cautious discipline due him! The minister is first worthy of single honor while being disciplined because he is an elder Christian, and he is worthy of double honor while being disciplined because he is a laborer in the church.
Ten: If Paul had meant "double-pay" in First Timothy 5:17, then why did he quote references to paupers who owned or accumulated nothing? How can one refer to penniless paupers to prove that one should receive double salary?
Eleven: 1 Tim. 6:1 "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine will not be blasphemed." If "worthy of double honor" in 5:17 means "worthy of double pay," then what does "worthy of all honor" mean only nine verses later in 6:1?
Twelve: 1 Tim. 6:5 ". . . [those who are] destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness--from such withdraw yourself." Timothy is told to "withdraw" from those who think that religion, or godliness, is a means of gaining wealth (6:3-5). This is a strange command to follow-up "worthy of double salary" with!
Thirteen: 1 Tim. 6:6 -8 "But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment let us therewith be content." Paul told ministers to be content with bare necessities. This also is inconsistent with the "double pay" interpretation of 5:17. Their "great gain" is not double salary, but "godliness which brings contentment."
Fourteen: 1 Tim. 6:9-11 "But they that want to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money [covetousness] is the root of all evil, which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But you, O man of God, flee these things, and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness." Paul warned Timothy against accumulating wealth. Yet today many ministers of wealthy churches are themselves very wealthy.
Fifteen: 1 Tim. 6:12, 14 "Fight the good fight of faith . . . That you keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ." Paul encouraged Timothy to "fight the good fight of faith" and be "un-rebuke-able". From the context, this "fighting" at least includes the warning, "don’t get caught up in money matters and a desire for wealth." Unfortunately, all too often, ministers need to be rebuked about money matters.
Sixteen: 1 Tim. 6:17-19 "Instruct them that are rich in this world, that they should not be high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who gives us richly all things to enjoy. That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate." The "rich in this world" are referred to as "them," but not "us," or gospel ministers.
Seventeen: Paul instructed that the gospel minister is "to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share" (1 Tim. 6:18 NAS). His "richness" is in sharing with others.
Eighteen: 1 Tim. 6:19 "Storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is life indeed." The gospel minister "stores up," or "treasures up," not worldly wealth, but "a good foundation for the future. This is the same thesaurizoon discussed in First Corinthians 16:2!
Nineteen: Tithing is not even implied in these passages. The author did not tell the church that the pastor is due full-time support through tithing. As in First Corinthians 9:14, another "golden opportunity" to teach tithing has been totally ignored.
David: “He (Dr. Kelly) even claims that the Greek word ‘honor’ does not mean ‘salary’ even though I just read it to you”
[quotes 17, 18, not 19]

Russ: Read my book. Jarzabek’s “salary” is found in a version which gives its author’s opinion of every possible interpretation. It is not found in the best literal versions.

David: “Mt 10:10 is the norm.” 

Russ: This is foolishness. Read Matthew 10:1-10! If Matthew 10:10 is the “norm,” then God commands gospel workers to be the poorest in the land! Matthew 10:10 is not intended to be rules for full time gospel workers either before or after Calvary. Why not say that Acts 20:16-34 is the norm? It would mean that only the evangelist must work to support himself and his staff.

David: [On chapter 25,Miscellaneous Objections: pages 217-223.]

Russ: Jarzabek does not tell the reader how I answered the objections. That is dishonest. Charles Stanley is a millionaire in violation of the tithing restriction of Numbers 18:20.

David: [On chapter 26, Chafer and Walvoord, pages 224-226.]

Russ: Again, this is great evidence that Jarzabek has not read my book; he has merely skimmed over it looking to places to pounce.
I DID NOT WRITE THIS CHAPTER and Jarzabek does not seem to know that!  It is written by the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary and its top teacher – both agree with me on tithing.

David: “First Corinthians 16:1 sounds like a command to me.”

Russ: Yes, it is. But it is not a command to support gospel workers full-time with the first ten percent of one’s income. Be honest.

