REBUTTAL OF RICK JOYNER ON TITHING, by Russell Earl Kelly, PHD, April 27, 2011
The Wealth of the Righteous, Week 42, 2004
Joyner: One of the most foolish things we can do as a Christian is to not pay our tithes.
Kelly: It is more foolish for a New Covenant Christian to try and live under the Old Covenant conditional principles of tithing when the New Covenant freewill principles are far superior.
Joyner: Tithing means to give ten percent of our income to the Lord.
Kelly: No, it does not. True HOLY biblical tithes were always only food from inside God’s holy land of Israel which He had miraculously increased. Though money was common and essential for sanctuary worship, money was never a tithed item. Tithes could not come from what man increased, from Gentiles or from outside Israel. Period.
Joyner: I have heard Christians make many excuses for not doing this, to their own determent. Without question, when we read the incredible promises of God for those who are faithful in this, we have to be the greatest of fools not to obey it.
Kelly: There is not a single Bible text to prove that Christians are to live under Old Covenant principles including tithing. You like to call others “fools” and that is arrogant. Exodus 19:5-6 limits the Old Covenant to Israel. Malachi 1:1 limits the book to Israel. The first rule of hermeneutics is “To whom was it written? Was it written to me?” and you ignore that rule.
Joyner: One of the most popular excuses for this disobedience is that tithing was a part of the Law and that we are no longer under the Law.
Kelly: You greatly err in this statement. Gentiles and Christians NEVER WERE UNDER THE LAW.
Joyner: Okay, I will concede that it was a part of the Law but so was not committing murder. Is it okay to murder now that we are no longer under the Law?
Kelly: You show your ignorance about the nature of the Old Covenant law here. The eternal moral law which is the foundational law beneath the Old Covenant is written in the hearts and conscience of all men through nature (Rom 1:18-20; 2:14-16). That eternal moral law includes the principle of “giving” but not “tithing” and “resting for worship” but not “Saturday rest.”
Joyner: Those who say that tithing is not in the New Testament are mistaken anyway. It is! Though this argument, because so many people have been deceived by it, is worthy of far more attention than I can give it here, let me briefly address these assumptions.
Kelly: I urge you to give it far more attention and enter into an extended dialog with me on the subject. What are you afraid of? If you are correct, then you should prevail.
Joyner: First, tithing was actually practiced by the patriarchs before the Law was given through Moses (see Genesis 14:20, 28:22).
Kelly: Tithes? Yes. Holy tithes blessed by God? No. All pagans around Canaan tithed spoils of war and tithed to pagan gods along with idol worship, child sacrifice and temple prostitution. That proves nothing. Just because something is very old and very common does not make it an eternal moral principle. The Bible does not tell us WHY the yet-uncircumcised Babylonian Abram tithed. He was probably obeying the well-known law of the land which required tithes of spoils of war to one’s local king priest.
Joyner: Tithing was included in the Law with other standards of righteousness (basic integrity and morality) which the Lord had already established before the Law.
Kelly: Tithing which was included in the law was not the same as tithing before the law. Tithing before the law was unholy pagan spoils from Sodom in Gen 14:18-20. Tithing in the Law was HOLY from God’s holy land which God Himself had miraculously increased. That is a huge difference.
Joyner: We also continue to observe things such as not lying, paying our vows, not committing adultery, murder, etc. under the New Covenant.
Kelly: Every man, Jew or Gentile, knows innately that it is wrong to kill, lie and steal because of the innate eternal moral law revealed by nature and conscience. Tithing does not fit that category. Tithing was a statute-ordinance of the Law in Numbers 18 which was legislated to support Levites and priests who ministered animal sacrifices in the Temple system. All of that ended at Calvary. Those in the OT who accepted Levitical tithes were not allowed to own or inherit property; today this is totally ignored. Read Numbers 18:20-28.
Joyner: As stated, how can we say that tithing was a part of the Law and therefore no longer will need to be observed without including these other things? It seems that such reasoning or lack of it would have to be included in the definition of foolishness.
Kelly: We could use the same logic to keep on stoning to death disobedient children and making monstrous women leave the house one week per month. Joyner fails to define how he uses law. Tithing was never part of eternal moral law for all mankind.
Joyner: Tithing is included in the New Testament and was a practice of the early church.
Kelly: Tithing is never commanded to the church after Calvary in the New Testament. While still under the full jurisdiction of the law, Jesus mentioned tithing three times as “matters of the law:” and, in each case, condemned the tithe teachers for abusing the law.
Joyner: Tithing … was a practice of the early church.
Kelly: No. (1) Jewish Christians in Acts stayed “zealous of the law” and never stopped supporting the Temple system per Acts 21:20-21. (2) Early Jewish Christians knew very well that tithes could not come from defiled pagan lands and must only be used to support Levites and priests. (3) Second and third century early Church Fathers who were mostly Gentiles strongly opposed Jewish traditions. (4) History records that the early church stressed extreme asceticism and later monasticism and boasted that poverty was godliness.
Joyner: As the writer of the book of Hebrews asserted, we are a part of the Melchizedek priesthood, and Melchizedek received tithes (see Hebrews chapters 5, 6, 7). In fact, one of the main points made in the Scriptures is when Melchizedek met Abraham (see Genesis 14).
Kelly: The law of tithing which was legislated to support the Aaronic priesthood (Heb 7:5) was “of necessity changed” when Christ replaced Aaron (7:12) and that “change” was the “disannulling of the commandment going before” of tithing (7:18). Christ’s priesthood is based on better eternal spiritual principles (Heb 7:13-19).
Joyner: As stated, if we really believe the Lord and His Word, then when we read the promises of God that are made to those who are faithful to tithe, we would be the greatest of fools to not do it.
Kelly: The blessings and curses of the law were only for Old Covenant Israel. You discard great portions of the law contrary to Mt 5:18-19 which are equally holy in the book of Leviticus but insists on retaining tithing with no explanation.
Joyner: Consider the following exhortation and promise from Malachi 3:7-12: "From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from My statutes, and have not kept them.
Kelly: This is directed to Old Covenant Israel which was given the cultic ceremonial worship statutes-ordinances of the Law. It was never given to Gentiles or the Church. God was not threatening OT Gentiles for not tithing!
Joyner: Return to Me, and I will return to you," says the Lord of hosts. "But you say, 'How shall we return?'
Kelly: God was not speaking to OT Gentiles because they had never turned to God in the first place.
Joyner: "Will a man rob God? Yet you are robbing Me! But you say, 'How have we robbed You?' In tithes and offerings.
Kelly: This could not apply to Gentiles because they had not covenanted with God to obey His Law and tithe. One cannot “rob” that which he was never told to give.
Joyner: "You are cursed with a curse …
Kelly: The Gentles and Church were never cursed for not tithing. This is the curse of the Law as seen in Deuteronomy 28-30.
Joyner: … for you are robbing Me, the whole nation of you!
Kelly: This narrows the field to whom God is speaking. At the very most it is the nation of Israel who had just reaffirmed its covenant curses in Neh 10:29 and Mal 4:4. At the very least it is every priest in the nation who had been stealing in Mal 1:13-14 and Neh 13:5-10.
Joyner: "Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house …
Kelly: Notice that, over 1000 years after Moses, the tithe is still only FOOD from inside God’s holy land of Israel. It never becomes money increase of Gentiles. Plus, the early church had no legal buildings to call storehouses for almost 300 years.
Joyner: … and test Me now in this," says the Lord of hosts …
Kelly: The whole law was a test, not merely tithing. Obey all to be blessed; break one to be cursed. Jesus ended the curse of the law per Gal 3:10-13. Why don’t you preach this fact?
Joyner: "if I will not open for you the windows of heaven, and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows.
Kelly: It can be proven that modern tithing does not work because most tithers do not have “overflowing blessings.” God is New Covenant operating on New Covenant principles.
Joyner: "Then I will rebuke the devourer for you, so that it may not destroy the fruits of the ground; nor will your vine in the field cast its grapes," says the Lord of hosts.
Kelly: Still only food. Be honest with God’s Word.
Joyner: "And all the nations will call you blessed, for you shall be a delightful land," says the Lord of hosts.
Kelly: If God was telling all nations to tithe, this would not make any sense.
Joyner: I have not yet met a single Christian who is faithful to tithe and has chronic financial problems.
Kelly: You must live in a rich cloister.
Joyner: There may be some [tithers with financial problems] because there are other things we can do that can open the door to a spirit of poverty in our lives, but I have not met any.
Kelly: You are admitting that God will not automatically pour out overflowing blessings on tithers.
Joyner: In contrast, the testimonies of those who resolved to be obedient in this one thing are abundant.
Kelly: Of course they are. You seek them out and parade them across the stage. Yet you will not discuss the masses of faithful-tithers who are never blessed. Similar testimonies can be found among graduates to salesmanship courses whether they be Christians or atheists. These kinds of testimonies prove nothing.
Joyner: The text quoted above from Malachi is the only place in the Scriptures where the Lord actually invites us to test Him. He promises that if we will “return to Him” He will bless us until it overflows.
Kelly: How dare you say this after just saying “There may be some [tithers with financial problems] because there are other things we can do that can open the door to a spirit of poverty in our lives, but I have not met any”!!! The ghettos are full of generations of faithful tither who still have no education and motivation other than tithing to get rich.
Joyner: Again, considering the wise and foolish, it seems to me that this is a better way to live than most Christians now do.
Kelly: You live in your mansion while most of your contributors fail to be blessed with overflowing blessings.
Joyner: This promise is also corroborated in the New Testament in II Corinthians 9:6-8:
Now this I say, he who sows sparingly shall also reap sparingly; and he who sows bountifully shall also reap bountifully.
Let each one do just as he has purposed in his heart; not grudgingly or under compulsion; for God loves a cheerful giver.
And God is able to make all grace abound to you, that always having all sufficiency in everything, you may have abundance for every good deed;
Kelly: This is dishonest. The eternal moral principle of sowing and reaping is active whether one tithes or not. These texts are not even discussing tithing; they are discussing freewill, generous, sacrificial, joyful offerings. Pastoral support is not the context either.
Joyner: Normal Christianity is a life that overflows and has “an abundance for every good deed.”
Kelly: This is not a reference to tithing.
Joyner: Every Christian should be financially independent.
Kelly: You are dishonest. What about single moms whose husbands have desecrated? What about those who are disabled because of inherited disease? What about those who are disabled because of accidents? Do you think that you are immune to being disabled and becoming poor?
Joyner: This does not necessarily mean that we should have great personal wealth. What it does mean is that we should never have to make a decision based on whether we can afford it, but simply on whether it is the will of God.
Kelly: Pie in the sky. As long as you are at the top of the giving pyramid, who cares?
Joyner: We should never come upon a good deed that we cannot afford to do. If this is not the present state of our lives, tithing the first fruits from our labors can begin to correct it.
Kelly: Not all Christians are financially and physically capable of performing all necessary good deeds.
Russell Earl Kelly, PHD
www.tithing-russkelly.com
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Reply to Pastor Anthony Locke on Tithing
Rev Anthony R Locke
First Presbyterian Church, Tucker, Ga
You preached a sermon on Feb 6, 2011 on Malachi and tithing.
I disagree in the following areas and would appreciate a dialog with you on this subject.
1. The definiton of a holy biblical tithe from Malachi and Matthew 23 is “only food from inside God’s holy land of Israel which God has mirculously increased.” Tithes could not come from what man increased, from Gentiles or from outside Israel. I challenge you to disprove those facts.
