RESPONSE TO RESPONSE TO REBUTTAL R1

All Scripture is profitable. No doubt in my mind whatsoever about that. And I am so thankful that it is. We can learn valuable lessons through our diligent study of Scripture. The Scriptures were able to make Timothy wise unto Salvation and eventually ensure that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (2Tim 3:15,17)

So, how is the Scripture concerning tithes profitable to us and help furnish us unto good works? In the first instance of Abraham’s tithe to Melchizedek, the instruction to be gleaned there is that of honour to a superior, Nothing more nothing less.

Gen 14:19-20
‘And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:[20]And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all’

Melchizedek showed his superiority to Abram by blessing him with physical provision and spiritual blessings while Abram showed his deference to the Superiority of Melchizedek by giving him tithes of all the spoils he brought back from the war and it was an event that occurred just ONCE. This greater-lesser relationship is further emphasized by Paul in his letter to the Hebrews

Heb 7:6-7
‘But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.[7]And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.’

Melchizedek was superior to Abram but under grace today, no Christian is superior to another as we all are equal before God and have Christ as one high priest over us. No Christian can claim priest over another Christian today as we are all equally priests before God (1Pet 2:9, Rev 5:10).

In the second instance of the various tithes instituted in the laws of Moses, the instruction received from them is that of care and support for those unable to fend for themselves due to one reason or the other. The principle contained therein is that of Love and giving

Deut 14:27-29
‘And the Levite that is within thy gates; thou shalt not forsake him: for he hath no part nor inheritance with thee.[28]At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates:[29]And the Levite,(because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest’

The Levites because they were yoked to the service of the temple and administration of the nation had no land or inheritance alloted to them so couldn’t fend for themselves. This ensured they needed tithes for sustenance. The fatherless, widow and strangers for obvious reasons also were dependent on the goodwill of God and others hence their allotment of tithes which God already claimed as holy unto him (Lev 27:30-32)

This principle of care for those who can’t care for themselves litters the entire new testament (Acts 2:45, 4:32-35, Rom 15:25-26 1Cor 16:1). Infact a leader in the church who has the resources should cater for those who do not have. We see Paul tell the Ephesian elders this

Acts 20:34-35
‘Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me.[35]I have showed you all things, how that so laboring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, it is more blessed to give than to receive.’

The Christian experience should be one of continuing love, sharing and giving even more than the 10% enshrined as tithe in the old testament. God gave us his son because we NEEDED salvation, so should we(clergy and members) be ready to give our resources to those who lack (clergy and members) because they NEED it. This is the cardinal lesson contained in tithes as instituted by God


END

Thank you Candour for that post.

That brings an end to the discussions on R1.

We await your post of M1; which hopefully should be any time from this moment.

Both sides, of the discussion (for and against tithe) - You are doing good job. I'm just sitting back and enjoying the show. When the time come, I will request specially to contribute.

Thanks y'all.

Presenting M1






Abram’s Tithe Was Not His Own Property



In the year 1913 B.C., four kings and their soldiers went to battle against five kings and their soldiers.

During the course of the warring, Sodom fell victim to the kings and was ransacked. The kings pillaged Sodom and Gomorrah, taking their goods and food. They also kidnapped Abram’s nephew Lot and his goods were taken. One person escaped and ran to Abram, informing him of his nephew Lot’s plight. Upon hearing the news, Abram armed three hundred-eighteen of his household servants and set out on a rescue mission, traveling over 150 miles before catching up with the marauding kings at Dan. There, Abram and his army of servants chased after the kings, catching up with them and slaughtering them in Hobah, a city to the West of Damascus.

Genesis 14:14-16 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan. And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus. And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.

In a surprise attack in the still of night, Abram was able to defeat the marauding kings and rescue his nephew Lot. He also recovered the stolen property that belonged to Bera, king of Sodom.

All this traveling was on the West side of the Dead Sea. Yet, on his return from the battle, Abram traveled the East side of the 34 mile long Dead Sea instead of the West. Why would he travel the East side when his home was on the West? Verse 16 has the answer to that question…

Genesis 14:16 And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.

he was returning the spoils of war to their rightful owner, Bera king of Sodom. Sodom was on the East side of the Dead Sea, so Abram took that route.