David: [On chapter 23 (1 Cor 16) and 27 (2 Cor 8 and 9.] “The bulk of New Testament giving is in the Corinthian passages.”

Russ: Yes, it is – and nowhere is tithing taught or commanded there. Most tithe-teachers relegate these chapters to post-tithe freewill offerings. Yet Jarzabek tries to use them to teach tithing.

David: “Dr. Kelly, where is your post-Apostolic view of giving found in the Scriptures?”

Russ: Where is David Jarzabek’s “post-
Apostolic view found in the Scripture. Facts: the New Testament ends while the Apostolic view is still being taught!

David: [On Jesus’ giving.][Mt 22:21; Mk 12:17; Lk 20:25.] Matt 22:21
“Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.”

Russ: This is Jarzabek’s cornerstone text which he often repeats to make it sound of utmost importance. (1) According to his own favorite pro-tithing text, money with the image of an ordinary man or in a language other than Hebrew cannot be rendered unto God. The consequences destroy his argument. (2) God only commanded that HOLY tithes of food from inside HOLY Israel miraculously increased by Himself be rendered back to him. Although “money” was very common even in Genesis and temple money was commanded for temple taxes, money was never included in 16 texts which described the contents of the HOLY tithe. (3) Therefore, “render to God that which is God’s cannot possibly refer to post-Calvary tithes.

David: “The subject was money” -- “give back to God that which is God’s in our finances!!!” that’s the principle.”

Russ: Yes, the subject was money but the context itself disallowed money with man’s image and language on it!!!

David: “The tithe came before the law, was added to the law and was outside of the law.”

Russ: Abram’ and Jacob’s tithes were pagan in source and would not have qualified as holy tithes under the Law (Lev 27:30-34). And there are no biblical texts which prove that the HOLY tithe remained after the Law. Jarzabek merely declares it so as if he were the Pope or God’s spokesman.

David:  “We mainly see it first in the priesthood of Levi.”

Russ: He is disallowing Abram and Jacob here.

David: Mt 23:23 “They should continue to tithe despite that woe.”

Russ: Of course Jesus taught tithing. The text itself (Mt 23:23) classifies the discussion as “matters of the law”!!! If Jesus has not taught tithing to the Levitical temple system – He would have been sinning!!!

David: “So why should the church teach tithing --- because Jesus said so.”

Russ: Wrong covenant; wrong priesthood; wrong description of holy tithes. Merely David Jarzabek’s own declared conclusion.

David: [On chapter 22, 1 Corinthians 9, pages 181-198.]
The biblical principle of tithing is to “render unto God that which is God’s.”

Russ: Nothing new.

David: “The tithe is mentioned 7 times in the N. T. –more than “pastor,” “evangelist” and “Trinity” combined.”

Russ: Wrong. Matthew, Mark and Luke cannot be counted because they are before Calvary in Old Covenant context. Hebrews 7 is the only use of the word after Calvary.

David: “This chapter is the discourse on the tithe for the N. T.”

Russ: Wrong for reasons already given several times. The word does not even occur in First Corinthians 9. The chapter teaches that gospel workers should live by gospel principles.

David: Quotes me saying that “every rabbi was expected to have a trade.”

Russ: Why did I say that? The chapter in my book gives many quotations from leading theologians and church historians confirming this fact. Until Constantine legalized Christianity after A. D. 300, it was illegal to be a full-time gospel worker.

David: “Dr. Kelly, do you tell Christians not to eat meat for the sake of the gospel? Do you tell them not to marry?”

Russ: Paul taught us not to offend those we are trying to convert to Christ. Would you offend an Orthodox Jews in your home by offering him bacon? Also, Paul did not command "no marriage"; you twist his words. We may face a time when it is safer for gospel workers not to be married.

David: “Dr. Kelly seems to discourage people from going into full time gospel work.

Russ: I merely point out that the Bible does not command that gospel workers must be full time. Not even O.T. Levites, priests, and prophets were necessarily full time.

David: “He (Dr. Kelly) only agrees to it if tithing is not taught.”

