Most christians always believe that some things in the old testament are old and that Christ has come to modify things. In other words they believe more in the new testament teachings. Like the issue of divorce, marrying more than one wife etc. These issues were never supported in the new testament rather they were condemned. And the Apostles in the new testament also made us to understand that we were no longer living under the law. My question is that, was paying of tithe not part of the law then?? Why do some christians still believe in paying tithes till today?? Did christ and his disciples support the paying of tithes since they were not living under the law??

what is the real reason for this thread? is what i want to know.

I seconded that.

Eurphoria:

what is the real reason for this thread? is what i want to know.

Is paying of tithes part of christianity? Because christianity started after christ has come and gone, and i cannot see where christ nor his apostles talked about carrying tithes to the church in the new testament. You may need to help me know where it is stated in the new testament if you wish. Is it compulsory to pay tithes to the church?? What about giving that part of your income to the poor, orphans, widows and helpless people??

There's a topic on this already: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.0.html

@ishmael,

I was waiting for just the right moment to make some contributions to your concerns. So here:

ishmael:

Most christians always believe that some things in the old testament are old and that Christ has come to modify things.

He came rather to fulfill those things which were written in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms concerning HIM (Matt. 5:17 and Luke 24:44).

ishmael:

In other words they believe more in the new testament teachings.

Which is quite unfortunate, because the true position of a Christian should always be to believe in ALL the Scripture:

Acts 24:14
"But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God
of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets."

2 Tim. 3:16
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly
furnished unto all good works."

ishmael:

Like the issue of divorce, marrying more than one wife etc. These issues were never supported in the new testament rather they were condemned.

Divorce and remarriage were treated with utmost seriousness in both the OT and NT.

Mal. 2:16
"I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel. "I hate it when one of you does such a cruel thing
to his wife. Make sure that you do not break your promise to be faithful to your wife" [GNB]

Luke 16:18 (see also Matt. 19:9)
'Any man who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery; and the man who marries
a divorced woman commits adultery[GNB]'

The principles are the same in both the OT and NT- marriage was originally intended to be enjoyed as a covenant relationship between two people. However, God has always looked at the heart of man as regards this relationship between a man and a woman (cf. Matt. 19:8).

ishmael:

And the Apostles in the new testament also made us to understand that we were no longer living under the law.

That is true (Rom. 6:14). But they did not mean by that principles of the Law have been done away with; because it is very imporant to understand how they applied its principles in the Christian life (1 John 3:4).

ishmael:

My question is that, was paying of tithe not part of the law then??

It surely was part of the Law; but more than that, Tithes preceded the Law.

ishmael:

Why do some christians still believe in paying tithes till today??

Perhaps for 3 reasons:

(a) it is nowhere condemned or denounced at all in the entire Bible - OT or NT.

(b) in the NT, both the Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles referred to tithes in positive terms.

(c) and because those denouncing and condemning tithes have not been able to defend their denunciations
from the WORD of God; nor offered answers to the questions as to why they make such denunciations.

Besides all these, many people have missed the meaning of tithes, because they interprete it as a matter of "justification" by the Law - whereas the Bible does not teach it so. Tithes is simply a matter of response in worship. God from the onset made this clear declaration about tithes in Lev. 27:30 --

"And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD'S:
it is holy unto the LORD."

Today, when people think of tithes in other terms than what God said it is, they lose its meaning - and it is no wonder that they are critically opposed to it without being able to defend their position from God's WORD.

@ishmael,

ishmael:

Did christ and his disciples support the paying of tithes since they were not living under the law??

Let's get two issues clear here:

(1). Christ indeed lived under the Law (Luke 2:21 and Gal. 4:4) - and His disciples also did (cf. Matt. 23:1-3). However, the disciples transited to the new covenant upon the finished work of Christ through His death and resurrection (Heb. 10:14).

(2). It is clear that Christ and His disciples supported tithing - as we read in both Matt. 23:23 and Luke 11:42 ("these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone". Some people are of the persuasion that the Lord never intended by those verses for Christians to tithe at any time. My answer to that is that when they can successfully void "judgment, mercy, and faith" (Matt. 23:23) or "judgment and the love of God" (Luke 11:42), then they can as well void "tithe" in those verses. WHY? Because the Lord did not condemn either of the issues He mentioned there! If He intended to void tithes, there would definitely have been a verse in the NT categorically stating that God did NOT wish for Christians to tithe at all - in exactly the way He revealed to the apostles that "circumcision" (another practice by "the LAW" was not to be a Christian observation (see Rom. 2:29 and 1 Cor. 7:19).

ishmael:

Is paying of tithes part of christianity?

It all depends on what you mean by "part of". However, when we carefully examine those verses yet again, we could answer this question by reflecting on another question: Are "judgment, mercy, and faith" (Matt. 23:23) or "judgment and the love of God" (Luke 11:42) part of Christianity? To void these will simply mean that one is voiding tithe as well - because the Lord Jesus did NOT void either of them!

ishmael:

Because christianity started after christ has come and gone, and i cannot see where christ nor his apostles talked about carrying tithes to the church in the new testament.

That's true. In the same way, please find me the verses that said that Christ or His apostles carried "the weightier matters of the LAW" to the Church in the NT. Could you kindly and simply do so?

You see, we have to be careful when pushing ideas in order to void what God has not made void. There are many issues of the LAW (such as 'circumcision') that God did not wish Christians to be confused in the NT - and we find them well treated in the epistles.If God wished for us to do away with tithes, He definitely would have inspired the apostles to instruct us to the same effect as He did concerning circumcision! But up until this very day, tithe-opposers have not been able to produce such a verse in the NT where God categorically voided or denounced tithes as they argue.

ishmael:

You may need to help me know where it is stated in the new testament if you wish.