Now, by right, Abram could have taken the West Route and gone home with the spoils and the people of Sodom as his own property and his own servants, but that was not his intentions.

Abram was on his way back to return the war spoils when he met Bera and Melchizedek in the valley of Shaveh.

Abram brought back all the goods and all the people. Brought them back to where? Back to where they rightly belonged, back to their owner, king Bera of Sodom because Abram had made a vow to God that he would not keep any of the recovered goods that belonged to Sodom for himself. The scripture below is the evidence that the Word of God gives to us that reveals that what Abram tithed was not his own property. Abram didn’t claim the spoils of war. He didn’t want it

Genesis 14:23-24 That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich: Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.

After giving Melchizedek the tenth of the spoils, he gave the rest back to Bera… minus the food that the young men had eaten of the spoils. Abram was not responsible for their actions.

Genesis 14:18-20 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

Abram’s tithe to Melchizedek was “of all.” What does the Bible mean by the words, “of all”? it is impossible that it means ‘of everything that Abram owned. For, everyone knows that when a soldier goes into battle, he does not take all of his possessions into battle with him. Abram had riches (Gen 13:2) but he did not take his gold and silver and cattle into battle with him. He could not have taken them the long 150 miles to Dan and then Hobah. They would have not only slowed him down, but he would have chanced losing all his own riches had he himself been defeated by the kings.


Hebrews 7:4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

Hebrews 7 is the only place in Scripture (other than the Genesis account above) where we find record of Abram tithing to Melchizedek and it was used to show the superiority of the High Priesthood of Christ to that of the high priest of Judaism, Aaron. Verse 4 only mentions the tithing of spoils by Abram. There is no evidence that Abram ever tithed to Melchizedek, or to anyone else, of his own household goods and riches

END
.

please remember the 'end' when you are done.

Image123: please remember the 'end' when you are done.

please forgive me. It is there now. God bless.

Image123 and Rhymeyjohn have up till 11am to present Rebutting M1.

I hope you guys have been able to establish some contact. Image123 is this arrangement OK or you want to review it?

Good, good. Communication has been established

REBUTTAL TO M1

Okay, i'm hearing that Abraham's tithe was not his own property. Errrr, i thought that would be like theft(the act of stealing somebody else's property)? Oh, for a moment, if we are to agree with such statement, the basic fact still remains that Abraham gave tithes. This is the crux of the matter, he gave TITHE. Moses of all people would know the definition of tithe i guess? Moses is said to have penned down the Pentateuch (Genesis to Deuteronomy). It is good and comforting to note that Moses makes no demarcations or clarifications of THE WORD "Tithe". He simply records that Abraham gave tithes. It makes one almost forced to wonder about the much ado that folks give today over what is tithe and what is not tithe. i mean, i've read folks talk about some definition of the tithe claimed to be found in Leviticus. Now, the funny claim is that that definition(whatever it is) is the only true definition of tithe, and that anything not answering to that definition is unacceptable. You'd be surprised we had our understudy legislators right here among people who do not believe in tithing. People who do not believe in tithing but reserve the sole rights of defining tithe.
Well, thank God, Moses thought what Abraham gave was tithe. The Holy Spirit or God, who inspired ALL Scripture, thought so too. Whether in Genesis or Hebrews as our brother has shown us, it is called TITHE. So, we are clear that Abraham gave tithe. For some who might be new to these kind of discuss, you may not readily understand why i have to explain the obvious as it were. Some of our folks argue over nothing, that is why. i mean, i've heard something as pesky as Abram gave tithes not Abraham. As in ehn, is it not the same person? It's the same way folks come to say that tithe has to be according to Leviticus or it is not tithe. This presentation M1 proves that Abraham gave tithe, we are agreed on that, i believe.
However, what we are not agreed on is that Abraham's tithe was not his own property. i do hope you read the presentation. In case you somehow missed it, the M1 presentation says that the property was for one Mr Bera, king of Sodom. For one, the Bible states that Abraham gave tithes of spoils, or of all(ALL referring to the spoils). it does not say that Abraham gave tithes of Bera's property.
Gen 14:20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
Heb 7:4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

