REBUTTAL OF DAVID JARZABEK #2

TITHING REBUTTAL (PART 2)

From Doctor Russell Earl Kelly Rebutted, Parts 1 and 2, By Anonymous on You Tube; By: Russell Earl Kelly, PHD

Anonymous has placed over 2 hours of video on You Tube rebutting my book on tithing. As always I encourage open public dialog with anybody concerning God's Word. I think this kind of personal attack is cowardly and wrong since it does not allow a proper discussion. Nevertheless I will hit the high points of his disagreement with me. Part 1 has been previously rebutted.

Chapter 29: He begins stating that chapters 28-31 are irrelevant. However chapter 29 is the Secular History of Tithing which demonstrates that the early church did not teach tithing as a church law until AD 777. Also, he uses chapter 28 later without reference.

Chapter 15 i. e. Luke 18:12; Anon criticizes by implying that I should cast out fasting along with tithing. First fasting is taught in the Post-Calvary church while tithing is not. Second, the Pharisee was going beyond the law which did not command fasting twice a week or tithing of everything.

Chapter 16; Acts 15: He admits that the Church is currently under "none" of the Law. This forces him to invent a post-Law biblical definition of the tithe (which he never does). He says James' list was only of things "we should not do" I say "Read Acts 15:19-20." It is a list of only those things that Gentile converts should do. Common sense must prevail. James was not entangling Gentile Christians in hundreds of laws which pertained only to Hebrews such as food tithing from inside Israel.

Chapter 17, New Covenant: Anon ignores the many top theologians I quoted who agree with me, including Martin Luther.  One of his two worst errors is failure to have a working hermeneutic (principle of interpretation) when transferring material from the Old to the New Covenant other than his own opinion. Only that which has been repeated from the OT after Calvary in terms of the New Covenant applies.

Chapter 18, the Law of Christ: Again Anon ignores the many top theologians who agree with me and attacks as if I stand alone. I would support a Christian who gives any percentage as a sacrificial faith response. Anon is the one who expects the poorest in the land to tithe a full ten percent and go without necessities. He uses "minimum sacrificial" giving as if the two words make sense being used together; "sacrificial" for one person is not necessarily "sacrificial" for another. Did Joseph and Jesus give 100% of their carpentry income before caring for their own household contrary to First Timothy 5:8?

Chapter 20; Law Ended: Yes, some things in the Law have been "carried over" --- BUT they have really been REPEATED after Calvary in terms of the New Covenant under grace. That is a consistent principle of interpretation. Anon has no consistent hermeneutic  other than his own opinion.

Chapter 21: Priesthood of Believers: After saying "I believe that the NT is clear that tithing is a means of support for gospel workers," Anon gives no detailed textual explanation. That is merely his opinion.

Chapter 24; 1 Tim 5; Double Honor: I urge readers to read the entire chapter very slowly.(1) Since "discipline" means "training people to obey rules" or "a code of behavior," I used the correct word for 5:1-20. (2) Anon completely ignores 5:19-20 in his rebuttal. (3) "Timee" is never translated "salary" in any un-paraphrased Bible. (4) While initially stating that my chapter 28 on Acts 20 is unimportant, he twists it here without encouraging its reading. (5) Paul would not follow his boasting about being self-supported with a command that gospel workers be paid double salary. (6) Anon's conclusion that Paul's full time support of his co-workers is a "deeply doctrinal policy" which proves that gospel workers should all be full time is ridiculous.

Chapter 25, Miscellaneous: Anon incorrectly connects Romans 12:1 to tithing. With the possible exception of Hebrews 7, Paul's writings do not contain the word "tithe."

Chapter 23, 1 Cor 16: Since this contains no reference to tithing, Anon defeats his own argument by saying that the principles here for helping the poor should be the same principles used for the support of gospel workers.  I agree.

Chapter 26: Anon does not point out that this is a verbatim chapter written by L. S. Chafer and John Walvoord of Dallas Theological Seminary.

Chapter 27: Although Anon quite often refers to Matthew 22:19-22 as his strongest argument for the tithe, he never explains what Jesus meant by "the things that are God's." Never does Anon define the word "tithe" using the 16 biblical verses of the HOLY tithe as always only food from inside HOLY Israel. Yet Jesus specifically said that money with the "image and superscription" of secular authority does not qualify as holy to God. Anon does not explain what is left.

Chapter 14, Matt 23:23: After admitting that the church was under "none" of the Law (his comments on chapter 16, Acts 15), Anon's primary argument for New Covenant tithing is because JESUS TAUGHT IT!. My reply is that, Jesus taught total obedience to the Law before Calvary--- otherwise He would have sinned. Yet He never taught that tithes should be given to Himself or to His discip0les. Mt 23:23 is about tithing under the Law.

Chapter 22, 1 Cor 9: Anon says that I seem to discourage full time ministry. I say, "Read the chapter." I attend a church with a full-time minister and support it. I merely point out that the Bible neither teaches such nor confirms such. Perhaps in our modern age, it is the best way to avoid uneducated neophytes.

I am angered by Anon twisting my words and repeating his false conclusion three times: Read the book; it is free online! On page 186 of chapter 9 about First Corinthians 9:13-14 I state in BOLD print what the MINORITY POSITION is. Anon's "Dr. Kelly meet Dr. Kelly" is a joke which proves he only skimmed my book. Anon's 2nd argument for tithing is "The Lord has ordained it." This is his own personal interpretation of 1st Corinthians 9:14-15 which really says "Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. But I have used none of these things." The gospel principles of grace and faith do not include Law principles of stewardship.

Chapter 19 & 2, Hebrews 7 and Genesis 14: Anon misses the point that it was Melchizedek's "order" and not his "person" which set the foundation of Christ's high-priestly order. Anon does not even have the courtesy to learn how to pronounce"Mel-chi-se-dec" from either the Old or New Testament. While admitting that 7:18 ended Levitical tithing, he never explains how the Scripture teaches a completely different kind of tithing. He erroneously states that there were no king-priests in the Old Testament. He says that my description of Melchizedek as a pagan Canaanite king priests is "total nonsense" -- yet I got the idea from the Baptist Wycliffe Bible Commentary. He says that there is no basis for the pagan tithe from spoils of war yet the five commentaries I quote on pages 24-25 disagree. Also Hebrews 7:4 must not be in his Bible. Finally, Heb 7:8 is used by many to justify post-Calvary tithing. Yet 7:8 was written while the Temple still stood and while the Levites and priests were still receiving tithe; it must mean they did so as Jesus' representatives. Nevertheless 7:8 does not annul the close connection between 7:5, 12 and 18..

If "anonymous" wants to come out of his dark closet and enter public open dialog with me, I await him in the name of Jesus Christ.

Russell Earl Kelly, PHD