Just did - scroll above. Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42, besides others.

ishmael:

Is it compulsory to pay tithes to the church??

No, it is not compulsory. In matters of 'giving' (any type of 'giving'), God looks at the heart of the giver more than nything else.

ishmael:

What about giving that part of your income to the poor, orphans, widows and helpless people??

There is a difference between giving to the poor (Deut. 15:11 and Matt. 19:21) and giving in Church (Mark 12:42-43 and 1 Cor. 9:14). To confuse one for the other is why the Church is where it is today!

Regards.

Well said pilgrim. Good summaries.

cgift:

Well said pilgrim. Good summaries.

But wrong conclusion.

(1). Christ indeed lived under the Law (Luke 2:21 and Gal. 4:4) - and His disciples also did (cf. Matt. 23:1-3). However, the disciples transited to the new covenant upon the finished work of Christ through His death and resurrection (Heb. 10:14).

True.

(2). It is clear that Christ and His disciples supported tithing - as we read in both Matt. 23:23 and Luke 11:42 ("these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone". Some people are of the persuasion that the Lord never intended by those verses for Christians to tithe at any time. My answer to that is that when they can successfully void "judgment, mercy, and faith" (Matt. 23:23) or "judgment and the love of God" (Luke 11:42), then they can as well void "tithe" in those verses. WHY? Because the Lord did not condemn either of the issues He mentioned there! If He intended to void tithes, there would definitely have been a verse in the NT categorically stating that God did NOT wish for Christians to tithe at all - in exactly the way He revealed to the apostles that "circumcision" (another practice by "the LAW" was not to be a Christian observation (see Rom. 2:29 and 1 Cor. 7:19).

Not true.

The Lord never commanded tithing to Christians. The Apostles never ever mentioned it.

The Lord commanded adherence to the law by those under the law and clarified between the letter and the intent of said law.

No one has attempted to void mercy, judgement or the love of God. We are merely free in the fullness of The Lords saving work and grace, said graince also teaches and enbles us to fulfil the intent.

A facile attempt to insist on the letter of the law for Christians as the intent remains is weak at best and lacks integrity to say the least.

A categorical statement for NTC not to tithe is unecessary, as what was instituted by law was made redundant by the passing of that same law. The demand for a categorical statement on "tithing", would demand same for every other ordinance of the law, instead - as ever - God keeps it simple.

Colossians 2:14 - having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Romans 8:4 - that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

I could go on and on. Suffice to say, adherence to the law suggests you are not redeemed by grace and not a son of God. Added to which attempting to attain to anything by law - favour, blessings, righteousness, justification, sanctification, holiness etc - is to void your recieving it by grace.

It all depends on what you mean by "part of". However, when we carefully examine those verses yet again, we could answer this question by reflecting on another question: Are "judgment, mercy, and faith" (Matt. 23:23) or "judgment and the love of God" (Luke 11:42) part of Christianity? To void these will simply mean that one is voiding tithe as well - because the Lord Jesus did NOT void either of them!

Keep on drumming up the falsehood "to void one is to void the other". Au contraire, that is merely your convoluted way of retaining what has been done away with, in order to support and perpetuate what was never prescribed. The intent of the law which could not be attained to by a written law has new been made possible via grace by faith in Christ Jesus. Simple. So, The Lord Jesus did void the written code. To suggest otherwise is to deny His grace, His work and His whole purpose.

That's true. In the same way, please find me the verses that said that Christ or His apostles carried "the weightier matters of the LAW" to the Church in the NT. Could you kindly and simply do so?

Your insistence on specific proclamations which are not there because they don't need to be is further evidence of your disingenous, nay dishonest, approach to this topic. If the intent - the weightier matters of the law - is love, mercy, justice etc etc, please categorically state that such are nowhere to be found in the NT or taught to NTC. ~ I desire mercy and not sacrifice ~ Please read and understand.

You see, we have to be careful when pushing ideas in order to void what God has not made void. There are many issues of the LAW (such as 'circumcision') that God did not wish Christians to be confused in the NT - and we find them well treated in the epistles.If God wished for us to do away with tithes, He definitely would have inspired the apostles to instruct us to the same effect as He did concerning circumcision! But up until this very day, tithe-opposers have not been able to produce such a verse in the NT where God categorically voided or denounced tithes as they argue.

Keep pushing the same old myths. You'll only ever snare the simple or lazy. And at least there are those who will proclaim truth.

Are you aware how many laws/ordinances/commands were contained in the law of Moses? How many of them were individually "treated" in the NT. Circumcision was a "metaphor" for the whole law. And well it was, as it also predates the law. Unlike tithing which was never instituted as a divine stricture before the Mosaic law.

Please tell us how many laws there were in the OT.
Please tell us all the OT laws that were individually voided in the NT.
Please tell us if the saving work of The Lord was complete, or if we have to add works.
If it was incomplete, please tell us which bits were and which bits were not fulfilled.

Tithing did not have to b categorically voided, it was part of the written law and hence done away with it.

If you are championing it on the basis of it being a pre-law stricture, please show here it was enacted. And further please justify it as NTC practice without recourse to the law.

And please stop claiming to know what God would "definitely" have done to reveal His will. As He clearly has and you obviously can't see it.

Just did - scroll above. Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42, besides others.