Spoils are property gotten by a victor in a conflict, the rewards and benefits of winning. In all my life and in all of scriptures, i have observed that spoils BELONG TO the victor. They are legally his by rules of engagement. This is standard worldwide. Those who are familiar with sports would readily understand this. The wrestler, boxer, team that wins takes the belt or the cup. It now belongs to them. they are the new champions. The cup or belt does not belong to the loser. This is legally legal, even Jesus did it.
Col 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

When He came out, He said ALL power is given to me in heaven and in earth, ALL. Another passage commenting on this says that He destroyed the devil. Look at some other passages about spoils.
Exo 3:22 But every woman shall borrow of her neighbor, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians.
Num 31:53 (For the men of war had taken spoil, every man for himself.)
Jos 8:27 Only the cattle and the spoil of that city Israel took for a prey unto themselves, according unto the word of the LORD which he commanded Joshua.
2Sa 23:10 He arose, and smote the Philistines until his hand was weary, and his hand cleaved unto the sword: and the LORD wrought a great victory that day; and the people returned after him only to spoil.

There are tens of passages on 'spoils' in the Bible. All of them show that it is the property of the victor and the victor is allowed to do as he pleases with it. It is only against the accursed cities that God gave specific instructions that they were not to take the spoil. The point however, is that the spoil did not belong to the loser. Not biblically, not culturally, not historically and not spiritually.
Mat 12:28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
Mat 12:29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man and then he will spoil his house.
Jesus is here talking about delivering a demon possessed. Once the strong man is defeated or bound, he can be spoiled. Spoils do not belong to the loser. They by right belong to the winner.

Now i'm thankful for the explanation Mike has made about the war both extra-biblical and biblical. You made many extra-biblical claims which a discerning Christian should be weary of. You maybe have some honest point, but it good to stop where the bible stops, not adding to scriptures Rev22:18,19. While i do not agree with everything, i will like to point out the major and important things. God called out Abraham out of his family and home. Lot his nephew seemed to be the only relative that followed him in faith.
Gen 12:5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.

We know that Abraham so much loved this Lot that he was willing to let him(Lot) have the best, even at his own loss. When they were to part, he favoured Lot above himself. When he heard Lot was in trouble, he got out an army to rescue him. Later on, when Lot was to be destroyed with Sodom and Gomorrha, it was Abraham doing all the pleading and hoping that Lot would not be killed. Clearly, Abraham would do anything to make Lot happy and convenient. He was like his responsibility, having followed him from their hometown. We also know that Lot was living in Sodom and was the reason why Abraham came out to fight.
Again, in summary, about nine kings were fighting, four against five. The four were the ones in charge of the region. They were the champions, and the other kings were under their rule. But after 12years, these five kings rebelled. 12 years.
Gen 14:4 Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled.

It was in this anger that the four kings re-couped and came to fight their rebelling kings. It was like Israel being under some other people like the philistines or the Amalekites, and then attempting to rebel. What happened is that the four kings showed who is the master.
Gen 14:7 And they returned, and came to En-mishpat, which is Kadesh, and smote all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites, that dwelt in Hazezon-tamar.
Gen 14:10 And the vale of Siddim was full of slime pits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and fell there; and they that remained fled to the mountain.
Gen 14:11 And they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their victuals, and went their way.

It's all in the chapter, interesting chapter BTW for those who care to read. During this defeat is when the four kings took Lot. The Bible 'zooms in' on Lot as that is really what concerns Abraham. But we know that these four kings defeated not just Sodom but also Gomorrah, the Amalekites, Amorites, Horites etc. As in, they went on rampage. So it was not only Sodom or only his property involved. About five kings who had their individual armies and property were involved who fell(were defeated).
Gen 14:8 And there went out the king of Sodom, and the king of Gomorrah, and the king of Admah, and the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar) and they joined battle with them in the vale of Siddim;