Russ: Do you build your stewardship house on the rock of grace and faith or on the rock of a false description and use of O. T. tithes? 

David: Acts 20:34 “They could have been setting up things for Paul.”

Russ: He is referring to my chapter 28 which he claims to have skipped because of irrelevance. If David is correct, then Paul was the only one who worked full-time so he could support his own team and all of their needs also. Now that would be a strange twist!

David: “By supporting others, Paul gave the example that the NORM is to support gospel workers!!”  

Russ: Wow! Read Acts 20:16-35. The only example I see there is that Paul himself was SELF-SUPPORTED and that HE supported his own evangelistic team.

David: “What reference shows Jesus doing His trade during his ministry?”

Russ: We do not have the same mission Jesus had. I do notice that Jesus’ fishermen-disciples did not totally give up their trade. Also, Paul’s sending-church in Antioch of Syria did not give him financial support. The only church which regularly sent Paul money was Philippi.

David: His quoted version adds “for a livelihood” to 1 Cor 9:6. 

Russ: How can you expect to know truth when you use a version descended from that vastly manipulated by Westcott and Hort? They did not believe in infallible inspiration or the ability to God to preserve His word.

David: “The tithe and offerings is simply a wage.”

Russ: If so, then God was grossly unfair in only requiring it from food-producers living inside His HOLY land of Israel (Lev 27:30-34).

David: “To me the tithe is simply setting the amount.”

Russ: You may as well say “To me the tithe is the same thing as an airplane or train.” Your declaration does not create truth.

David: “First Corinthians 9:12 proves that “others were living on the tithe already.”

Russ: No. It merely proves that other gospel workers were receiving some kind of compensation for their ministry. It says nothing about how much or tithes. Please stop manipulating God’s Word. Have some decency and respect its holiness.

David: On First Corinthians 9:13, page 186, quoting my book: “Verse 13 clearly statues that temple workers were sustained by tithing.” contradicts your statement on page 115 statement.”

Russ: This is extremely important and proves once again that David Jarzabek has not read my book but is merely skimming over it to find material to pounce upon!!! NEITHER THE STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO ME ON PAGE 115 OR 186 ARE MY OPINIONS!!! Read the book. They are my quotations and references of TITHE-ADVOCATES!!!  Page 115 is quoting pro-tithe-teacher Bobby Eklund and page 186 is my conclusion of the MINORIRY HERMENEUTIC gleaned from many commentaries. The vast majority of commentaries support my understanding that 9:14 refers to 9:6-13 and not merely to 9:13.

David: “Dr. Kelly, let me introduce u to the other Dr. Kelly.”

Russ: Jarzabek repeats his error several more times to make himself look incompetent.

David: “The apostle Paul and Dr. Kelly agree that 9:13 is speaking of tithing.”

Russ: No, it only “includes” tithing among many more better means of support such as freewill offerings, firstfruits, firstborn and portions of sacrificial animals. The ministering priests only received one per cent (1%) of the Levitical tithe (Num 18:25-28; Neh 10:38). This part of the tithing command is totally ignored today.

David: “The second reason that tithing should be taught to the church is that the Lord has commanded it.”

1 Cor 9:14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

Russ: In order for Jarzabek’s statement to be true, (1) 9:13 must only refer to tithing and (2) 9:14 must only refer to 9:13 and not to 9:6-13. And, since neither is true, then his conclusion is false. If Jesus Himself commanded that gospel workers must be fully supported full-time by tithes, then Paul deliberately disobeyed Christ.  “Live off the gospel” means live off the gospel principle of grace and faith – not live off the Law doctrine of tithing. There are very many sources at the end of my chapter.

David: [On chapter 19, Hebrews 7, pages 147-169]
“Dr. Kelly is all over the place concerning Melchizedek as a historical person and as a type of Christ.”

Russ: There are scores of commentaries on Hebrews. All of them are very long and very detailed. Mine is but a small sample. My main focus is on the word “order” from Psalm 110:4 which is quoted 7 times in Hebrews. Since Israel had no king-priest, it was necessary to go elsewhere for a type of the “order” of king-priest. Also, Jarzabek should learn how to pronounce “Mel-chi-ze-dek” instead of saying “Me-chel-ze-dek.”