1. In these two parallel verses, The Lord was addressing Scribes - Teachers of the law - and Pharisees, the most perfect adherents of the same.

He was not and never did address issues of law observation to Christians. He even broke the written code - Matthew 12 - clearly showing it's the intent, not the letter that matters. If you suggest that He was not voiding the letter, then you claim He committed sin. Oya, explain to the forum !

In His sermon on the mount and His private recorded conversations with His disciples or any other instance The Lord never mentioned or commanded a tithe, he only ever exhorted giving.

2. Please enumerate the "others"

No, it is not compulsory. In matters of 'giving' (any type of 'giving'), God looks at the heart of the giver more than nything else.

It's not compulsory? The way you are arguing it, it has to be. If it's by law, you have to do it.
Your position and supporting arguements are becoming increasingly nonsensical. Tithing is not giving. Giving is a freewill, heartfelt endeavour.

You further convolute by claiming it's not 10%, not compulsory and not commanded. Why not just tell your acolytes the truth? Tell them "it's nothing to do with divine writ, but the way we do our religion in our church incorporates tithing"

Stop trying to sell it as something that is different to or accrues blessings different from giving
whilst claiming it a type of giving. Stop claiming it's voluntary while buttressing it by recourse to the law. Stop saying it's pre-law, while using Moses to justify it. Your needless taxonomy across a range of issues is more of your C&C theology. Enough already.

There is a difference between giving to the poor (Deut. 15:11 and Matt. 19:21) and giving in Church (Mark 12:42-43 and 1 Cor. 9:14). To confuse one for the other is why the Church is where it is today!

Ah, did I say needless taxonomy? There's a difference between loving your sister and your brother or your mum and dad. But the driver is what love does. Likewise there are differenct needs to give to, but the driver is the need, not the reason. Keep on mindlessly clasifying the pure and simple.

God bless
TV

TV01,

The same bloviates that you've posted here have been addressed in DETAIL in my rejoinders to your other reposte. Find them here:

(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-39490.96.html#msg1441590)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-39490.96.html#msg1441597)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-39490.96.html#msg1441610)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-39490.96.html#msg1441616)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-39490.96.html#msg1441628)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-39490.96.html#msg1441631)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-39490.96.html#msg1441635)

You're just being so cheap in making noise and littering threads on this subject without even being able to soundly address issues or explicate the issues around the LAW that you're confusing yourself about.

Those who can see and understand the simplicity of my rejoinder addressing ishmael's questions have formed their opinions already.

Regards.

@ Pilgrim,

Morning, Please answer the question as posed.

He was not and never did address issues of law observation to Christians. He even broke the written code - Matthew 12 - clearly showing it's the intent, not the letter that matters. If you suggest that He was not voiding the letter, then you claim He committed sin. Oya, explain to the forum !

Thank you.
TV

TV01:

@ Pilgrim,

Morning, Please answer the question as posed.

He was not and never did address issues of law observation to Christians. He even broke the written code - Matthew 12 - clearly showing it's the intent, not the letter that matters.

Hi TV01,

Good afternoon.

I've offered answers to the same concerns you quoted above to the point that the Lord was not stating or teaching a dichotomy of "written code" and "intent" in Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42. That's why I left you the several links where I discussed them in detail.

If you've visited those links and still have further concerns as to what exactly is the meaning of the term "the LAW" as used in the NT, please open a thread and post your concerns there - and I'll meet you in the same so we could discuss and be of mutual benefit to ourselves and others.

TV01:

If you suggest that He was not voiding the letter, then you claim He committed sin. Oya, explain to the forum !

Indeed He was not voiding the "letter" in Matthew 12, neither does that then mean that I "claim" He committed sin. I think it is only fair to not allege such issues against me before you ask for answers.

Although I still state that I've addressed tis issue before, I'll oblige you some more answers by way of explanation. There are two things I'd like to add to the previous answers I've offered already:

(a) pilgrim.1 does not believe that the Lord voided the letter or broke "the LAW" in Matthew 12. Let's be clear about this. From the onset the Lord Himself indeed cautioned that we take heed to not misinterprete what His mission was about. Here:

Matt. 5:17
'Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets:
I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.'

If ever I took that unfortunate misinterpretation that many people now level against Christ, I would indeed have sadly joined the sorry crowd in that allegation. No, the Lord did not "void or or break the Law" as many now teach.

(b) my second reason was that if He ever did "void" or "break" the Law at any point, you would not be speaking of a "sinless" Saviour. Anyone who broke the the Law at any point actually was sinning against it (1 John 3:4). No, my Saviour perfectly fulfilled the Law at every single point - including the issue in Matthew 12.

Now, I know you asked particularly in reference to whether He "voided" the letter of the LAW. However, the idea that He voided the letter of the Law is meaningless - because that suggests an unhealthy concern for the "letter" but still does not address "the LAW" itself. The necessary question therefore for me would be: Was Christ voiding THE LAW or rather the LETTER of the Law?

What then would be the difference between the "letter" and "the LAW" itself?

No, the Lord was not "voiding" the LETTER of the Law in Matthew 12; because that would simply mean that He was at the same time voiding the Law itself - whether by "letter", "written code", "code", or whatever else you choose to describe it.

If you're not clear, I'd look forward to further queries.

Many thanks. 

@Pilgrim.1

Another of yur merry dances. What was it? Limbo, belly, yahoozey, makkosa? Whatever!

My question again;

He was not and never did address issues of law observation to Christians. He even broke the written code - Matthew 12 - clearly showing it's the intent, not the letter that matters. If you suggest that He was not voiding the letter, then you claim He committed sin. Oya, explain to the forum !