Please, note that it is not only Sodom that came to the party or had property. The four victorious kings must have also had property which would hve been spoils for Mr Bera if sodom had won too. These four kings were more powerful and had oppressed the others for 12years remember? In battle, they did not travel light. Armies travelled with property. They needed to have food, a lot of food for soldiers. They also usually had clothing and much jewels. Remember the army of Assyria who came to fight Israel during the time of Elisha. they had so much spoil that price of food crashed like a world record was set.
2Ki 7:1 Then Elisha said, Hear ye the word of the LORD; Thus saith the LORD, Tomorrow about this time shall a measure of fine flour be sold for a shekel, and two measures of barley for a shekel, in the gate of Samaria.
2Ki 7:8 And when these lepers came to the uttermost part of the camp, they went into one tent, and did eat and drink, and carried thence silver, and gold, and raiment, and went and hid it; and came again, and entered into another tent, and carried thence also, and went and hid it.
2Ki 7:16 And the people went out, and spoiled the tents of the Syrians. So a measure of fine flour was sold for a shekel, and two measures of barley for a shekel, according to the word of the LORD.

Recall also, how David spoiled the Amalekites who had come to carry his people in Ziklag(1Samuel 30). The spoil was so much, he had to share to all his long time friends. One can go on and on with similar examples in scriptures. This is a normal occurence in battle. So when Abraham went to battle the four champion kings, and defeated them, he took the spoils. The spoils were not just the property of Bera but all the property of the four kings and the spoils the four kings had taken from other five kings. It is of these spoils that Abraham gave tithe. It says he gave tithe of ALL. He gave tithe to the priest of God, recognising that he did not obtain the victory without God's help. He won with some servents and some hired men where kings had failed. If you could see what God did here, that is when you will understand and appreciate the gratitude Abraham showed.
Gen 14:20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

Most considerably, because of Lot and the cordial relations Abraham must have shared with Lot's landlord(Mr King Bera), Abraham of his own discretion wanted normalcy restored. Even Bera knew that the spoils belonged to Abraham. He came hopefully to solicit for his people, and Abraham said, no problem, have them. Again, have what? What originally was in your possession before you lost. Not all the spoil, not the possessions of the four kings or the others. Of the spoils, he gave 10%. Of Sodom's things, Abraham did not touch one thread, not to mention 10%. The vow had been made even before Abram met them both, Bera and Melchisedek.
Gen 14:22 And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lifted up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,
Gen 14:23 That I will not take from a thread even to to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:

That was a personal decision, discretionary. That is why he did not speak for others. If the others that went with him chose, they could take out of the goods/spoil. They could have their portion if they so chose. But as for Abraham, he wanted nothing from Sodom. But he took the spoils from the battle, which would have being far more than whatever Sodom had. You do not give tithe out of somebody else's property. Abraham did not take Sodom's property or consider them as his spoils. just like he would not have considered Lot and his property as spoils. He went to save Lot, not spoil him. This spoils were an increase to him, given him by God, the possessor of heaven and earth.
Gen 14:19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
Gen 14:20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.


END

This one get Rhymejohn hand on top.

Mark Miwerds: please forgive me. It is there now. God bless.

Go and sin no more, lol.
No qualms oh Mark Miwerds.

Thank you Image123 for your prompt rebuttal.

I request that Miwerds and Candour supply Response to Rebuttal M1 by 2pm today.

[size=16pt]Our Audience[/size]

I want to use this opportunity to remind our audience that this thread is not open to comments from everybody. Only six people are permitted to comment here for now: the four participants in the discuss and the two moderators.

Every other comment is to made at the former thread; the one that birth this one. We have however given some stringent condition for which comments can be made by viewers on the third post of page 0. Our audience e are therefore requested to be abreast with those instructions to them.

Thank you.

[size=16pt]Attention Participants!!![/size]

A Proposal for a New Rule:

I want to propose a new rule in this discuss. So far we have the following as guidelines for our presentation:

1. Presenting... by the originator of a point

2. Rebutting ... of this point by the opponent

3. Response to Rebutall... by the originator

4. Response to Response ...by the opponent

I propose that we have a fifth submission that will be made by the originator of the point called: Final Response...

This is the reason for the proposal. When Image123 and Rhymey presented R1, it was followed by a Rebuttal by Candour; then there was a response to the rebuttal by Image and co, and then a response to response by their opponent. I then announced that the discuss on R1 was ended; but I felt I was not giving the originator of the point enough laxity to defend himself, following two responses or rebuttals by the opponent versus the originator's one response.