David: “I want to make it clear that I believe that tithing under the law of Moses has been abolished.”

Russ: Were it not for his own invented description of holy tithes, Jarzabek would have no disagreement with me.

David: “In the O. T. a priest could not be king.”

Russ: This is only true of Hebrew priests. Canaan was full of city-state king-priests. Christ came after the “order” (king-priest) of Melchizedek; He did not come to repeat his personage.

David: “Dr. Kelly believes M. was a pagan priest who did not know the true God. I just think that is total nonsense.”

Russ: I first got the idea first from the Southern Baptist Wycliffe Bible Commentary. It is also common in other commentaries. Such a position does not degrade the emphasis on the “order” rather than on the “person.” If Melchizedek had been a true descendant of Shem or another Hebrew, he would have certainly incorporated YHWH somewhere into his own title.

David: He had to have been a godly priest because Christ’s priesthood was after the order of M.” 

Russ: No. That is precisely why Hebrews repeats Psalm 110:4 seven times concerning the “order.” Just as Babylon is “my army” in Habakkuk and Cyrus is “my beloved” in Isaiah 4:28, the “rank” of a pagan king-priest can be a type of Christ.

David: “I do not have time to speak of the reasons for his view, but it has no real backing.”

Russ: You criticize but do not allow a defense.

David: “What footnote do you quote to prove that Abram paid the tithe out of the spoils? I couldn’t find it.”

Russ: Hebrews 7:4. See 5 commentaries quoted on pages 24-25 and Hebrews 7:4 on pages 152-153. How could you miss that?

David: “I found his wording to be the trickiest I ever read or refuted so far.”

Russ: You ought to read some of David Jarzabek’s material.

David: “Dr. Kelly, if you have a quote, then on what page is it given?”

Russ: No footnote needed; see Hebrews 7:4.

David: “The tithe was a divine spiritual transaction that God would use to validate the priesthood of Jesus.”

Russ: There was nothing divine or spiritual about the tithe of Abram or Jacob. They obeyed the common law of the land practiced all around Mesopotamia as validated by any large library with a reference section on Religion.

David: Hebrews 7:8.

Russ: When this was written, the Temple was still functioning. Mortal men (priests) were accepting tithes from Levites as the representatives of God. Priests did not tithe because they were the end of the line.

It is impossible for me to conclude that David has read my book. Like every other tithe-advocate I have read, he stops his discussion of Hebrews 7 at either verse 8 or 10. Yet 7:12 clearly states that it was necessary to “change the law” when Christ’s priesthood replaced Aaron’s. Read 7:10-19.That “change” was NOT “from Aaron to Christ”; rather, the “change” was from Aaron to its “disannulment” in 7:18. Since “commandment,” “tithes” and “law” first occur in Hebrews in 7:5, “commandment” in 7:18 must (at the very least) include the concept of tithing from 7:5.

Conclusion: I will no longer reply to David Jarzabek. (1) He does not attempt to describe the holy tithe properly. (2) He does not understand the definition of “biblical law” or “principle.” (3) He has probably not even red my book. (4) He misquotes me often. (5) He makes himself the validating authority for most of his conclusions and quotes God’s Word very little. And (6) I have more important things to do while teaching.

Russell Earl Kelly, PHD

2 comments:

RepresentingTruth returns said...

Thank you for your reply. I have read it and I will not debate you at this time for that would not be productive. I am going to do a two part teaching on tithing now that I have done my rebuttal to your book. It was good feedback and I feel it went even better than I thought. To me your answers spoke that I have done my job well. My one thought is this. When you do a rebuttal I would double check before you respond. There are things that I am not pointing out but were way off in what you claimed I said. We can disagree on a matter but wisdom would be to make sure you don't call someone a liar without double checking.

Lex said...

Dear Russell.
About your comments on Westcott and Hort, What versions of the bible do you recommend? What do you think of the NIV and the Amplified?
thanks Lex