The Lord Jesus did not condemn His disciples plucking - working - ears of corn on the sabbath.
The Lord Jesus healed - worked - a man with a withered arm on the sabbath.

Did The Lord break the written code or not?

If as you insist the letter and the intent are both still valid and niethere nullified - as you have repeatedly and insistently claimed is the case in Matthew 23:23 - please explain how you can believe this and honestly say you consider the Lord to have been sinless during His time on earth.

Obsfucation such as the following answers nothing.

Indeed He was not voiding the "letter" in Matthew 12, neither does that then mean that I "claim" He committed sin. I think it is only fair to not allege such issues against me before you ask for answers.

What happened is clearly outlined. Please explain it.

(a) pilgrim.1 does not believe that the Lord voided the letter or broke "the LAW" in Matthew 12. Let's be clear about this. From the onset the Lord Himself indeed cautioned that we take heed to not misinterprete what His mission was about. Here:

   Matt. 5:17
   'Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets:
   I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.'

His coming fulfilled the prophets.
His Life fulfilled the law. By not breaking it and dying to it he could not be held by death. And redeeming those who put their faith in Him from under it.

Yet clearly in Matthew 12, by verse 13, he had condoned breaking the written code, endorsed the same being done by someone else and broken it Himself. Please explain how he did so, yet remained sinless. Simply please. No 7 lengthy, obsfucating, avoidance posts .

If ever I took that unfortunate misinterpretation that many people now level against Christ, I would indeed have sadly joined the sorry crowd in that allegation. No, the Lord did not "void or or break the Law" as many now teach.

As I asked originally, did the Lord break, endorse or condone the breaking of the letter of the law in Matthew 12?

If you say Matthew 23:23 demands keeping the letter and the intent, whatever your protestations to the contrary, you are saying just that. Be true to thine own self, if not to us.

(b) my second reason was that if He ever did "void" or "break" the Law at any point, you would not be speaking of a "sinless" Saviour. Anyone who broke the the Law at any point actually was sinning against it (1 John 3:4). No, my Saviour perfectly fulfilled the Law at every single point - including the issue in Matthew 12.

Your denying the obvious in order to lay claim to your error strewn doctrine and the Lordship of Christ. The letter was repeatedly broken in Matthew 12. I earlier introduced the "mercy not sacrifice" verse, as ever you failed to do your homework. bad girl  .

Now, I know you asked particularly in reference to whether He "voided" the letter of the LAW. However, the idea that He voided the letter of the Law is meaningless - because that suggests an unhealthy concern for the "letter" but still does not address "the LAW" itself. The necessary question therefore for me would be: Was Christ voiding THE LAW or rather the LETTER of the Law?

Please re-read and rephrase this , as you are making absolutely no sense here. You claimed my question was wrong and then said you rather it was reworded, as my exact same question .

I'll allow you the benefit of the doubt, or lay it to my own misreading. I won't attempt a PhD thesis on the back of it !

What then would be the difference between the "letter" and "the LAW" itself?

The law has both letter and intent. There is the Letter of the Law and there is the intent of the law. The intent is timeless. The letter as the means of attaining to the intent is redundant.

No, the Lord was not "voiding" the LETTER of the Law in Matthew 12; because that would simply mean that He was at the same time voiding the Law itself - whether by "letter", "written code", "code", or whatever else you choose to describe it.

Please see the preceeding responses in this post. And be sure to swot up before you reply !

If you're not clear, I'd look forward to further queries.

I don't think you are in any position to be taking queries on this point or at this point .

Much appreciated.

God bless
TV

Ismael, who are you really?I dont seem to know what you have got to gain if you are not a christian from this thread.

If the N.T. said no to tithes, did it say yes then?
The Apostles struggles to reduce (reduce) the burden of the law by limiting the demands on non jews to abstain from blood and things sacrificed to idols.
The tithes is an eternal statues that Hebrews made reference to as the reason for the exemption of Levi from paying tithes. there are three types in the Bible-offering, tithes and gifts to the poor. The three were not abolished but it true meaning and efficacy became pronounced in the New testament times.
Just like the bible in the N.T. didnt say outrightly anything against slavery but by implication sets it towards the course of its elimination so is the eternal value of the tithes shows our love and commitments to Him. it distinguishes the ordinary people from the priestly people. We are priest is what you will say but not all of us are serving preist. serving priest are the pastors and leaders of the church and even in the o.t. they were given special priviledges. The tithes actually belongs to them.
You will agree its hard to give the tithes but it shows how much you love the Lord. "he who is forgiven the most,shows the greatest love".

TV01,

What really have you said that is of substance in your latest reposte? I don't think your unamusing comedy is the best way to further display that you have no clue what you're trying to enslave yourself to. Let me out just one such instance:

TV01:

Another of yur merry dances. What was it? Limbo, belly, yahoozey, makkosa? Whatever!

I think I've been fair enough to show respect and cordiality in discussing this issue with you. Seeing that you can't contain yourself until you have said nothing and just seek to be such a dunce, I'd advise that you direct you illiterate remarks to those who run the neighbourhood with you.

If you've got serious issues, please share. If you don't, please refrain.

However. . .

TV01:

Did The Lord break the written code or not?

He did not. Since you're so convinced that He did, please show the same - and then explain HOW you could still be speaking about a "SINLESS" Saviour - despite the fact that He categorically stated that He had not come to "destroy" the Law and the prophets, but rather to FULFILL.

Can you please do so as simply?