2. Malachi is addressed only to Old Covenant Israel. 1:1; 4:4; Neh 10:29. It is not addressed to the church.
3. The Old Covenant which was delivered by Moses was only addressed to Israel. Ex 19:5-6. It was not addressed to Gentiles or to the Church. God told Israel NOT to share its covenant.
4. Both John Calvin and Martin Luther opposed the hermeneutic which allows the church to teach tithing. Only that part of the Law which is also in nature and conscience and is repeated in the New Covenant after Calvary applies to the church. Tithing was not. See my web sites for quotes from Luther and Calvin.
5. Calvin’s prayer which you quoted does not authorize New Covenant tithing. Read it carefully.
6. Your boldly say “I am preaching this morning against the sin of not worshipping with a monetary gift in hand.” Do you not realize that there are many who are so financially disabled that they cannot give anything without doing without medicine, food and/or shelter? Are you that callous? Do you not know that the poor ate from a second festival tithe and a third third-year tithe?
7. You proclaimed of Malachi 3 that “I picked this passage in Malachi because it is a classic. It‟s the only place in the Bible that God taunts us, better said, He challenges us to obey against our gut feelings and logic. Paul wrote in First Timothy 5:8 that doing what you suggest is “worse than the infidel.” Your first responsibility is to your family. Don’t let them go without medicine, food and essential shelter if at all possible.
8. You wrote “God wishes that we test His faithfulness in this matter.” The whole Law was a test: obey all to be blessed; break one to be cursed. Deu 27:26 quoted in Gal 3:10. God does not bless murderers and raptsts because they ttihe.
9. You said “Tithing isn‟t an Old Testament idea lost on New Testament saints.” The tithing statute-ordinance of the Law is Numbers 18. Read it. Those Levites and priests who received the tithe were not allowed to own or inherit property in Israel. Are you a Levite? Do you receive ttihe and own property? Do you obey the whole tithing law?
10. “Jesus very seldom handed out compliments and one of the few compliments Jesus evergave to the Pharisees was for their tithing. (Matthew 23).” Mt 23:23 is a dicussion of “matters of the law” and is not addressed to the church. Jesus could not and was not telling his disciples to tithe to Him and his apostles. Be honest with the context.
11. You said “The Apostle‟s referenced Abraham‟s tithing as a model of Christian commitment in Hebrews chapter seven.” No, they did not. Neither Genesis 14 nor Hebrews 7 tell us WHY Abram the uncircumcized Gentile tithed unholy spoils of war. The purpose of Hebrews 7 is not to teach tithing and there is no evidence that Abram’s motive for tithing was faith.
12. You said “Throughout the dispensations of the people of God, from Genesis to Revelation, tithing is a common denominator of all generations of the people of God.” I assume you do not want your church members to check this out for themselves because you know it is not true. The Jewish Christians in Judea never stopped being “zealous for the law” in Acts 21:20-21 and probably never stopped tithing to the Jewish system. That is the history of the Ebionites and Ekiasites. Acts 15 does not impose tithing on Gentile Christians. There is not a single post-Calvary text which even hits that the church collected tithes (which were impossible from defiled pagan land anyway).
13. You said “Tithing is one of our strongest testimonies of public faith that Jesus means more to us than thethings of this world.” This is made up and you know it.
14. You said “Tithing strongly testifies that this world is not our home, that our treasure is in heaven and not this earth, that we trust God to provide and that we are living for something bigger than ourselves.” This is also made up. Why not teach freewill sacrificial giving and unburden yourself from making things up as you go alaong?
15. You said “There is possibly no Christian discipline more authenticating to our faith than consistent financial giving to God during worship.” True, but this does not mean tithing.
16. You said “Tithing comforts our own soul that we are indeed apart of God‟s family.” No. Freewil sacrificial giving does.
17. You said “Tithing is a strong work of God‟s grace in our life that proves our faith is more than words.” There is no grace in tithing; it was cold hard law for food producers who lived inside Israel.
18. “Tithing is one of our top works of faith.” No validating texts. How about some Bible verses attached to your statements?
19. “Which is why God has this family chat with us in Malachi.” We are under the New Covenant and tithing does not appear there. God has not had this family chat with the Church.
20. “One cause of the barrenness of the Church is the tightfistedness of its members.” This would not hapapen if you preched evangelistic Bible-centered sermons.
21. “For it is more blessed to give than to receive.” This is from Acts 20:35 where Jesus was telling church elders to work and take care fo the needy in their congregations. Somehow it has been reversed today.
Please stop preaching tithing and enter the world of the New Covenant in stewardship.
In Christ’s love
Russell Earl Kelly, PHD
First Presbyterian Church, Tucker, Ga
You preached a sermon on Feb 6, 2011 on Malachi and tithing.
I disagree in the following areas and would appreciate a dialog with you on this subject.
1. The definiton of a holy biblical tithe from Malachi and Matthew 23 is “only food from inside God’s holy land of Israel which God has mirculously increased.” Tithes could not come from what man increased, from Gentiles or from outside Israel. I challenge you to disprove those facts.
2. Malachi is addressed only to Old Covenant Israel. 1:1; 4:4; Neh 10:29. It is not addressed to the church.
3. The Old Covenant which was delivered by Moses was only addressed to Israel. Ex 19:5-6. It was not addressed to Gentiles or to the Church. God told Israel NOT to share its covenant.
4. Both John Calvin and Martin Luther opposed the hermeneutic which allows the church to teach tithing. Only that part of the Law which is also in nature and conscience and is repeated in the New Covenant after Calvary applies to the church. Tithing was not. See my web sites for quotes from Luther and Calvin.
5. Calvin’s prayer which you quoted does not authorize New Covenant tithing. Read it carefully.
6. Your boldly say “I am preaching this morning against the sin of not worshipping with a monetary gift in hand.” Do you not realize that there are many who are so financially disabled that they cannot give anything without doing without medicine, food and/or shelter? Are you that callous? Do you not know that the poor ate from a second festival tithe and a third third-year tithe?
7. You proclaimed of Malachi 3 that “I picked this passage in Malachi because it is a classic. It‟s the only place in the Bible that God taunts us, better said, He challenges us to obey against our gut feelings and logic. Paul wrote in First Timothy 5:8 that doing what you suggest is “worse than the infidel.” Your first responsibility is to your family. Don’t let them go without medicine, food and essential shelter if at all possible.
8. You wrote “God wishes that we test His faithfulness in this matter.” The whole Law was a test: obey all to be blessed; break one to be cursed. Deu 27:26 quoted in Gal 3:10. God does not bless murderers and raptsts because they ttihe.
9. You said “Tithing isn‟t an Old Testament idea lost on New Testament saints.” The tithing statute-ordinance of the Law is Numbers 18. Read it. Those Levites and priests who received the tithe were not allowed to own or inherit property in Israel. Are you a Levite? Do you receive ttihe and own property? Do you obey the whole tithing law?
10. “Jesus very seldom handed out compliments and one of the few compliments Jesus evergave to the Pharisees was for their tithing. (Matthew 23).” Mt 23:23 is a dicussion of “matters of the law” and is not addressed to the church. Jesus could not and was not telling his disciples to tithe to Him and his apostles. Be honest with the context.
11. You said “The Apostle‟s referenced Abraham‟s tithing as a model of Christian commitment in Hebrews chapter seven.” No, they did not. Neither Genesis 14 nor Hebrews 7 tell us WHY Abram the uncircumcized Gentile tithed unholy spoils of war. The purpose of Hebrews 7 is not to teach tithing and there is no evidence that Abram’s motive for tithing was faith.
12. You said “Throughout the dispensations of the people of God, from Genesis to Revelation, tithing is a common denominator of all generations of the people of God.” I assume you do not want your church members to check this out for themselves because you know it is not true. The Jewish Christians in Judea never stopped being “zealous for the law” in Acts 21:20-21 and probably never stopped tithing to the Jewish system. That is the history of the Ebionites and Ekiasites. Acts 15 does not impose tithing on Gentile Christians. There is not a single post-Calvary text which even hits that the church collected tithes (which were impossible from defiled pagan land anyway).
13. You said “Tithing is one of our strongest testimonies of public faith that Jesus means more to us than thethings of this world.” This is made up and you know it.
14. You said “Tithing strongly testifies that this world is not our home, that our treasure is in heaven and not this earth, that we trust God to provide and that we are living for something bigger than ourselves.” This is also made up. Why not teach freewill sacrificial giving and unburden yourself from making things up as you go alaong?
15. You said “There is possibly no Christian discipline more authenticating to our faith than consistent financial giving to God during worship.” True, but this does not mean tithing.
16. You said “Tithing comforts our own soul that we are indeed apart of God‟s family.” No. Freewil sacrificial giving does.
17. You said “Tithing is a strong work of God‟s grace in our life that proves our faith is more than words.” There is no grace in tithing; it was cold hard law for food producers who lived inside Israel.
18. “Tithing is one of our top works of faith.” No validating texts. How about some Bible verses attached to your statements?
19. “Which is why God has this family chat with us in Malachi.” We are under the New Covenant and tithing does not appear there. God has not had this family chat with the Church.
20. “One cause of the barrenness of the Church is the tightfistedness of its members.” This would not hapapen if you preched evangelistic Bible-centered sermons.
21. “For it is more blessed to give than to receive.” This is from Acts 20:35 where Jesus was telling church elders to work and take care fo the needy in their congregations. Somehow it has been reversed today.
Please stop preaching tithing and enter the world of the New Covenant in stewardship.
In Christ’s love
Russell Earl Kelly, PHD
Friday, April 22, 2011
Hemphill and Eklund Exposed on Tithing
Review of The Foundations of Giving, Perspectives on Tithing,
Ken Hemphill and Bobby Eklund
by Russell Earl Kelly
April 22, 2011
“Position Statement: We assert that tithing is the foundational base from which believers can and must be challenged to become grace-givers.” (20)
Reply: This come from the SBC Position Paper which is the required position for all who receive paychecks from the Convention. All SBC members are expected to begin their level of giving at ten per cent.
Although this attempted imposition has been in the SBC since 1895 and, although the SBC Faith and Message did not even insert tithing texts into its stewardship statement until 1963, and although the Faith still does not teach tithing per se, it is the background expectation for all employees.
“We further agree that … the tithe was established prior to the giving of the Mosaic Law.” (20)
Reply: It is without dispute that all nations surrounding Abram practiced tithing to pagan gods. Common sense teaches that this was probably the source of Abram’s and Jacob’s knowledge about tithing. However, when the law arrived, God gave Moses special divine revelation that the “holy” tithe could only come from food within God’s holy land of Israel. Hemphill and Eklund totally ignore this biblical truth and it destroys their entire argument.
“We believe that Jesus assumed the tithe would be practiced by his followers.” (20)
Reply: The statement makes no sense before Calvary. Until Matthew 28:19-20 Jesus’ mission was to preach to fellow Hebrews who had already possessed and practiced tithing since Moses. No new teaching was needed as long as the law was still in full force. While living under the jurisdiction of the Law, Jesus MUST teach the whole law, including tithing, or be a sinner. He could not and did not teach His Jewish disciples to tithe to himself. And he could not and did not teach His Gentile disciples to tithe at all because it would not have been accepted.