The aim of the presentation by the originator of a point is to make his point clear enough to the readers. If the opponent is allowed to respond to him twice and he has only once to defend himself, with the opponent having the last say, it is quite obvious who will carry the day as far that point is concerned - the opponent.

So I request that we allow the presenting of a point remain out of the rebuttal/response sequence. And let the Opponent and originator of a point have two equal chances of offering responses at a presentation, with the originator having the last say.

If this rule is accepted by the two parties, this will be our new sequence of presentation and it will start with R2. Using R2 as an example, we now have thus sequence of presentation:

1. Presenting R2 by Image and Rhymey

2. Rebutting R2 of this point by Miwerd and Candour

3. Response to Rebutall R2 by Image and Rhymey

4. Response to Response R2 by Miwerds and Candour

5. Final Response R2 by Image and Rhymey

Participants, please let me know your take on this, while we await Response to Rebuttal M1 from Miwerds/Candour.

I am OK with it as long as all else are OK with it.

I think it is a good plan, giving the originator of the point to have the final explanation and defense of his stand.

I propose, however, that we begin this rule at the beginning of Image and Rhymeyjohn's Pont R2. It would be fair, I believe since they did not get a closing statement on their R1, that we not make a closing statement on M1.

So let us begin it at R2 and carry on from there..

What say ye, Brethren?

I want to point Image/Rhymey to a tenor of their presentation. Rule 1 says:

1. During the discussion there shall be no insults, name calling, maligning, critic of churches or ministers, or any intentional bid to make an opponent look bad. The discuss shall be done with the utmost respect of each person involved - conveying the Christian spirit of love. If anyone feels insulted, he shall be reporting the matter to the moderator; who holds the right to call the other person to order. If this is repeated by the same individual who does not take to correction, the discuss shall be suspended to allow for a replacement of that person.

It is the bolded I noticed was infringed on in statements like this, quoting from Rebutting M1:

For some who might be new to these kind of discuss, you may not readily understand why i have to explain the obvious as it were. Some of our folks argue over nothing, that is why. i mean, i've heard something as pesky as Abram gave tithes not Abraham. As in ehn, is it not the same person? It's the same way folks come to say that tithe has to be according to Leviticus or it is not tithe.

It's all in the chapter, interesting chapter BTW for those who care to read. During this defeat...

This is just an example of the tone of this rebuttal which stands against the rule of this discuss that encourages that we do not seek to make the opponent look bad: the aim is not to attack the person directly or indirectly, but to respond to the message (and not attack the message); also we encourage respect for the opponent.

I need to make this clear because I have rebuked Miwerds before on page 0 and I see the need to put Image and Rhymey to order too here. Lest in the process of responding to this rebuttal, Mark/Candour respond in the same spirit.

Please the statement above is uncouth and not suitable for this discuss. Your points were well delivered but some of it lacked the necessary Christian spirit. I encourage that you be more circumspect next time. Take your time to read through your text and do not be in a hurry to post.

At the end of this discuss, may it be that other discussions on nairaland religion section will come here to imitate the way we did it.

Thank you, again, Gentle men.

Hi DrummaBoy, thanks for your last post. I was going to complain about it and some other thing but since you've noticed and brought it up, I think that's settled. However the other statements I have issues with are those insinuating that those who don't tithe cannot or should not dabble into defining tithe. I trust we all discussing here are Christians who don't practice adultery or fornication, does that make us incapable of defining these wrong practices? We all can define sabbath and its not because we observe the sabbath.

On the issue of a closing speech from the presenter of a point, I don't think its necessary. We are discussing, remember? not debating. Moreover it will extend the discussion a great deal. Let's just stick to the present format but if there are more voices against my stand, I guess I will just bow to the new proposed rule as my team leader has even agreed to it

Thanks

* sorry about that. Actually, didn't intend to make anyone look bad, especially not our dear discussants. Not every reader would care to read the whole chapter (Genesis 14) that's why we said those who care to read the chapter would find it interesting. We noted the interesting things Mark pointed out in the passage and are grateful to learn them. "Some of our folks" is just general, points noted though. We'll get there.

i'm in agreement with Candour on the new rule.

Looking at the time frame we are working in, and the amount of points each of us has, I have to retract my last post concerning the proposed rule.