TV01:

If as you insist the letter and the intent are both still valid and niethere nullified - as you have repeatedly and insistently claimed is the case in Matthew 23:23 - please explain how you can believe this and honestly say you consider the Lord to have been sinless during His time on earth.

I did not introduce your confusion about a "written code" - you did. Do you care to please explain that to your reader?

Second, I don't find the Lord reprimanding the Jews in Matt. 23:23 for their not keeping or keeping a "written code". I have repreatedly and consistently instead offered that He reprimanded them for their hypocrisy at "partial obedience" of the WORD!

Before you allege issues against me, could you kindly save your duplicity to yourself? Thank you.

TV01:

Obsfucation such as the following answers nothing.

That you have difficulty understanding simply-stated statements does not mean others do not understand them. You've been the only person on Nairaland so far that can no longer understand English when you visit the internet.

TV01:

What happened is clearly outlined. Please explain it.

I've offered that you open a thread and post your concerns. Have you done that?

Seeing you're such an artful dodger, I've obliged you same - go there and post your concerns:

(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-75657.0.html#msg1444131)

TV01:

His coming fulfilled the prophets.
His Life fulfilled the law. By not breaking it and dying to it he could not be held by death. And redeeming those who put their faith in Him from under it.

Another inconsistent bloviate. While admitting He did NOT break the Law, you still came down to argue that He did!

TV01:

Yet clearly in Matthew 12, by verse 13, he had condoned breaking the written code, endorsed the same being done by someone else and broken it Himself. Please explain how he did so, yet remained sinless. Simply please. No 7 lengthy, obsfucating, avoidance posts .

I'm sorry, TV01. You clean up your mess after you. Since I did not argue your obsessed contradiction, you'd have to come explain HOW He both "broke it Himself" while earlier admitting He "did NOT break it". You're so good at making nonsense of your proposition that keeping one's fingers crossed for you is a waste of resources that could be channeled ealsewhere.

TV01:

As I asked originally, did the Lord break, endorse or condone the breaking of the letter of the law in Matthew 12?

Did I not answer that already? Or since you've run out of gist, you simply want to litter the thread as you did the others with your empty endless repetition?

TV01:

If you say Matthew 23:23 demands keeping the letter and the intent, whatever your protestations to the contrary, you are saying just that. Be true to thine own self, if not to us.

I've been honest and consistent all through. Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42 simply teaches that you do BOTH! You cannot excuse one under the brigand argument that it is "written code" and then disavow the OTHER by fallacious excuses that you have not been able to defend. The Lord said there as clear as can be: "these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." That is the very thing you have been denying repeatedly, and yet been unable to defend your assertive denials.

TV01:

Your denying the obvious in order to lay claim to your error strewn doctrine and the Lordship of Christ.

I denied nothing in that verse. You have been the ONLY one denying the Lord's word in Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42 - so you can save your confusion to yourself, if you care.

TV01:

The letter was repeatedly broken in Matthew 12. I earlier introduced the "mercy not sacrifice" verse, as ever you failed to do your homework. bad girl .

Please kindly show here or in the new thread HOW He broke the Law.

TV01:

Please re-read and rephrase this , as you are making absolutely no sense here. You claimed my question was wrong and then said you rather it was reworded, as my exact same question .

Your statement was wrong. If it was correct, I haven't seen you defend it. Simply making cheap statements and not being able to defend it clearly from Scripture has been your hallmark - and you're not going to keep cheating with such rascal moves. That's hypocrisy.

TV01:

I'll allow you the benefit of the doubt, or lay it to my own misreading. I won't attempt a PhD thesis on the back of it !

Please keep the excuses - defend your denials. QED.

TV01:

The law has both letter and intent. There is the Letter of the Law and there is the intent of the law. The intent is timeless. The letter as the means of attaining to the intent is redundant.

Please show where in Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42 the Lord made that dichotomy that you've used endlessly for your duplicity. That's all I've been asking.

TV01:

Please see the preceeding responses in this post. And be sure to swot up before you reply !

My queries are simple and straighforward. Do I take it that once again your own decorative farcé prove too much for you to defend?

TV01:

I don't think you are in any position to be taking queries on this point or at this point .

Tall dream - you're only hoping so, just as a way to advertize your inability to straighten out your contradictions.

Regards.

@ Pilgrim.1,

Nothing new or original from you. None the less, I continue.

He did not. Since you're so convinced that He did, please show the same - and then explain HOW you could still be speaking about a "SINLESS" Saviour - despite the fact that He categorically stated that He had not come to "destroy" the Law and the prophets, but rather to FULFILL.

The Lord healed on the sabbath, clearly a contravention of the written code of the law.

If, as you insist, the written as well as the intent are still applicable, that suggest's the law was broken. You have repeatedly stressed one cannot be voided without the other. Please explain how you see the written code as not being broken.

He did not. Since you're so convinced that He did, please show the same - and then explain HOW you could still be speaking about a "SINLESS" Saviour - despite the fact that He categorically stated that He had not come to "destroy" the Law and the prophets, but rather to FULFILL.

Can you please do so as simply?

The written code - healing on the sabbath - was clearly broken. Not to mention his disciples did likewise by plucking ears of corn and The Lord did not charge them or side with those who did. Additionally, The Lord cited the instance of King David breaking the law, again with no charge.

And yes, and simply. As the intent - mercy - was plainly adhered to in all cases, righteousness is fully satisfied.

Maybe it would help if you explain what you inderstand by the use of the word "fulfill".

I did not introduce your confusion about a "written code" - you did. Do you care to please explain that to your reader?