“We believe that Paul taught and practiced biblical giving. … These challenges to give beyond the tithe are based on the assumption that a believer under grace would never do less than those who had lived under the Mosaic Law.” (20)
Reply: Again, sixteen texts validate the fact that true biblical holy tithes were always only food from inside God’s holy land. Tithes belonged to the Levites and priests –not to gospel workers. As a Pharisee Paul would certainly know that his trade of tentmaker did not qualify him as a tither, especially from defiled pagan land. Paul would never assume that one could pay a holy tithe from outside God’s holy land –especiall to himself. Even if he did, three tithes would require 20-23% be paid.
“His requirements for His children.” (p21)
Reply: The most fundamental hermeneutic (“To whom was it written? Was it written to me?”) is ignored. Hemphill and Eklund do not “rightly divide the word of truth.” While God clearly said in Exodus 19:5-6 that the Old Covenant law was given specifically to national Israel, they sporadically apply whatever parts of it they like to the Church without any post-Calvary textual evidence.
“The very fact that we have a tithe to bring indicates that God has given material blessings.” (21)
Reply: God said the tithe only belonged to Levites and priests. “We” the (mostly) Gentile church do NOT have a “tithe.” The tithe was always only FOOD from inside God’s holy land specifically legislated to support the Levites and priests who ministered in the sanctuary and had no land ownership rights. The Old Covenant is gone; the Levites are gone; ministers own much property; and the priests and temple now reside within every believer. Hemphill and Eklund do not address any of these tithing laws from Numbers 18.
“The practice of giving encourages the steward to … acknowledge that his stewardship encompasses not only the tithe …” (21)
Reply: This article is full of statements with no scriptural validation. It is “make it up as you go” hermeneutics.
“Craig Blomberg stated …” (20, 22, 35)
Reply: Craig Blomberg does NOT agree with them. In fact he was intimately involved in Dr. David Croteau’s PHD dissertation on tithing when he graduated from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, NC.
“By the time Abram appears in Genesis, the concept of giving a portion back to God as an offering of gratitude is understood and defined as ten per cent.” Gen 14:20. (23)
Reply: Hemphill and Eklund conveniently never refer to Abram and Jacob’s tithe as “holy.” “Giving” is an eternal moral law written nature and in the heart and conscience of every human. “Tithing” –giving ten per cent is not. If God had instructed Abram to give ten per cent of spoils of war, then why did He change it to only ONE per cent as a “statute” in Numbers 31? We must conclude that Abram was following a different definition and that God had not yet revealed the quantity and definition of a “holy” tithe.
“Language describing giving as ‘legalistic’ or an ‘obligation’ is not the principle theme of any biblical discussion of giving.” (23)
Reply: This is coming from those who describe tithing as a“foundational base,” “minimum standard” and “expectation.” Sounds like a “legalistic obligation” to me.
“Nowhere else in Scripture does God encourage His children to put Him to a test.” Mal 3:10 (23)
Reply: The whole law was a test (Deu 28-30). Obey all to be blessed; break one to be cursed. God does not bless murderers, thieves and adulterers who tithe. See Galatians 3:10.
“We cannot overlook the importance of the ‘whole tithe’ which settles the issue of what constitutes the tithe.” Mal 3:10 (24)
Reply: Malachi is 1000 years after Leviticus and the holy tithe is still only food from Israel. In Nehemiah 10:37-38 the people were commanded to bring the tithe to the Levitical cities where the Levites and priests met them. This is because 98% of those who needed the tithe for food lived there and not Jerusalem. (Figure 24 tribes rotating to the Temple one week at a time minus women and younger children.) Even in 2 Chronicles 31:15-19 the tithe was redistributed back to the Levitical cities. Only a small portion was kept in the Temple storehouse. It would make no sense for Levites and priests to travel to the Temple every time they needed to eat.
“Moses had instructed Israel that ‘Every tenth of the land’s produce … and every tenth animal is .. holy to the Lord.’” Lev 27:30, 32 (24)
Reply: This is the ONLY definition of a “holy” tithe which is repeated 16 times. While money was common and essential for sanctuary worship, money was never included in the tithe. Hemphill and Eklund never address this basic consistent definition and greatly err because of it.
“After Israel settled in the land they were to bring the tithe annually to the to the sanctuary and consume a portion of it “before the Lord,” leaving the remainder with the Levites who were, in turn, to share a tithe with the priests.” (24)
Reply: Herein Hemphill and Eklund hide a multitude of errors. They will not admit to the existence of three tithes because they do not want to teach a minimum beginning place of giving at 20-23%. (1) The first whole Levitical tithe was brought to the Levitical cities and a small portion of it was brought to the Temple by the Levites (Neh 10:37-38; Num 18:21-28). (2) A second festival tithe was brought and eaten in the streets of Jerusalem during three annual feasts (Deu 12:6,7; 14:23). (3) A third third-year poor tithe was kept in the cities and homes for the poor (Deu 14:28, 29: 26:12, 13).
“The storehouse clearly refers to God’s house, the place of worship for his children, and the meeting place of the local congregation.” (24)
Reply: (1) This is impossible because the church had no buildings for over 200 years after Calvary and Christianity was not legal for over 300 years. (2) Solomon, who built the temple and would have had the greatest volume of food, built no storerooms for the tithe. This is why Hezekiah was forced to do so after incorrectly telling the people to bring all the tithes to Jerusalem. The Temple was not used for congregational worship until after the exile when a synagogue was built inside it.
“Even in the matter of the tithe being dedicated to aliens, the fatherless and widows every third year, the giving was done through the priests serving in the temple.” (24)
Reply: Wrong. The third-year tithe for the poor was kept in the villages and homes and was not brought to the temple (Deu 14:28, 29: 26:12, 13). Hemphill and Eklund’s hermeneutic is to make things up as they go.
“Are we to seriously believe that God, who by this time had personally instructed His followers in all matters related to giving and to the tithe, suddenly decides the tithe is no longer important, no longer considered holy? There is no such statement in Scripture and no basis for teaching that such a declaration was uttered or intended.” (24-25)
Reply: (1) Jesus’ followers were Old Covenant Hebrews; He never instructed the Church to tithe. (2) The tithe was “holy” because: a) it was food miraculously increased by God and b) it came off His holy land. c) Some reasons for ending the holy tithe are: 1) The covenant in which it was an ordinance ended, 2) the priesthood it was legislated to support ended, 3) the Temple it was legislated to support ended, 4) the holy land and Levitical cities ended and 5) modern preaches own and inherit much land contrary to the tithing ordinance of Number 18.
“Genesis 14 recounts how Abram gave a tithe freely, willingly and worshipfully to Melchizedek.” (25)
Reply: God’s Word says none of this. We are not told WHY and HOW Abram tithed. We are only told THAT he gave a tenth of spoils of war to his local king-priest. It is even more likely (though one cannot be dogmatic about this) that Abram was obeying the well-documented law of the land and had no choice in the matter.
“The Macedonians begged to participate in the offering Paul was gathering for the impoverished saints in Jerusalem.” (2 Cor 8) (25)
Reply: There is no reason to mention this in a discussion of tithing because it demonstrates the spirit of freewill giving. The SBC says that freewill offerings are in addition to the tithe. Therefore its use by Hemphill and Eklund here is suspicious.
“When Jesus observed the love of the poor widow as she sacrificed …” (25)
Reply: Again this demonstrates the spirit of sacrificial freewill giving and should not be associated with tithing which was cold hard law and was expected whether one was joyful or not.
“We learn much later in Scripture how God has a special regard for the firstfruits of the harvest, the firstborn in families, the firstborn of flocks.” (26)
Reply: Again, this has nothing to do with tithing. Firstfruits were very small token offerings taken directly to the Temple and consumed inside it (Deu 26:1-4; Neh 10:35-37a). Firstfruits are never the same as tithes. Tithes teachers want believers to equate them and bring tithes to the church before any bills such as medicine and essentials are paid.
“In our studies we have found it fascinating that the tithe of agriculture was used in a family feast celebrating God’s provision and presence.” (Deu 14:26) (26)
Reply: The second holy feast tithe, an additional 10%, was commanded to be eaten in the streets of Jerusalem. Why is this command of the tithing law ignored today? Hemphill and Eklund’s “pick and choose” hermeneutic is very inconsistent.
“(Malachi) The result was that they were suffering under a curse. In other words they had forfeited God’s presence, provision and protection.” (26)
Reply: What is the motive of Hemphill and Eklund for writing this? Are they implying that Christians today who do not tithe are also “suffering under a curse” and have “forfeited God’s presence, provision and protection”? Are they forgetting that the law and the curse ended at Calvary? Are they replacing a New Covenant hermeneutic with an Old Covenant one?
“God assures His blessings on the tither.” (27)
Reply: The Old Covenant ended at Calvary (Heb 8:13). God is not now dealing with the Body of Christ using Old Covenant curses and blessings. God is now operating in the sphere of the New Covenant and does not bless New Covenant believers because of their obedience to or disobedience to conditional Old Covenant promises. Those blessings which Christians receive today are wholly because of compliance with ew Covenant teachings.
“What price tag can we put on the things of God? Some might say that we cannot buy the blessings of God for any price. God says we can have them for a tenth.” (27)
Reply: Christ appropriated all the blessings of God for us on Calvary. This statement by Eklund is childish. The context of Malachi ended at Calvary and has been replaced by New Covenant giving principles found in 2nd Corinthians 8 and 9 which are primarily freewill and sacrificial.
“Partners with God” by Bobby Eklund is 142 pages and only devotes 17 pages to tithing (63-79). “Making Change” by Ken Hemphill is 192 pages and only devotes 17 pages to tithing (97-113). In this book they have used 39 pages (20-44, 84-88, 126-130, 166-169) which is double the output of the other two books combined. (34 plus)
Reply: As Preissler will say in his excursis, Bible schools do not teach tithing. If they did they would be inundated with conclusions such as mine and Dr. David Croteau’s that tithing cannot be supported for the new Covenant church.
“If Abram tithed as a spontaneous response to the goodness of God, then the later codification of the tithe in the Mosaic law would reflect Abram’s response to the gracious activity of God …” (27)
Reply: No, the text must prove that Abram’s spontaneous and immediate response was either freewill or in obedience to a command from God. Neither can be demonstrated from Scripture. The Bible does say WHY Abram tithed. And his “unholy” tithe was not codified in the law as sustenance for Levites and priests. The statute of spoils of war in Numbers 31 lowered the spoils’ tithe from ten per cent to one per cent of the total.
“Abram’s response was both spontaneous and immediate.” (28)
Reply: This proves nothing. Hemphill and Eklund set up false parameters to ensure that Abram met their own parameters. Such is ignoring literal hermeneutics.
“The story seems straightforward. Abram tithed to God as an act of gratitude and worship, acknowledging God alone as the possessor of heaven and earth.” (28)
Reply: A literal hermeneutic does not yield the conclusion that “Abram tithed to God as an act of gratitude and worship.” He could have just as easily tithed to Melchizedek as an act of obedience to the law of the land. While El Elyon was a very common title for God/god “most high,” it was Melchizedek, not Abram, who made the first declaration. Abram later told the King of Sodom that Yahweh was El Elyon whom he served.
“If it can be established that Abram offered a tithe to the one true God prior to the Mosaic law, it would certainly blunt the argument that tithing is a legalism that has no significance under grace.” … “Tithing was commonly practiced long before Moses was born.” (29).
Reply: The fact that “Tithing was commonly practiced long before Moses was born” does not prove that “Abram offered a tithe to the one true God.” It only proves that pagans tithed along with their idolatry, child sacrifices and temple prostitution. The fact that something is very old and very widespread does not make such fact an eternal moral principle.