We are looking presently at a month of Discussion. Another added posting could take it up to a month and a half. Perhaps it's best we keep it at the four we originally agreed upon so as not to cause undue burdens on anyone.

OK.

New rule discarded.

God Bless you image123- the long and short of the rubutal is that ABRAM GAVE TITHE OF HIS PROPERTY. God Bless Mike,Candour and everyone as we continue this discuss.

Mark

Mike is my unsaved Brother

Mark Miwerds: Mark

Mike is my unsaved Brother

Oh sorrie bro, my error. I pray for the salvation of Mike, he'll receive Christ into his heart by faith and become a new creature in Jesus name. Amen

RESPONSE TO REBUTTAL OF M1


Abram gave tithes to Melchizedek from the spoils gotten from the war to rescue his Nephew, Lot and his friends in Sodom and neighbouring towns from the marauding kings who came to raid them. The properties recovered were not his before he went to recover them from the war and they were still not his after he brought them back from the marauding kings. The king of Sodom obviously still knew the goods were his. See his statement to Abram

Gen 14:21
‘And the King of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself’

With the statement above, we must SURELY agree that the man still saw the goods as belonging to him and he wasn’t getting ahead of himself for thinking that. Abram was asked to come and help recover lost items and its preposterous to think he’ll go and then replace the thieves who stole them in the first place. What then was the need to call for a recoverer?. If Abram had profited from the war, it would have been at the pleasure of the king of Sodom. He reserved the right to give Abram the spoils and we saw him exercise this right when he asked Abram to give him the persons but keep the goods. If he exercised ownership over the persons, how then can we say the goods were no longer his? Remember in war, goods as well as people are items

Abram agreed that all the goods still belonged to the king of Sodom hence he could say ‘I will not take anything from thee, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich’. The great man realized and knew the goods were not his and it will do us a great deal of good to see this truth with him.

Gen 14:22-24
'And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth. that I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich: Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.

The Patriarch had put himself under oath before going to battle that he WILL NOT PROFIT from this battle. If a lawyer wins a libel battle for a client and the client gets paid damages, will the lawyer appropriate the money all to himself? Won’t we call him a thief and backstabber? If the client offers the lawyer part or all of the damages paid, and the lawyer refuses to collect it, how do we say the lawyer owns the money? The example of likening this war to a cup competition is wrong because the cup belonged to none of the teams before they meet and to liken it to a boxing competition is sad because Abram evidently answered a distress call to save a distressed king and help him recover his goods and his subjects that were taken. That is like saying America answering a distress call from Kuwait in 1990 to save it from Iraqi occupation gives America the right to claim the oil wells of Kuwait which is what made Iraq go rogue in the first place. That would be stealing and betrayal. Sure Abram had a better value system and he put it on display. Honest conscience was better than riches to the great man.

We can’t compare Jesus’ victory on the cross to wars fought for materials acquisitions as this is even more distressing. Jesus triumphed over the devil to return what we lost in Eden, He didn’t defeat the devil to profit himself and leave us the way we were and that is the same thing Abram did here. He went to battle to recover goods lost by some helpless people and return it to them. He didn’t go to battle to enrich himself via the goods of vanquished people. If that was the morality of those peoples, Abram operated by higher standards. Even the example of David's war of recovery on the amalekites prove this

1Sam 30:22
'Then answered all the wicked men, and men of Belial, of those that went with David, and said, Because they went not with us, we will not give them aught of the spoil that we recovered, save to every man his wife and his children, that they may lead them away, and depart'

These men wanted to claim the properties of these men who couldn't go to fight but had their family and belongings rescued. They wanted to see these tired men's goods as spoils of war to be claimed but the bible described them as WICKED MEN and MEN OF BELIAL. Thank God David had higher moral standards than these men hence he could say the below

1Sam 30:23
'Then said David, ye shall not do so, my brethren, with that which the LORD hath given us, who hath preserved us, and delivered the company that came against us into our hand'


When a thief breaks into your home while you are sleeping, ties you up and steals your household goods , or when a carjacker grabs the keys from your hand and steals your car, do you automatically say, “Well, those things are no longer mine, they belong to the man that overtook us and took them from us. To the victor belong the spoils.”? No, the police are usually called. The police will investigate and, if they find the culprit and are able to recover the goods stolen, do they get to keep them? Of course not! They are your property. This is exactly what Abraham did. Its exactly what David did and its exactly what our Lord did for us.