Again you play to decieve. You have clearly distinguished "divine principles" inherent within the law. If the law is the law, is the law, with no distinguishing between letter and intent, why do you make this distinction. Or is it just another instance on your anal taxonomy ?

Second, I don't find the Lord reprimanding the Jews in Matt. 23:23 for their not keeping or keeping a "written code". I have repreatedly and consistently instead offered that He reprimanded them for their hypocrisy at "partial obedience" of the WORD!

I cannot legislate or be faulted for your failure to see the meaning of that verse, or your inability to harmonise the scriptures in their entirety to understand the bigger picture. All I can do and have done, is to submit my understanding.

Ask King Saul, obedience is either in full or nothing. And if there is such thing as "partial-obedience", it is not called hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is claiming to do/be/say one thing, while doing/being/meaning something else.  Point in question, keeping the letter of the law, whilst wilfully ignoring the intent.

Another inconsistent bloviate. While admitting He did NOT break the Law, you still came down to argue that He did!

Trust you to search out, spot and leap into semantics. I have made the distinction between letter and intent clear. The written code was not adhered to. Don't try and fudge issues by wilfully misreading me. Endless, tiresome and endlessly tiresome. New ploys please !

I'm sorry, TV01. You clean up your mess after you. Since I did not argue your obsessed contradiction, you'd have to come explain HOW He both "broke it Himself" while earlier admitting He "did NOT break it". You're so good at making nonsense of your proposition that keeping one's fingers crossed for you is a waste of resources that could be channeled ealsewhere

The usual. No solid answers, meaningful insight or even basic understanding. Resort therefore to calumny and wilful misrepresentation. Thanks Pilgrim.1 for your introducing[b] "Tabloid Theology" [/b]. It takes a certain type. Repeat after me, letter/intent, written code/righteouss requirement. I doubt that it'll stick though

I've been honest and consistent all through. Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42 simply teaches that you do BOTH! You cannot excuse one under the brigand argument that it is "written code" and then disavow the OTHER by fallacious excuses that you have not been able to defend. The Lord said there as clear as can be: "these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." That is the very thing you have been denying repeatedly, and yet been unable to defend your assertive denials.

That of course brings us neatly back to Matthew 12. If  23:23 insissts you do both, The Lord clearly broke the letter in Ch12. By your reckoning that makes Him a lawbreaker please explain this conundrum for the understanding of the forum.

And remember you wrote this;

I did not introduce your confusion about a "written code" - you did. Do you care to please explain that to your reader?

If there is no dichotomy, howbeit the word "both"? Both of what? If the law is one, how do you come about saying one must do this - tithe - and the other - mercy, justice - if there is no distinguishing or difference between them?

Please kindly show here or in the new thread HOW He broke the Law.

I have said/shown it severally, and do avoid your usual theatrics will emphasise that it was the written code that was broken. As follows;

1. Disciples plucking ears of corn on the sabbath -fully supported by the Lord
2.Condoning King Davids breaking the law
3. Healing on the sabbath

Please explain how and why if I am wrong and the letter of the law was not broken in any of those 3 instances. Briefly now. No buy 1 get 6 free ripostes thank you very much .

Pilgrim.1, Your position is fundamentally wrong. But added to that you are scurrying around, patching scripture together, misinterpreting verses and overlooking the glaringly obvious just to prove a wrong premise.

God bless
TV

TV01,

TV01:

Nothing new otr original from you. None the less, I continue.

When you're worn out from your recycled inconsistencies, please let us know.

TV01:

The Lord healed on the sabbath, clearly a contravention of the written code.

How is healing on the sabbath day a "contravention" of the written code? Do you see how ridiculous you can sound atimes and often? So, in order for the Lord to NOT have contravened the Sabbath, He should not have healed on the Sabbath? You're a true son of the Pharisees.

TV01:

If as you insist the written as well as the intent are still applicable, that suggest's the law was broken. You have repeatedly stressed one cannot be voided without the other. Please explain how you see the written code as not being broken.

Please stop being dishonest - it is damaging to your person!

I never introduced your confusion about a "written code" dichotomy; and my consistent position about Matthew 23:23 is that the Lord did NOT void the issues He mentioned there. He simply said: "these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." You duplicity to force such a "written code" versus "intent" and come back insisting that is what I've been arguing simply shows how dishonest you can get!

TV01:

The written code - healing on the sabbath - was clearly broken. Not to mention his disciples did likewise by plucking ears of corn and The Lord did not charge them or side with those who did. Additionally, The Lord cited the instance of King David breaking the law, again with no charge.

Please, where is "healing on the sabbath" stipulated as "written code"? Don't evade this query, unless you deliberately want your readers to see the hypocritical devices you're employing. WHERE in the Law do we find "healing on the sabbath day" as a "written code"?

You haven't taken a good look at Matthew 12 before charging the Lord of BREAKING the Law! Please go back and read what the Lord said about DAVID - don't rush your illiterate remarks on that verse and pass it for scholarship!

TV01:

And yes, and simply. As the intent - mercy - was plainly adhered to in all cases, righteousness is fully satisfied.

Did the Lord void either of the issues in Matt. 23:23? What do you understand by "these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone"?

Simply stated, no fusses.

TV01:

Again you play to decieve. You have clearly distinguished "divine principles" inherent within the law. If the law is the law, is the law, with no distinguishing between letter and intent, why do you make this distinction. Or is it just another instance on your anal taxonomy ?

Do you mind keeping your "anal" phrase to yourself? We know already what your heart is after, but a public Forum is no place to display your deviance, yes?