“Abram was affirming that the God who established a covenant with him is the one true God, the possessor of heaven and earth.” (30)
Reply: In Gen 14:22 Abram told the king of Sodom that the God Melchizedek only knew as El Elyon was Yahweh El Elyon.
“It would be exceedingly strange to think that Moses … would include a story which suggests that Abram offered a sacrifice to a pagan deity.”
Reply: Yes, it would, but the story says absolutely nothing about worship or a sacrifice. The inspiring Holy Spirit omitted those non-existent details conveniently added by Hemphill and Eklund.
“If one can demonstrate that Abram’s tithe to Melchizedek was a voluntary act prior to the Mosaic Law, it does establish that tithing was not simply an issue of legalistic obedience. (30)
Reply: They follow by saying “Rather it was a spontaneous act of celebration and gratitude.” They meet their own conditions by an unvalidated declaration. What kind of hermeneutic is that?
“If Abram tithed to Melchizedek, would it not follow that the Christian would offer tithes to the great high priest who is greater than Melchizedek?” (32)
Reply: As they previously said, it was not “the intention of the author of Hebrews” to teach tithing. Since Melchizedek (one outside the law) replaced Aaron (one inside the law) 7:12 says “it was necessary to change the law” which governed the Aaronic priesthood and allowed it to receive tithes. Were the tithes changed from Aaron to Melchizedek? No. 7:18 says that “the commandment going before” (to take tithes of the people according to the law; 7:5) was “disannulled, abolished) –not shifted to gospel workers.
“The entire context (of Jacob) describes a subdued man who was overwhelmed with the promises of God… In response … Jacob responded with a promise to give God a tenth …” (33)
Reply: While Hemphill and Eklund did not bother researching, Croteau did and proved that Jacob’s demeanor was that of fear in 28:17 and not gratitude. Compare 28:17 with the same Hebrew word in 31:31 and 32:7, 11. Jacob the supplanter and schemer responded out of fear with his famous conditional “if” telling God what to do.
“We have not dealt extensively with the tithe in the Old Testament since there is little disagreement that the principle of tithing is taught there.” (33)
Reply: The truth is precisely the opposite. All tithe discussions eventually end up back with Abram and Genesis 14. the “principle” of “giving ten per cent” was manifested in pagan worship and giving tithes to pagan idols; it was not a holy tithe at all. The “principle” was later greatly enhanced through special revelation when God limited the “holy” tithe to food from inside Israel which He had miraculously increased. This is always the final battleground and Hemphill and Eklund very well know it.
“(Tithing) is a loving and worshipful response to the Creator who owns and provides everything we need and have.” (34)
Reply: Sounds good but it is not biblical. Wile God owned everything in the OT (Ps 24:1), He only accepted “holy” tithes from inside His holy land.
“We found it perplexing that someone who had experienced grace made available through the cross would desire to do less than someone under the Mosaic law. Such, to us, was a disgrace to grace.” (34) (20)
Reply: This is their strongest argument and is inserted and repeated often. Again, it is based on the false assumption that every Hebrew was required to tithe and that every Hebrew began giving at ten per cent. In reality only Hebrews who lived inside Israel and were food producers could qualify as tithers.
“[Quotes Mt 5:17-19] “The law and the prophets is a shorthand way of referring to the entire Old Testament.” (34-35)
Reply: At last something correct to agree upon. The “law” was an unbreakable whole. Either one must keep all of it or reject and replace all of it.
“The teachings of the prophets were fulfilled when what they predicted actually happened. Thus the entire Old Testament (Law and Prophets) pointed forward to what Jesus has now brought into being through his life and teaching.” (quoted Blomberg) (35)
Reply: This logic confuses me because many of the Prophets’ predictions are yet future. I tend to interpret this as the “righteousness of the law” as indicated in Mt 5:20 although much is still open to speculation and this seems to be the direction of Hemphill and Eklund on page 36.
“In each instance cites (Mt 5:20-48) Jesus’ ethical teaching was more demanding than the Old Testament law.” (36)(20)(34)
Reply: Behind this discussion is another effort to prove their main point that NT giving standards are higher than OT giving standards. While this is true, once again tithing was not a beginning standard for Hebrews who were not food producers and who lived outside Israel. Their many efforts fail because they will not address the basic definition of the holy tithe.
“Let your mind’s eye picture one of the haughty Pharisees on his knees counting out his herbs.” Mt 23:23 (39)
Reply: When Jesus said “Ye ought not to have left the other undone,” He was commanding His followers to do the same thing because the scribes and Pharisees “sit in Moses seat” as the legitimate interpreters of the law (23:2-3). Yet I know of no church today which obeys Jesus’ direct command. This is “pick and choose” hermeneutics at its best.
“They had been guilty of picking and choosing and thus ignoring these greater issues of inner truth.” (39)
Reply: Hemphill and Eklund do the same thing when they use Matthew 23:23 as a hammer to teach Christian tithing. They do not obey Jesus’ direct command.
“We must however be careful to note that Jesus did not condemn them for the ‘legalism’ of tithing. On the contrary He indicated that ‘These things should have been done without neglecting the others.’ Jesus did not suggest that the Old Testament principle of the tithe should be neglected but rater that it should issue from the heart from whence also should flow justice, mercy and faith.” (39)
Reply: As a Jew Himself living under the full jurisdiction of the Law, Jesus must teach tithing or else be a sinner for opposing the law. While Hemphill and Eklund completely ignore this fact they also disobey Jesus’ direct command by not teaching tithes of garden herbs.
“We can’t ignore the obvious implication Jesus believed that they should have understood and practiced tithing.” (39)
Reply: I can’t understand how Hemphill and Eklund cannot understand that Jesus’ Jewish disciples did not need instruction in tithes because they had heard this since Moses’ time. He was not speaking to the Church. He was yielding to the scribes and Pharisees as the present occupants of Moses’ seat and telling His disciples to tithe garden herbs (23:2-3).
“While tithing is a good place for us to begin the teaching of stewardship, it is inadequate in light of the gift of God’s grace in His son … Why would anyone think that living under grace should grant us permission to do less than man was required to do under the law.” (40)(20)(34)(36)
Reply: Another repetition and the same reply again. (1) Tithing was only the minimum good place to start under the law for food producers who lived inside Israel and (2) if you are going to teach this, then teach 20-23% tithing as the law required for food producers.
“Having been nurtured in Judaism, Paul would have practiced tithing according to Old Testament prescription.” (41)
Reply: Yes. He would have taught that true holy biblical tithes were always only food from inside God’s holy land of Israel. He would have taught Gentiles that tithes could not come from Gentiles or from outside Israel. And he would have reminded the Gentiles of the letter from the Jerusalem church in Acts 15 which did not impose the law on Gentiles.
“[Note that Hemphill and Eklund did not mention 1st Corinthians 9.]”
“Let’s embrace the idea that the tithe is a good biblical place for beginning …” (44)(20, 34, 36, 40)
Reply: One final repetition of their main point with no supporting texts.
“David Croteau’s chapter … reveals a great reluctance to accept tithing as a biblical mandate despite Jesus’ affirmation of the practice in Mt 23:23.” (84)
Reply: Croteau used consistent literal interpretation while you reflect no consistent hermeneutic other than your own opinion and church Position Paper. Jesus’ discussion in Mt 23:23 was that of “matters of the law.” He could not have opposed tithing while under the law without sinning.
“These [NT] convicting principles are left to the reader’s imagination.” (84)
Reply: The “reader’s imagination” is found on pages 81-83 which even include 2 plain charts to imagine are in the book.
“As a whole this view fails to take into account God’s approach in teaching mankind, not just the Israelites …” (84)
Reply: “Holy” biblical tithes were never for all mankind. They could only come from inside God’s holy land of Israel and only from His holy covenant people.
“The Garden of Eden is the beginning place.” (84)
Reply: Of giving? Yes. Of tithing? No. Reserving one tree out of possibly thousands does not constitute tithing –plus they did not offer it to God.
“Failure to see this connection [Eden] results, in our opinion, to the excessive attention to mechanics (some might say legalism) of giving rather than the reasons behind giving in general and the tithe in particular.” (84-85)
Reply: I credit Croteau’s conclusions to his tendency to literally interpret God’s Word. I call your attempts to impose Old Covenant giving principles on the Church “legalism.”
“There is no basis at all to the suppositions and conclusions that Abram tithed only from spoils and not his possessions or that his giving originated in surrounding cultures.” (86)
Reply: Hebrews 7:4 is very strong reason for the first statement and common sense is good reason for the second. Being born and raised in a culture should mean that you often reflect that culture.
“The fact that other cultures practiced some form of tithing, and we certainly do not dispute this, does not dictate the reasons behind Abraham’s voluntary spontaneous tithe.” (86)
Reply: (1) The culture one is born and raised in most definitely should be strongly considered. And (2) God’s Word does not say that Abram’s tithe was “voluntary.”
“As to the unsupported position that “storehouse” in Mal 3:10 refers specifically (and only to) a special room in the temple designated to hold tithes and offerings, the principle is the same.” (87)
Reply: Compare Neh 13:5 with 1 Kings 6:6 for that room. What principle? What texts prove your argument? How can you condemn a literal interpretation when the church had no physical buildings for over 200 years after Calvary?
“In our opinion the intent (of Lev 27) was to describe Judaism as significantly different from other cultures.” (87)
Reply: O.K. but the text gives a “significantly different” dominion of “holy” tithes which you never discuss and which destroys most of your arguments.
“(Concerning Matthew 23:23, Croteau said that) Jesus does not prohibit tithing but he condemns the wrong attitude and motive of those who were tithing under the old covenant. Precisely. … but when Croteau states … the command to tithe was for the scribes and Pharisees who were still under the old covenant,” this statement begs the question ‘When is the requirement under grace ever less than the requirement under the Mosaiclaw?’” (87)(20, 34, 36, 40, 44)
Reply: Croteau was pointing out that Jesus had to teach tithing while still under the law and that he was not teaching His disciples to tithe to Himself. Again we can reply to the oft-repeated favorite line: (1) it is based on the false assumption that everybody in the law began at ten per cent when it only applied to food producers living inside Israel and (2) the minimum should be taught as 20-23 per cent.
“Croteau does his best work in providing a proper motivation for giving.” (88)
Reply: You said on page 84 “These [NT] convicting principles are left to the reader’s imagination.”
“While we must agree to disagree on the ongoing requirement of a tithe (ten per cent) as the beginning point for obedient giving … The natural consequence of loving God is not “to be free from a ten per cent model” but to be free to give generously under the leadership of His Spirit.” (88)
(20, 34, 36, 40, 44, 87)
Reply: This final jab was expected. Now we have heard it so often that it has been ingrained in our minds as truth. Not!
The paradigm of tithing has been around for over 100 years and has failed miserably. It is time for post-Calvary Spirit-blessed New Covenant giving principles: freewill, generous, sacrificial, joyful, not by commandment (or percentage) and motivated by love for God and others. That means more sermons on evangelism and soul-winning and less on tithing. Watch the churches grow – again.
Ken Hemphill and Bobby Eklund
by Russell Earl Kelly
April 22, 2011
“Position Statement: We assert that tithing is the foundational base from which believers can and must be challenged to become grace-givers.” (20)
Reply: This come from the SBC Position Paper which is the required position for all who receive paychecks from the Convention. All SBC members are expected to begin their level of giving at ten per cent.
Although this attempted imposition has been in the SBC since 1895 and, although the SBC Faith and Message did not even insert tithing texts into its stewardship statement until 1963, and although the Faith still does not teach tithing per se, it is the background expectation for all employees.