Abram gave tithes or 10% of the spoils of war to King Melchizedek who obviously was a known and possibly renowned king in that area. The king of Sodom and his allies wouldn't have been surprised to see him and he even refreshed them. Abram gave tithes of the recovered goods to him and obviously the king of Sodom was present and raised no objection. Why should he? When he had lost everything initially so what was 10% to honour a revered king who even hosted the victorious and rejoicing party to a meal and refreshments? They all knew how great this King was and this fact was buttressed by the writer to the Hebrews thousands of years later.

Heb 7:4,7
‘Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils’….[7]And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better’

END

Thank you Candour.

Image123 and Rhymeyjohn have up till 1am tomorrow to present Response to Response M1. Please when you have done that, I request that you post Presenting R2 immediately.

You could however present much earlier, like you did this morning, to save time.

Thank you Gentlemen.

thought only six people were to comment on this thread! whats happening?

Rhymeyjohn: thought only six people were to comment on this thread! whats happening?

My apolgies Rhymey, my co-moderator will handle the comment in due time.

Response to response M1 It is very important that we stick to the bible and avoid analogies that deflect the issue from its context. For one, Abram can never be likened to a lawyer- a lawyer is hired labourer, paid for his service, not Abram. Also, using a thief or carjacker as comparisms is totally false- a thief is a thief, Abram was not a thief and should not be compared with one. Abram is a man of a high moral standing and should not be compared with a thief. Abram went to battle and recovered spoils, he didn’t break into any one’s house- don’t compare!
You obviously have not refuted the fact that spoils of war belong to the victor.Num31:18,Josh8:7,iisam23:10. Spoils are the legal entitlement of the conquering army by biblical rules of engagments, Deut 20:13-14.And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: 14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. God commanded these isrealites to take spoils, Joshua, his army take spoils, David soldier took spoils, they were never compared or likened with thieves, What makes Abram’s case different? The spoils rightly belonged to Abram, or else Abram would be a thief, tithing from stolen goods-NO. Futhermore, Abram couldn’t have given the possessions taken from five kings (see Gen 14: to Bera only if he had no authority over it, that would amount to “robbing peter to pay paul” and Abram is no robber. We will not surely agree that Bera, king of Sodom still saw the goods as his property, except bera was a coveteous, greedy man, thinking of collecting the wealth of five other kings.
Your introductory statement which says, ‘Abram gave tithes to Melchizedek from the spoils gotten from the war to rescue his Nephew,…’ is utterly false, the bible says in Heb7:4, ‘ ..Abraham gave the tenth [tithe] OF THE SPOILS.’, NOT FROM THE SPOILS as you asserted, the difference between the two is clear. Anyways, the issue still is, who owns the spoil?
The wicked men and sons of Belial in Isam30:22 were not called such because they wanted to claim the spoils as you wrongly claimed. The Isrealite knows that spoils are meant for conquerors from battle according to Deut20:14, they simply wanted to enforce the normal principle. If you say they were wrong in thinking so, see how David (the captain of the army, who like Abram should claim the spoil) distributed the spoils. 1 Sam 30:26-31: 26 And when David came to Ziklag, he sent of the spoil unto the elders of Judah, even to his friends, saying, Behold a present for you of the spoil of the enemies of the LORD; Oh if he didn’t claim it what else? See the other distributions-27 To them which were in Bethel, and to them which were in south Ramoth, and to them which were in Jattir,28 And to them which were in Aroer, and to them which were in Siphmoth, and to them which were in Eshtemoa,29 And to them which were in Rachal, and to them which were in the cities of the Jerahmeelites, and to them which were in the cities of the Kenites,30 And to them which were in Hormah, and to them which were in Chor-ashan, and to them which were in Athach,31 And to them which were in Hebron, and to all the places where David himself and his men were wont to haunt. ABRAM GAVE TITHES OF HIS OWN PROPERTY-THE SPOILS HE COLLECTED FROM BATTLE, WHICH BY EVERY LEGAL STANDING WERE HIS Claiming it or not were his descrectionary decision. God Bless. End