I made clear what the Law actually is as used in the New Testament. If you find them flawed, please show HOW, WHERE or WHY they could not be so.

TV01:

I cannot legislate or be faulted for your failure to see the meaning of that verse or your inability to harmonise the scriptures in their entirety to understand the bigger picture. All I can do and have done is to submit my position.

Your denials are not warranted by Matthew 23:23 or Luke 11:42 - and no one in their right mind would allow your fraud to pass as satisfying the meaning of those verses.

TV01:

Ask King Saul, obedience is either in full or nothing.

Coming home closely to patronize my propositions, not so? Are you ever going to get tired of confusing yourself and further worsening your contradictions?

TV01:

And if there is such thing as "partial-obedience", it is not called hypocrisy.

Ahh. . . I see. The big wonder that your partial obedience has been the one thing feeding your inconsistencies. No problem at all. Here, let me help REMIND you again that there is such a thing as being partially obedient in the WORD:

Malachi 2:9
'Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people,
according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law.'

There - eat your heart out!

TV01:

That would be claiming to do/be/say one thing, while doing/being/meaning something else. Point in question, keeping the letter of the law, whilst missing the intent.

Please read the verse above and settle your problem. Second, look into those verses again in Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42 and see that you denials are NOT in those texts.

TV01:

Trust you to search out, spot and leap into semantics. I have made the distinction between letter and intent clear. The written code was not adhered to. Don't try and fudge issues by wilfully misreading me. Endless, tiresome and endlessly tiresome. New ploys please !

We know how many times you have contradicted and confused yourself - asserting and denying your assertions. Please move on.

TV01:

The usual. No answers, insight or understanding, therefore resort to calumny and wilful misrepresentation.

Stop whining like the loser you are. How many times did I offer you to DISCUSS and save your slabbers?

TV01:

Thanks Pilgrim.1 for your introducing "Tabloid Theology", it takes a certain type. Repeat after me, letter/intent, written code/righteouss requirement. I doubt that it'll stick though

Sorry, I look into God's WORD - not repeat your utility-grade assertive denials.

TV01:

So, that brings us neatly back to Matthew 12. If 23:23 insissts you do both, The Lord clearly broke the letter in Ch12. By your reckoning that makes Him a lawbreaker please explain this conundrum for the understanding of the forum.

What a laugh! How dubious can you get, TV01? I clearly stated that Christ did NOT break the Law! I'm stataing it again: He did NOT break the Law. Again I state: He did NOT break the Law!

You have been the one introducing your voodoo antics into the text to allege that He broke the Law! Therefore, you clean up your mess!

TV01:

If there is no dichotomy, howbeit the word "both"? Both of what? If the law is one, how do you come about saying one must do this - tithe - and the other - mercy, justice - if there is no distinguishing between them?

My statements were clear in context. There were TWO issues mentioned there in both Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42. The TWO issues are:

(a) Tithes

(b) the weightier matters of the Law

I went on to say that in one word, the Lord simply said: "do BOTH"!

In no place have I introduced a "dichotomy" that has now become your confusion. My use of "both" was in reference to what the Lord mentioned in those verses, and not your inconsistent "dichotomy" that up until now you haven't been able to defend.

TV01:

I have said/shown it severally, as follows;

1. Disciples plucking ears of corn on the sabbath -fully supported by the Lord
2.Condoning King Davids breaking the law
3. Healing on the sabbath

And I will ask again that you open your eyes and carefully READ what the Lord said in Matthew 12, and not what you and your gang have preconceived to allege against the Lord or King David.

What Law did David break?

What Law did the Lord Jesus break?

Where is HEALING on the Sabbath ever "written" as breaking the Law?

Do you mind simply answering those questions?

TV01:

Please explain how and why if i am wrong and the letter of the law was not broken in any of those 3 instances. Briefly now. No buy 1 get 6 free ripostes thank you very much .

Aww. . losers like you are so predictable with your whining!

When I read your response to the questions just above, I'll walk you through what you're missing. There.

TV01:

Pilgrim.1, Your position is fundamentally wrong.

That is why I've asked you to demonstrate it clearly. No matter how many times you shout it, you're making a worse case for yourself if all you have to show for it is your assertive denials and inconsistencies that you can't defend!

TV01:

But added to that you are scurrying around, patching scripture together, misinterpreting verses and overlooking the glaringly obvious just to prove a wrong premise.

You're singing a tribute about yourself, not so? When you stop your voodoo hyperventilating and discuss the issues presented, then perhaps we could upgrade you. Otherwise, please come back and entertain us more with your decorative farcé.

Cheerio.

Pilgrim and TV01,

I am really suprised that both of you keep insulting each other explicitly and atimes surreptitiously. If you guys are actaully sharing as both of you claim, then the posting and rejoinders will remain objective and devoid of verbal innuendoes. That is certainly not the case. Equally if your intension is for a scholary exposition of tithing and NT teachings, I am afraid this is not the correct platform. That can be achieved by writing up a scholarly article on your persuations and submit to a scholarly theological journal for peer review or alternatively you can enrol for a PhD, write up your persuations as a PhD thesis and defend it. Your exchanges shows that the communication is a monologue, not a dialogue. Each of you marshal out his or her thesis without reading the clearly stated anti-thesis of the other. Both of you are diametrically opposed in your views of tithing and NT teachings that it is futile in my opinion for these exchanges. Pilgrim will not change her persuations neither will TV01. What then is the purpose of these exchanges. I wonder!