“We further agree that … the tithe was established prior to the giving of the Mosaic Law.” (20)
Reply: It is without dispute that all nations surrounding Abram practiced tithing to pagan gods. Common sense teaches that this was probably the source of Abram’s and Jacob’s knowledge about tithing. However, when the law arrived, God gave Moses special divine revelation that the “holy” tithe could only come from food within God’s holy land of Israel. Hemphill and Eklund totally ignore this biblical truth and it destroys their entire argument.
“We believe that Jesus assumed the tithe would be practiced by his followers.” (20)
Reply: The statement makes no sense before Calvary. Until Matthew 28:19-20 Jesus’ mission was to preach to fellow Hebrews who had already possessed and practiced tithing since Moses. No new teaching was needed as long as the law was still in full force. While living under the jurisdiction of the Law, Jesus MUST teach the whole law, including tithing, or be a sinner. He could not and did not teach His Jewish disciples to tithe to himself. And he could not and did not teach His Gentile disciples to tithe at all because it would not have been accepted.
“We believe that Paul taught and practiced biblical giving. … These challenges to give beyond the tithe are based on the assumption that a believer under grace would never do less than those who had lived under the Mosaic Law.” (20)
Reply: Again, sixteen texts validate the fact that true biblical holy tithes were always only food from inside God’s holy land. Tithes belonged to the Levites and priests –not to gospel workers. As a Pharisee Paul would certainly know that his trade of tentmaker did not qualify him as a tither, especially from defiled pagan land. Paul would never assume that one could pay a holy tithe from outside God’s holy land –especiall to himself. Even if he did, three tithes would require 20-23% be paid.
“His requirements for His children.” (p21)
Reply: The most fundamental hermeneutic (“To whom was it written? Was it written to me?”) is ignored. Hemphill and Eklund do not “rightly divide the word of truth.” While God clearly said in Exodus 19:5-6 that the Old Covenant law was given specifically to national Israel, they sporadically apply whatever parts of it they like to the Church without any post-Calvary textual evidence.
“The very fact that we have a tithe to bring indicates that God has given material blessings.” (21)
Reply: God said the tithe only belonged to Levites and priests. “We” the (mostly) Gentile church do NOT have a “tithe.” The tithe was always only FOOD from inside God’s holy land specifically legislated to support the Levites and priests who ministered in the sanctuary and had no land ownership rights. The Old Covenant is gone; the Levites are gone; ministers own much property; and the priests and temple now reside within every believer. Hemphill and Eklund do not address any of these tithing laws from Numbers 18.
“The practice of giving encourages the steward to … acknowledge that his stewardship encompasses not only the tithe …” (21)
Reply: This article is full of statements with no scriptural validation. It is “make it up as you go” hermeneutics.
“Craig Blomberg stated …” (20, 22, 35)
Reply: Craig Blomberg does NOT agree with them. In fact he was intimately involved in Dr. David Croteau’s PHD dissertation on tithing when he graduated from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, NC.
“By the time Abram appears in Genesis, the concept of giving a portion back to God as an offering of gratitude is understood and defined as ten per cent.” Gen 14:20. (23)
Reply: Hemphill and Eklund conveniently never refer to Abram and Jacob’s tithe as “holy.” “Giving” is an eternal moral law written nature and in the heart and conscience of every human. “Tithing” –giving ten per cent is not. If God had instructed Abram to give ten per cent of spoils of war, then why did He change it to only ONE per cent as a “statute” in Numbers 31? We must conclude that Abram was following a different definition and that God had not yet revealed the quantity and definition of a “holy” tithe.
“Language describing giving as ‘legalistic’ or an ‘obligation’ is not the principle theme of any biblical discussion of giving.” (23)
Reply: This is coming from those who describe tithing as a“foundational base,” “minimum standard” and “expectation.” Sounds like a “legalistic obligation” to me.
“Nowhere else in Scripture does God encourage His children to put Him to a test.” Mal 3:10 (23)
Reply: The whole law was a test (Deu 28-30). Obey all to be blessed; break one to be cursed. God does not bless murderers, thieves and adulterers who tithe. See Galatians 3:10.
“We cannot overlook the importance of the ‘whole tithe’ which settles the issue of what constitutes the tithe.” Mal 3:10 (24)
Reply: Malachi is 1000 years after Leviticus and the holy tithe is still only food from Israel. In Nehemiah 10:37-38 the people were commanded to bring the tithe to the Levitical cities where the Levites and priests met them. This is because 98% of those who needed the tithe for food lived there and not Jerusalem. (Figure 24 tribes rotating to the Temple one week at a time minus women and younger children.) Even in 2 Chronicles 31:15-19 the tithe was redistributed back to the Levitical cities. Only a small portion was kept in the Temple storehouse. It would make no sense for Levites and priests to travel to the Temple every time they needed to eat.
“Moses had instructed Israel that ‘Every tenth of the land’s produce … and every tenth animal is .. holy to the Lord.’” Lev 27:30, 32 (24)
Reply: This is the ONLY definition of a “holy” tithe which is repeated 16 times. While money was common and essential for sanctuary worship, money was never included in the tithe. Hemphill and Eklund never address this basic consistent definition and greatly err because of it.
“After Israel settled in the land they were to bring the tithe annually to the to the sanctuary and consume a portion of it “before the Lord,” leaving the remainder with the Levites who were, in turn, to share a tithe with the priests.” (24)
Reply: Herein Hemphill and Eklund hide a multitude of errors. They will not admit to the existence of three tithes because they do not want to teach a minimum beginning place of giving at 20-23%. (1) The first whole Levitical tithe was brought to the Levitical cities and a small portion of it was brought to the Temple by the Levites (Neh 10:37-38; Num 18:21-28). (2) A second festival tithe was brought and eaten in the streets of Jerusalem during three annual feasts (Deu 12:6,7; 14:23). (3) A third third-year poor tithe was kept in the cities and homes for the poor (Deu 14:28, 29: 26:12, 13).
“The storehouse clearly refers to God’s house, the place of worship for his children, and the meeting place of the local congregation.” (24)
Reply: (1) This is impossible because the church had no buildings for over 200 years after Calvary and Christianity was not legal for over 300 years. (2) Solomon, who built the temple and would have had the greatest volume of food, built no storerooms for the tithe. This is why Hezekiah was forced to do so after incorrectly telling the people to bring all the tithes to Jerusalem. The Temple was not used for congregational worship until after the exile when a synagogue was built inside it.
“Even in the matter of the tithe being dedicated to aliens, the fatherless and widows every third year, the giving was done through the priests serving in the temple.” (24)
Reply: Wrong. The third-year tithe for the poor was kept in the villages and homes and was not brought to the temple (Deu 14:28, 29: 26:12, 13). Hemphill and Eklund’s hermeneutic is to make things up as they go.
“Are we to seriously believe that God, who by this time had personally instructed His followers in all matters related to giving and to the tithe, suddenly decides the tithe is no longer important, no longer considered holy? There is no such statement in Scripture and no basis for teaching that such a declaration was uttered or intended.” (24-25)
Reply: (1) Jesus’ followers were Old Covenant Hebrews; He never instructed the Church to tithe. (2) The tithe was “holy” because: a) it was food miraculously increased by God and b) it came off His holy land. c) Some reasons for ending the holy tithe are: 1) The covenant in which it was an ordinance ended, 2) the priesthood it was legislated to support ended, 3) the Temple it was legislated to support ended, 4) the holy land and Levitical cities ended and 5) modern preaches own and inherit much land contrary to the tithing ordinance of Number 18.
“Genesis 14 recounts how Abram gave a tithe freely, willingly and worshipfully to Melchizedek.” (25)
Reply: God’s Word says none of this. We are not told WHY and HOW Abram tithed. We are only told THAT he gave a tenth of spoils of war to his local king-priest. It is even more likely (though one cannot be dogmatic about this) that Abram was obeying the well-documented law of the land and had no choice in the matter.
“The Macedonians begged to participate in the offering Paul was gathering for the impoverished saints in Jerusalem.” (2 Cor 8) (25)
Reply: There is no reason to mention this in a discussion of tithing because it demonstrates the spirit of freewill giving. The SBC says that freewill offerings are in addition to the tithe. Therefore its use by Hemphill and Eklund here is suspicious.
“When Jesus observed the love of the poor widow as she sacrificed …” (25)
Reply: Again this demonstrates the spirit of sacrificial freewill giving and should not be associated with tithing which was cold hard law and was expected whether one was joyful or not.
“We learn much later in Scripture how God has a special regard for the firstfruits of the harvest, the firstborn in families, the firstborn of flocks.” (26)
Reply: Again, this has nothing to do with tithing. Firstfruits were very small token offerings taken directly to the Temple and consumed inside it (Deu 26:1-4; Neh 10:35-37a). Firstfruits are never the same as tithes. Tithes teachers want believers to equate them and bring tithes to the church before any bills such as medicine and essentials are paid.
“In our studies we have found it fascinating that the tithe of agriculture was used in a family feast celebrating God’s provision and presence.” (Deu 14:26) (26)
Reply: The second holy feast tithe, an additional 10%, was commanded to be eaten in the streets of Jerusalem. Why is this command of the tithing law ignored today? Hemphill and Eklund’s “pick and choose” hermeneutic is very inconsistent.
“(Malachi) The result was that they were suffering under a curse. In other words they had forfeited God’s presence, provision and protection.” (26)
Reply: What is the motive of Hemphill and Eklund for writing this? Are they implying that Christians today who do not tithe are also “suffering under a curse” and have “forfeited God’s presence, provision and protection”? Are they forgetting that the law and the curse ended at Calvary? Are they replacing a New Covenant hermeneutic with an Old Covenant one?
“God assures His blessings on the tither.” (27)
Reply: The Old Covenant ended at Calvary (Heb 8:13). God is not now dealing with the Body of Christ using Old Covenant curses and blessings. God is now operating in the sphere of the New Covenant and does not bless New Covenant believers because of their obedience to or disobedience to conditional Old Covenant promises. Those blessings which Christians receive today are wholly because of compliance with ew Covenant teachings.
“What price tag can we put on the things of God? Some might say that we cannot buy the blessings of God for any price. God says we can have them for a tenth.” (27)
Reply: Christ appropriated all the blessings of God for us on Calvary. This statement by Eklund is childish. The context of Malachi ended at Calvary and has been replaced by New Covenant giving principles found in 2nd Corinthians 8 and 9 which are primarily freewill and sacrificial.
“Partners with God” by Bobby Eklund is 142 pages and only devotes 17 pages to tithing (63-79). “Making Change” by Ken Hemphill is 192 pages and only devotes 17 pages to tithing (97-113). In this book they have used 39 pages (20-44, 84-88, 126-130, 166-169) which is double the output of the other two books combined. (34 plus)
Reply: As Preissler will say in his excursis, Bible schools do not teach tithing. If they did they would be inundated with conclusions such as mine and Dr. David Croteau’s that tithing cannot be supported for the new Covenant church.
“If Abram tithed as a spontaneous response to the goodness of God, then the later codification of the tithe in the Mosaic law would reflect Abram’s response to the gracious activity of God …” (27)
Reply: No, the text must prove that Abram’s spontaneous and immediate response was either freewill or in obedience to a command from God. Neither can be demonstrated from Scripture. The Bible does say WHY Abram tithed. And his “unholy” tithe was not codified in the law as sustenance for Levites and priests. The statute of spoils of war in Numbers 31 lowered the spoils’ tithe from ten per cent to one per cent of the total.
“Abram’s response was both spontaneous and immediate.” (28)
Reply: This proves nothing. Hemphill and Eklund set up false parameters to ensure that Abram met their own parameters. Such is ignoring literal hermeneutics.
“The story seems straightforward. Abram tithed to God as an act of gratitude and worship, acknowledging God alone as the possessor of heaven and earth.” (28)
Reply: A literal hermeneutic does not yield the conclusion that “Abram tithed to God as an act of gratitude and worship.” He could have just as easily tithed to Melchizedek as an act of obedience to the law of the land. While El Elyon was a very common title for God/god “most high,” it was Melchizedek, not Abram, who made the first declaration. Abram later told the King of Sodom that Yahweh was El Elyon whom he served.
“If it can be established that Abram offered a tithe to the one true God prior to the Mosaic law, it would certainly blunt the argument that tithing is a legalism that has no significance under grace.” … “Tithing was commonly practiced long before Moses was born.” (29).
Reply: The fact that “Tithing was commonly practiced long before Moses was born” does not prove that “Abram offered a tithe to the one true God.” It only proves that pagans tithed along with their idolatry, child sacrifices and temple prostitution. The fact that something is very old and very widespread does not make such fact an eternal moral principle.
“Abram was affirming that the God who established a covenant with him is the one true God, the possessor of heaven and earth.” (30)
Reply: In Gen 14:22 Abram told the king of Sodom that the God Melchizedek only knew as El Elyon was Yahweh El Elyon.
“It would be exceedingly strange to think that Moses … would include a story which suggests that Abram offered a sacrifice to a pagan deity.”
Reply: Yes, it would, but the story says absolutely nothing about worship or a sacrifice. The inspiring Holy Spirit omitted those non-existent details conveniently added by Hemphill and Eklund.
“If one can demonstrate that Abram’s tithe to Melchizedek was a voluntary act prior to the Mosaic Law, it does establish that tithing was not simply an issue of legalistic obedience. (30)
Reply: They follow by saying “Rather it was a spontaneous act of celebration and gratitude.” They meet their own conditions by an unvalidated declaration. What kind of hermeneutic is that?
“If Abram tithed to Melchizedek, would it not follow that the Christian would offer tithes to the great high priest who is greater than Melchizedek?” (32)
Reply: As they previously said, it was not “the intention of the author of Hebrews” to teach tithing. Since Melchizedek (one outside the law) replaced Aaron (one inside the law) 7:12 says “it was necessary to change the law” which governed the Aaronic priesthood and allowed it to receive tithes. Were the tithes changed from Aaron to Melchizedek? No. 7:18 says that “the commandment going before” (to take tithes of the people according to the law; 7:5) was “disannulled, abolished) –not shifted to gospel workers.
“The entire context (of Jacob) describes a subdued man who was overwhelmed with the promises of God… In response … Jacob responded with a promise to give God a tenth …” (33)
Reply: While Hemphill and Eklund did not bother researching, Croteau did and proved that Jacob’s demeanor was that of fear in 28:17 and not gratitude. Compare 28:17 with the same Hebrew word in 31:31 and 32:7, 11. Jacob the supplanter and schemer responded out of fear with his famous conditional “if” telling God what to do.
“We have not dealt extensively with the tithe in the Old Testament since there is little disagreement that the principle of tithing is taught there.” (33)
Reply: The truth is precisely the opposite. All tithe discussions eventually end up back with Abram and Genesis 14. the “principle” of “giving ten per cent” was manifested in pagan worship and giving tithes to pagan idols; it was not a holy tithe at all. The “principle” was later greatly enhanced through special revelation when God limited the “holy” tithe to food from inside Israel which He had miraculously increased. This is always the final battleground and Hemphill and Eklund very well know it.
“(Tithing) is a loving and worshipful response to the Creator who owns and provides everything we need and have.” (34)
Reply: Sounds good but it is not biblical. Wile God owned everything in the OT (Ps 24:1), He only accepted “holy” tithes from inside His holy land.
“We found it perplexing that someone who had experienced grace made available through the cross would desire to do less than someone under the Mosaic law. Such, to us, was a disgrace to grace.” (34) (20)
Reply: This is their strongest argument and is inserted and repeated often. Again, it is based on the false assumption that every Hebrew was required to tithe and that every Hebrew began giving at ten per cent. In reality only Hebrews who lived inside Israel and were food producers could qualify as tithers.
“[Quotes Mt 5:17-19] “The law and the prophets is a shorthand way of referring to the entire Old Testament.” (34-35)
Reply: At last something correct to agree upon. The “law” was an unbreakable whole. Either one must keep all of it or reject and replace all of it.
“The teachings of the prophets were fulfilled when what they predicted actually happened. Thus the entire Old Testament (Law and Prophets) pointed forward to what Jesus has now brought into being through his life and teaching.” (quoted Blomberg) (35)
Reply: This logic confuses me because many of the Prophets’ predictions are yet future. I tend to interpret this as the “righteousness of the law” as indicated in Mt 5:20 although much is still open to speculation and this seems to be the direction of Hemphill and Eklund on page 36.
“In each instance cites (Mt 5:20-48) Jesus’ ethical teaching was more demanding than the Old Testament law.” (36)(20)(34)
Reply: Behind this discussion is another effort to prove their main point that NT giving standards are higher than OT giving standards. While this is true, once again tithing was not a beginning standard for Hebrews who were not food producers and who lived outside Israel. Their many efforts fail because they will not address the basic definition of the holy tithe.
“Let your mind’s eye picture one of the haughty Pharisees on his knees counting out his herbs.” Mt 23:23 (39)
Reply: When Jesus said “Ye ought not to have left the other undone,” He was commanding His followers to do the same thing because the scribes and Pharisees “sit in Moses seat” as the legitimate interpreters of the law (23:2-3). Yet I know of no church today which obeys Jesus’ direct command. This is “pick and choose” hermeneutics at its best.
“They had been guilty of picking and choosing and thus ignoring these greater issues of inner truth.” (39)
Reply: Hemphill and Eklund do the same thing when they use Matthew 23:23 as a hammer to teach Christian tithing. They do not obey Jesus’ direct command.
“We must however be careful to note that Jesus did not condemn them for the ‘legalism’ of tithing. On the contrary He indicated that ‘These things should have been done without neglecting the others.’ Jesus did not suggest that the Old Testament principle of the tithe should be neglected but rater that it should issue from the heart from whence also should flow justice, mercy and faith.” (39)
Reply: As a Jew Himself living under the full jurisdiction of the Law, Jesus must teach tithing or else be a sinner for opposing the law. While Hemphill and Eklund completely ignore this fact they also disobey Jesus’ direct command by not teaching tithes of garden herbs.
“We can’t ignore the obvious implication Jesus believed that they should have understood and practiced tithing.” (39)
Reply: I can’t understand how Hemphill and Eklund cannot understand that Jesus’ Jewish disciples did not need instruction in tithes because they had heard this since Moses’ time. He was not speaking to the Church. He was yielding to the scribes and Pharisees as the present occupants of Moses’ seat and telling His disciples to tithe garden herbs (23:2-3).
“While tithing is a good place for us to begin the teaching of stewardship, it is inadequate in light of the gift of God’s grace in His son … Why would anyone think that living under grace should grant us permission to do less than man was required to do under the law.” (40)(20)(34)(36)
Reply: Another repetition and the same reply again. (1) Tithing was only the minimum good place to start under the law for food producers who lived inside Israel and (2) if you are going to teach this, then teach 20-23% tithing as the law required for food producers.
“Having been nurtured in Judaism, Paul would have practiced tithing according to Old Testament prescription.” (41)
Reply: Yes. He would have taught that true holy biblical tithes were always only food from inside God’s holy land of Israel. He would have taught Gentiles that tithes could not come from Gentiles or from outside Israel. And he would have reminded the Gentiles of the letter from the Jerusalem church in Acts 15 which did not impose the law on Gentiles.
“[Note that Hemphill and Eklund did not mention 1st Corinthians 9.]”
“Let’s embrace the idea that the tithe is a good biblical place for beginning …” (44)(20, 34, 36, 40)
Reply: One final repetition of their main point with no supporting texts.
“David Croteau’s chapter … reveals a great reluctance to accept tithing as a biblical mandate despite Jesus’ affirmation of the practice in Mt 23:23.” (84)
Reply: Croteau used consistent literal interpretation while you reflect no consistent hermeneutic other than your own opinion and church Position Paper. Jesus’ discussion in Mt 23:23 was that of “matters of the law.” He could not have opposed tithing while under the law without sinning.
“These [NT] convicting principles are left to the reader’s imagination.” (84)
Reply: The “reader’s imagination” is found on pages 81-83 which even include 2 plain charts to imagine are in the book.
“As a whole this view fails to take into account God’s approach in teaching mankind, not just the Israelites …” (84)
Reply: “Holy” biblical tithes were never for all mankind. They could only come from inside God’s holy land of Israel and only from His holy covenant people.
“The Garden of Eden is the beginning place.” (84)
Reply: Of giving? Yes. Of tithing? No. Reserving one tree out of possibly thousands does not constitute tithing –plus they did not offer it to God.
“Failure to see this connection [Eden] results, in our opinion, to the excessive attention to mechanics (some might say legalism) of giving rather than the reasons behind giving in general and the tithe in particular.” (84-85)
Reply: I credit Croteau’s conclusions to his tendency to literally interpret God’s Word. I call your attempts to impose Old Covenant giving principles on the Church “legalism.”
“There is no basis at all to the suppositions and conclusions that Abram tithed only from spoils and not his possessions or that his giving originated in surrounding cultures.” (86)
Reply: Hebrews 7:4 is very strong reason for the first statement and common sense is good reason for the second. Being born and raised in a culture should mean that you often reflect that culture.
“The fact that other cultures practiced some form of tithing, and we certainly do not dispute this, does not dictate the reasons behind Abraham’s voluntary spontaneous tithe.” (86)
Reply: (1) The culture one is born and raised in most definitely should be strongly considered. And (2) God’s Word does not say that Abram’s tithe was “voluntary.”
“As to the unsupported position that “storehouse” in Mal 3:10 refers specifically (and only to) a special room in the temple designated to hold tithes and offerings, the principle is the same.” (87)
Reply: Compare Neh 13:5 with 1 Kings 6:6 for that room. What principle? What texts prove your argument? How can you condemn a literal interpretation when the church had no physical buildings for over 200 years after Calvary?
“In our opinion the intent (of Lev 27) was to describe Judaism as significantly different from other cultures.” (87)
Reply: O.K. but the text gives a “significantly different” dominion of “holy” tithes which you never discuss and which destroys most of your arguments.
“(Concerning Matthew 23:23, Croteau said that) Jesus does not prohibit tithing but he condemns the wrong attitude and motive of those who were tithing under the old covenant. Precisely. … but when Croteau states … the command to tithe was for the scribes and Pharisees who were still under the old covenant,” this statement begs the question ‘When is the requirement under grace ever less than the requirement under the Mosaiclaw?’” (87)(20, 34, 36, 40, 44)
Reply: Croteau was pointing out that Jesus had to teach tithing while still under the law and that he was not teaching His disciples to tithe to Himself. Again we can reply to the oft-repeated favorite line: (1) it is based on the false assumption that everybody in the law began at ten per cent when it only applied to food producers living inside Israel and (2) the minimum should be taught as 20-23 per cent.
“Croteau does his best work in providing a proper motivation for giving.” (88)
Reply: You said on page 84 “These [NT] convicting principles are left to the reader’s imagination.”
“While we must agree to disagree on the ongoing requirement of a tithe (ten per cent) as the beginning point for obedient giving … The natural consequence of loving God is not “to be free from a ten per cent model” but to be free to give generously under the leadership of His Spirit.” (88)
(20, 34, 36, 40, 44, 87)
Reply: This final jab was expected. Now we have heard it so often that it has been ingrained in our minds as truth. Not!
The paradigm of tithing has been around for over 100 years and has failed miserably. It is time for post-Calvary Spirit-blessed New Covenant giving principles: freewill, generous, sacrificial, joyful, not by commandment (or percentage) and motivated by love for God and others. That means more sermons on evangelism and soul-winning and less on tithing. Watch the churches grow – again.
Saturday, April 09, 2011
Grace Giving is Now the Majority Viewpoint
Survey: Majority of evangelical leaders say tithing not required
By Electa Draper
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_17784132
The Denver Post
Posted: 04/06/2011 11:40:06 AM MDTUpdated: 04/06/2011 11:48:30 AM MDT
Most evangelical leaders encourage their church members to tithe, yet most don't believe the Bible requires it of Christians, according to survey results released today.
Tithing, giving at least 10 percent of one's income to church, was the subject of the monthly poll of directors of the National Association of Evangelicals, which includes leaders of churches, denominations, missions, universities and publishing houses.
The Evangelical Leaders Survey found 58 percent believe the Bible doesn't require tithing, which means giving at least 10 percent of one's income to their church. And 42 percent do think tithing is required.
However, 95 percent of those included in the February poll indicated they give at least 10 percent.
"The Old Testament called for multiple tithes, sort of combining government taxes with religious stewardship. Many churches later adopted 10 percent as the standard," said NAE President Leith Anderson.
"Since there is such a strong evangelical tradition of tithing, I was a little surprised that a majority of our evangelical leaders say the tithe system of the Old Testament does not carry over to the New Testament or to us."
It could be that the people in the pews agree. Empty Tomb Inc. recently reported that evangelicals give churches about 4 percent of their income and Christians overall donate only 2.43 percent.
The NAE leaders stressed that their views on the Bible don't release Christians from giving.
"Anything less than 10 percent seems like an ungenerous response to God," said David Neff, editor-in-chief of the magazine "Christianity Today."
While tithing isn't required, said Alan Robinson of the Brethren in Christ Church, the Old Testament model should lead New Testament Christians to "live lives of sacrificial generosity."
Electa Draper: 303-954-1276 or edraper@denverpost.com
By Electa Draper
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_17784132
The Denver Post
Posted: 04/06/2011 11:40:06 AM MDTUpdated: 04/06/2011 11:48:30 AM MDT
Most evangelical leaders encourage their church members to tithe, yet most don't believe the Bible requires it of Christians, according to survey results released today.
Tithing, giving at least 10 percent of one's income to church, was the subject of the monthly poll of directors of the National Association of Evangelicals, which includes leaders of churches, denominations, missions, universities and publishing houses.
The Evangelical Leaders Survey found 58 percent believe the Bible doesn't require tithing, which means giving at least 10 percent of one's income to their church. And 42 percent do think tithing is required.
However, 95 percent of those included in the February poll indicated they give at least 10 percent.
"The Old Testament called for multiple tithes, sort of combining government taxes with religious stewardship. Many churches later adopted 10 percent as the standard," said NAE President Leith Anderson.
"Since there is such a strong evangelical tradition of tithing, I was a little surprised that a majority of our evangelical leaders say the tithe system of the Old Testament does not carry over to the New Testament or to us."
It could be that the people in the pews agree. Empty Tomb Inc. recently reported that evangelicals give churches about 4 percent of their income and Christians overall donate only 2.43 percent.
The NAE leaders stressed that their views on the Bible don't release Christians from giving.
"Anything less than 10 percent seems like an ungenerous response to God," said David Neff, editor-in-chief of the magazine "Christianity Today."
While tithing isn't required, said Alan Robinson of the Brethren in Christ Church, the Old Testament model should lead New Testament Christians to "live lives of sacrificial generosity."
Electa Draper: 303-954-1276 or edraper@denverpost.com
Friday, April 08, 2011
Second Reply to Pastor J D Greear
Greear: Where I see you primarily in error is your complete divorcing of the law from the Christian life.
Kelly: You have no right to say this because you will not disclose what hermeneutic you use to bring the Old Covenant Law over into the New Covenant. Again, the consistent dispensational hermeneutic allows us to use that part of the law which is repeated after Calvary to the church in terms of the New Covenant. That, my friend, has the blessings of the Holy Spirit. You, on the other hand, struggle with the “no glory” concept of 2 Cor 3:10 without a consistent hermeneutic.
Greear: The law is no longer binding over us
Kelly: It never was binding on us Gentiles. This shows a fundamental misunderstand of the Law.
Greear: … but it is still a helpful tutor to understand who God is and how we work in the world.
Kelly: I don’t deny that, but neither do I send my wife away for a week every month as the law requires.
Greear: I think yours reflects an overly dispensational approach to the Bible which too neatly brackets Old and New Testament.
Kelly: Without a consistent hermeneutic, you the pastor becomes the ultimate god who decides what part of the law can be compelled upon his congregation and that causes mass confusion among Baptists.
Greear: I also think that how we see what our attitude toward generosity is to be when we’re in the midst of hardship is different.
Kelly: Amen. First Timothy 5:8 must not be in your Bible and neither is Acts 20:35.
Greear: I see that, in some ways, almost everybody that I talk with is in some kind of financial hardship, and I would never encourage somebody to stop being generous when they feel like things are tight.
Kelly: Now you are over-reacting.
Greear: That is what I think the principle of first fruits teaches us is that we honor God first.
Kelly: That does not give you permission to make the truly needy feel inadequate if they cannot give.
Greear: My main problem, Russ, is not what you write, it’s the spirit in which you write. It is hateful, it is arrogant, and it is not helpful for the discussion. It is beneath how Christian brothers should speak to one another. I hope that you and I can discuss this at some point in the future, but with a spirit that believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things, and is reflective of the patience and generosity of Christ.
Kelly: I have a special calling from God to rid the church of this shackle of the law. If you knew me, you would see a generous loving caring person who gives far more than most. I am compassionate and have a sense of humor and I never meet somebody that I cannot make my friend. Just watch my videos and see my demeanor. There is a 90 minute live TV debate presently being posted on You Tube from Revelation TV in London. See my site for details. On the other hand, your first post reflects many arrogant, hateful and seemingly callous remarks about the poor.
Greear: I wish you well and hope the wisdom and insight that God has given you can be a blessing to churches throughout the United States, starting with ours.
Kelly: They are and continue to increase.
……………………
……………………
Instead of addressing any of my biblical points, you attack me. What kind of scholarship it that? Is that the way you defend your doctrine? I really don’t care what you think of me; I do care how you use God’s Word; that is your real calling.
The following are added comments to your first post. I really would appreciate an in-depth analysis and rebuttal of my comments from your first post.
1. Define tithing.
2. We as Gentiles never were under the Old Covenant law.
3. You make no effort to explain how hundreds of parts of the law have been discarded but tithing remains.
Greear: as it relates to the tithe, the law reveals the unchanging character of God and how He expects us to view the money HE has provided for us.
Kelly: You accuse of writing with a hateful arrogant spirit. What, sir, is this arrogance which forces your interpretation upon others?
4. Again, you provide no texts to validate your opinion. “I see” is your “arrogant” text.
Greear: A minimum of 10 percent that He has given to us, whether we are rich or poor, is to go back into His work.
Kelly: This is arrogant. While the sick welfare mother tithes first, you are the greatest benefactor of her misinformed giving. Where are your texts?
Greear: This is how He set up the world order. This is why the "tithe" principle (the first 10 percent of income going into God's work) is taught pre-law (Abraham)
Kelly: This is arrogant and misguided. Where are your textual arguments?
Greear: and even affirmed under Jesus (Matthew 23:23).
Kelly: Where did Jesus teach that widows and the needy should give the first ten per cent of their income to you as a tithe? This is both arrogant and hateful.
Greear: but how God has set up His economy for His people has not changed.
Kelly: If the church is His people Israel, you should teach 23%.
Greear: The law was given to help people live in the shalom of God.
Kelly: The law never commanded the poor destitute widow to tithe her SS check.
Greear: Thus, the idea that 10 percent of all that God gives to you is given for you to give back to Him remains, I believe, as a good guide to our giving.
Kelly: This is a hateful arrogant lie.
Greear: Now, let me be clear -- Jesus left us under NO PART of the law, not the tithe or anything else.
Kelly: But JD does arrogantly.
Greear: But the law, in that it reflects God's character and His ordering of creation, is still good, and still functions as a guide to how we are to live under God in this world.
Kelly: While attacking my strong dispensational stance, you have no consistent hermeneutic other than your own opinion. It is not your fault entirely. The SBC had not produced a good hermeneutic textbook which consistently explains how to bring material from the Old Covenant into the New.
Greear: For Gospel-touched people, tithing should never be the ceiling of their giving, but it should be the floor.
Kelly: “It should be the floor”!!! This is an outright deliberate high-handed presumptuous willful LIE without a single Bible text for validation. It is motivated by greed and it is damming the Southern Baptist Convention to teach it.
Greear: That said, "giving our firstfruits to God" most definitely is a biblical principle, true of God's people in all places and at all times.
Kelly: Yes, but you erroneously equate firstfruits with tithes.
Kelly: You have no right to say this because you will not disclose what hermeneutic you use to bring the Old Covenant Law over into the New Covenant. Again, the consistent dispensational hermeneutic allows us to use that part of the law which is repeated after Calvary to the church in terms of the New Covenant. That, my friend, has the blessings of the Holy Spirit. You, on the other hand, struggle with the “no glory” concept of 2 Cor 3:10 without a consistent hermeneutic.
Greear: The law is no longer binding over us
Kelly: It never was binding on us Gentiles. This shows a fundamental misunderstand of the Law.
Greear: … but it is still a helpful tutor to understand who God is and how we work in the world.
Kelly: I don’t deny that, but neither do I send my wife away for a week every month as the law requires.
Greear: I think yours reflects an overly dispensational approach to the Bible which too neatly brackets Old and New Testament.
Kelly: Without a consistent hermeneutic, you the pastor becomes the ultimate god who decides what part of the law can be compelled upon his congregation and that causes mass confusion among Baptists.
Greear: I also think that how we see what our attitude toward generosity is to be when we’re in the midst of hardship is different.
Kelly: Amen. First Timothy 5:8 must not be in your Bible and neither is Acts 20:35.
Greear: I see that, in some ways, almost everybody that I talk with is in some kind of financial hardship, and I would never encourage somebody to stop being generous when they feel like things are tight.
Kelly: Now you are over-reacting.
Greear: That is what I think the principle of first fruits teaches us is that we honor God first.
Kelly: That does not give you permission to make the truly needy feel inadequate if they cannot give.
Greear: My main problem, Russ, is not what you write, it’s the spirit in which you write. It is hateful, it is arrogant, and it is not helpful for the discussion. It is beneath how Christian brothers should speak to one another. I hope that you and I can discuss this at some point in the future, but with a spirit that believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things, and is reflective of the patience and generosity of Christ.
Kelly: I have a special calling from God to rid the church of this shackle of the law. If you knew me, you would see a generous loving caring person who gives far more than most. I am compassionate and have a sense of humor and I never meet somebody that I cannot make my friend. Just watch my videos and see my demeanor. There is a 90 minute live TV debate presently being posted on You Tube from Revelation TV in London. See my site for details. On the other hand, your first post reflects many arrogant, hateful and seemingly callous remarks about the poor.
Greear: I wish you well and hope the wisdom and insight that God has given you can be a blessing to churches throughout the United States, starting with ours.
Kelly: They are and continue to increase.
……………………
……………………
Instead of addressing any of my biblical points, you attack me. What kind of scholarship it that? Is that the way you defend your doctrine? I really don’t care what you think of me; I do care how you use God’s Word; that is your real calling.
The following are added comments to your first post. I really would appreciate an in-depth analysis and rebuttal of my comments from your first post.
1. Define tithing.
2. We as Gentiles never were under the Old Covenant law.
3. You make no effort to explain how hundreds of parts of the law have been discarded but tithing remains.
Greear: as it relates to the tithe, the law reveals the unchanging character of God and how He expects us to view the money HE has provided for us.
Kelly: You accuse of writing with a hateful arrogant spirit. What, sir, is this arrogance which forces your interpretation upon others?
4. Again, you provide no texts to validate your opinion. “I see” is your “arrogant” text.
Greear: A minimum of 10 percent that He has given to us, whether we are rich or poor, is to go back into His work.
Kelly: This is arrogant. While the sick welfare mother tithes first, you are the greatest benefactor of her misinformed giving. Where are your texts?
Greear: This is how He set up the world order. This is why the "tithe" principle (the first 10 percent of income going into God's work) is taught pre-law (Abraham)
Kelly: This is arrogant and misguided. Where are your textual arguments?
Greear: and even affirmed under Jesus (Matthew 23:23).
Kelly: Where did Jesus teach that widows and the needy should give the first ten per cent of their income to you as a tithe? This is both arrogant and hateful.
Greear: but how God has set up His economy for His people has not changed.
Kelly: If the church is His people Israel, you should teach 23%.
Greear: The law was given to help people live in the shalom of God.
Kelly: The law never commanded the poor destitute widow to tithe her SS check.
Greear: Thus, the idea that 10 percent of all that God gives to you is given for you to give back to Him remains, I believe, as a good guide to our giving.
Kelly: This is a hateful arrogant lie.
Greear: Now, let me be clear -- Jesus left us under NO PART of the law, not the tithe or anything else.
Kelly: But JD does arrogantly.
Greear: But the law, in that it reflects God's character and His ordering of creation, is still good, and still functions as a guide to how we are to live under God in this world.
Kelly: While attacking my strong dispensational stance, you have no consistent hermeneutic other than your own opinion. It is not your fault entirely. The SBC had not produced a good hermeneutic textbook which consistently explains how to bring material from the Old Covenant into the New.
Greear: For Gospel-touched people, tithing should never be the ceiling of their giving, but it should be the floor.
Kelly: “It should be the floor”!!! This is an outright deliberate high-handed presumptuous willful LIE without a single Bible text for validation. It is motivated by greed and it is damming the Southern Baptist Convention to teach it.
Greear: That said, "giving our firstfruits to God" most definitely is a biblical principle, true of God's people in all places and at all times.
Kelly: Yes, but you erroneously equate firstfruits with tithes.
Thursday, April 07, 2011
Church Members Steal Tithes from a Local Business
Church Members Steal Tithes from a LOcal Busness
SUN STAR DAVAO, Philippines
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/local-news/2011/04/07/retail-firm-sues-pastor-5-others-149261
Apr 7, 2011
DAVAO CITY -- A local health products retailer sued a pastor and five others for allegedly defrauding the company in unauthorized disbursement to the church as "tithes" amounting to more than P22 million.
Davao-based ERG Health Shop Inc. filed criminal and civil suits against Francisco "Frank" Buenaventura, president and head pastor of Victory Chapel Christian Center Inc., and five other church officials.
SUN STAR DAVAO, Philippines
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/local-news/2011/04/07/retail-firm-sues-pastor-5-others-149261
Apr 7, 2011
DAVAO CITY -- A local health products retailer sued a pastor and five others for allegedly defrauding the company in unauthorized disbursement to the church as "tithes" amounting to more than P22 million.
Davao-based ERG Health Shop Inc. filed criminal and civil suits against Francisco "Frank" Buenaventura, president and head pastor of Victory Chapel Christian Center Inc., and five other church officials.
Friday, April 01, 2011
London Debate info
LONDON LIVE TV DEBATE ON TITHING, MARCH 30, 2011
As many of you know, I just returned from what I consider an extremely successful debate on tithing in London, England, sponsored by Revelation TV and paid for by my good friend, Michael M.
I want to thank everybody for your generous financial support and prayers – especially Michael M. in London who paid for the airline ticket plus much more. The trip was far beyond my wildest expectations. Now I feel that I must return and bring my wife. Perhaps a local debate will be held at a town hall to sell tickets.
I met with three very influential men at Revelation TV and they all support our position. We have really made a dent into this false doctrine in Europe.
First, I am told that the debate will be placed on You Tube. I will advise details when I get them.
Second, the gallery at the station only consisted of about 40 people. You can see them on the video. Those on the right of the screen were his church members. Only a few were our supporters. I have reasons to suspect that many of the questions and phone calls were from other church members.
Third, although no winner was declared, I feel that I easily won. He basically conceded defeat when he admitted that the woman on welfare should buy insulin rather than tithe first. Even the moderator tried to coax a text out of him.
THE WEEK:
I stayed with Michael and his wonderful family. I arrived on Saturday and caught up on my sleep. Sunday evening we went to All Souls Church, a large evangelical church which teaches freewill giving. It was full with at least 600 people.
First, on Monday we went on the 8-9AM radio program with about 8 short segments. The radio announcer (John Pantry) and his female co-host were totally supportive of our freewill giving emphasis. The woman was so pleased to hear our message that she was almost giddy. After that program I taped a 20 minute segment with the early morning wake-up announcer who said “I thought all churches taught tithing” before the program began. I have not heard this program or its response.
Monday afternoon we rode the sub-way trains (the tube), double-decker buses (they run every few minutes) and the London Eye (huge Ferris wheel on the river). I was frisked before getting on the eye and promised not to try and hi-jack it to Georgia.
On Tuesday morning they took me to Windsor Castle and sight-seeing. It was an incredible experience and now I must go back with my wife. The city is safe, clean and the buildings have soul (class). The streets are very narrow but I saw no accidents.
Tuesday evening found us back at Premiere Christian Radio where the phones and emails had not stopped buzzing from the previous morning. The director of the station greeted me and thanked me. The 4:30PM show was a straight 20 minute format with a pro-tithe preacher calling in to challenge me. After telling the station how vehemently he disagreed, within 5 minutes he was agreeing with me and the two radio announcers (a different man and woman) were rolling their eyes in disbelief. After the show I heard “That’s not what he said when he called in.” It was great.
After the Tuesday program, they took me to see a huge three story mall and later Tesco (owned by Walmart). Then we ate supper and got in very late.
Wednesday morning I slept late to be fresh for the debate. Since I had been preparing for this debate for years, I had done my prep before arriving in London.
My opponent had notes scattered all over the table and I had one stack and a few books I never referred to. He quoted from his IPAD and I quoted from memory. I felt very confident during the entire debate. Your prayers were behind me.
Friday, April 1, 2011 -- 2 days after the debate. Wow! Things are moving fast. No thanks to the horrible Atlanta Airport and a serious accident on I-75N which delayed us over an hour, I arrived back home needing sleep.
Revelation TV is already selling the DVD for $12.00 including shipping:
Revelation TV
Genesis House
Cocks Crescent
New Malden
KT3 4TA
United Kingdom
Rob Fox, our Tithing-Study Group owner, will announce his results soon.
I would like to use the audience statistics to try to get on TV here. Perhaps this will open the door.
P.S. They only pay 10% tax for national health care. The only complaint is long waiting lines for many surgeries which might cause one to die first.
As many of you know, I just returned from what I consider an extremely successful debate on tithing in London, England, sponsored by Revelation TV and paid for by my good friend, Michael M.
I want to thank everybody for your generous financial support and prayers – especially Michael M. in London who paid for the airline ticket plus much more. The trip was far beyond my wildest expectations. Now I feel that I must return and bring my wife. Perhaps a local debate will be held at a town hall to sell tickets.
I met with three very influential men at Revelation TV and they all support our position. We have really made a dent into this false doctrine in Europe.
First, I am told that the debate will be placed on You Tube. I will advise details when I get them.
Second, the gallery at the station only consisted of about 40 people. You can see them on the video. Those on the right of the screen were his church members. Only a few were our supporters. I have reasons to suspect that many of the questions and phone calls were from other church members.
Third, although no winner was declared, I feel that I easily won. He basically conceded defeat when he admitted that the woman on welfare should buy insulin rather than tithe first. Even the moderator tried to coax a text out of him.
THE WEEK:
I stayed with Michael and his wonderful family. I arrived on Saturday and caught up on my sleep. Sunday evening we went to All Souls Church, a large evangelical church which teaches freewill giving. It was full with at least 600 people.
First, on Monday we went on the 8-9AM radio program with about 8 short segments. The radio announcer (John Pantry) and his female co-host were totally supportive of our freewill giving emphasis. The woman was so pleased to hear our message that she was almost giddy. After that program I taped a 20 minute segment with the early morning wake-up announcer who said “I thought all churches taught tithing” before the program began. I have not heard this program or its response.
Monday afternoon we rode the sub-way trains (the tube), double-decker buses (they run every few minutes) and the London Eye (huge Ferris wheel on the river). I was frisked before getting on the eye and promised not to try and hi-jack it to Georgia.
On Tuesday morning they took me to Windsor Castle and sight-seeing. It was an incredible experience and now I must go back with my wife. The city is safe, clean and the buildings have soul (class). The streets are very narrow but I saw no accidents.
Tuesday evening found us back at Premiere Christian Radio where the phones and emails had not stopped buzzing from the previous morning. The director of the station greeted me and thanked me. The 4:30PM show was a straight 20 minute format with a pro-tithe preacher calling in to challenge me. After telling the station how vehemently he disagreed, within 5 minutes he was agreeing with me and the two radio announcers (a different man and woman) were rolling their eyes in disbelief. After the show I heard “That’s not what he said when he called in.” It was great.
After the Tuesday program, they took me to see a huge three story mall and later Tesco (owned by Walmart). Then we ate supper and got in very late.
Wednesday morning I slept late to be fresh for the debate. Since I had been preparing for this debate for years, I had done my prep before arriving in London.
My opponent had notes scattered all over the table and I had one stack and a few books I never referred to. He quoted from his IPAD and I quoted from memory. I felt very confident during the entire debate. Your prayers were behind me.
Friday, April 1, 2011 -- 2 days after the debate. Wow! Things are moving fast. No thanks to the horrible Atlanta Airport and a serious accident on I-75N which delayed us over an hour, I arrived back home needing sleep.
Revelation TV is already selling the DVD for $12.00 including shipping:
Revelation TV
Genesis House
Cocks Crescent
New Malden
KT3 4TA
United Kingdom
Rob Fox, our Tithing-Study Group owner, will announce his results soon.
I would like to use the audience statistics to try to get on TV here. Perhaps this will open the door.
P.S. They only pay 10% tax for national health care. The only complaint is long waiting lines for many surgeries which might cause one to die first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