My dear m_nwankwo,

m_nwankwo:

I am really suprised that both of you keep insulting each other explicitly and atimes surreptitiously.

Please, before you draw any conclusions next time, go through and see HOW MANY TIMES I asked that TV01 addressed issues, discuss, and keep the aspersions to himself. Since it is a diehard habit with him and he would NOT take heed, I warned him that I would no longer ignore his cavil and uncivilized manners. What were his responses?

If people just get up from their homes and have nothing other than their discourtesies to offer others, I'm sorry to say that picking pilgrim.1 for such unfortunate art is a grave mistake. That was the very reason why I left the thread on the Grail Message jeje for Hnd-holder, even though he had on several occasions offered the same discourtesies.

I wonder, though, that you guys have to wait until pilgrim.1 begins to show a no-nonsense attitude in return before you begin to show some "concern". WHERE were you all the time I REPEATEDLY offered a discussion to TV01? Just where were you? HOW is it NOW that you're expressing your concerns?

Please. I've said repeatedly - discuss with me, and he would definitely find me a pleasant discussant. Press the wrong botton, and I'll show him where to take his discourtesies to.

Cheers.

pilgrim and TV, you guys should calm down. Are we fighting for Jesus? I know certainly i will come up with a decisive rider to kill this issue once and for all. For now i am still reading the views of all. Let's nevertheless be civil in our language.

cgift:

pilgrim and TV, you guys should calm down. Are we fighting for Jesus? I know certainly i will come up with a decisive rider to kill this issue once and for all. For now i am still reading the views of all. Let's nevertheless be civil in our language.

I hear. Point is that if TV01 doesn't behave, I won't take any nonsense from him.

pilgrim.1:

I hear. Point is that if TV01 doesn't behave, I won't take any nonsense from him.

Seems like you have the bones of a man. u can fight karate abi? TV, behave i beg b4 woman beat you o.

cgift:

Seems like you have the bones of a man. u can fight karate abi?

Me ke? For where? I "fight" a different kind of war, but I'm as lazy as anything when it comes to 'hiyy-aaa-hoof!'

cgift:

pilgrim and TV, you guys should calm down. Are we fighting for Jesus? I know certainly i will come up with a decisive rider to kill this issue once and for all. For now i am still reading the views of all. Let's nevertheless be civil in our language.

@Cgift please put up!

@Pilgrim.1,

pilgrim.1:

How is healing on the sabbath day a "contravention" of the written code? Do you see how ridiculous you can sound atimes and often? So, in order for the Lord to NOT have contravened the Sabbath, He should not have healed on the Sabbath? You're a true son of the Pharisees.

Healing or plucking ears of corn on the sabbath are both a contravention of the law as any kind of work is forbidden on that day.

Till the present day, strictly orthodox Jews do no work on the Sabbath, as it is considered a contravention of the law. Food for consumption on the sabbath is prepared beforehand. I'd guess you know this, so I'm not being tedius just to note.

Labelling me a Pharisee - as funny as that is - merely demonstrates your inability to grasp the simple message here.

The Pharisees - who were also being addressed in Matthew 23:23 - knew that the actions of the Lords disciples - plucking corn ears - was contrary to the written code, as was the Lords "work" in healing on the sabbath.

Now, if in 23:23, the Lord rebuked the same set of people for slavish devotion to the same law while missing the intent, how is it not a contradiction - and hypocrisy and law-breaking - if His own disciples break the letter and He does not charge them accordingly?

My position is that as long as the righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled, all is well.

Yours is that the law is the law is the law. No distinction between the letter and the "weightier issues", one cannot be voided without the other and one cannot be kept without the other.

Therefore, it follows, that the disciples contravenenig the written law by working on the sabbath was breaking the law. For me it was the written code and not the intent,hence no problem. Your position says to "break one is to break both or indeed, as there is no distinction, the law has simply been broken.

The same follows for the Lords healing, which is considered work under the written code. Please read and respond as follows;

~ Was any type of work permitted on the sabbath?
~ Was the disciples plucking action or the Lords healing not considered work?
~ Did the Lord consider wether His disciples or Himself to have contravened the law?
~ Why did He not rebuke His disciples as He did the Pharisees in 23:23 who kept the law?

I''ll keep this one short to bring somes sort of order and focus the discussion. I'll trust you'll attempt to do likewise.

Thanks

God bless
TV

TV01:

@Cgift please put up!

@cgift,

There's a 'gentleman' for you - and I hope you can understand better now.

TV01,

Thanks for your replies. I've responded accordingly in the new thread. Please refer.

Cheers.

pilgrim.1:

@cgift,

There's a 'gentleman' for you - and I hope you can understand better now.

.

Th guy is a comedian. He nearly killed me with laughter.

We were made to believe many funny things by those who existed before us.

That is why we need to find out for ourselves and know the difference.

Hello, I am new to the forum.  I do not see tithing mentioned in reference to Christian giving.  Rather I see Christian giving on a higher level, it is not based on a percentage, it is based on our heart.

1.  "according to what one has, and not according to what one does not have." 2 Cor 8:12 (no % here)
2.   "lay SOMETHING aside, storing up as he may prosper, " 1 Cor 16:1 (no % here)
3.  ", so let each one give as he purposes in his heart, "2 Cor 9:7 (no % here either)

Everything in the Bible is true, but not everything in the Bible is talking to me.  If I read Gen where God
COMMANDS the building of an ark and my wife comes home and finds Home Depot delivering pallets of Gopher wood, that would be silly, yes God commanded building an ark, but he was speaking to Noah, not to me.  Likewise Mal 3 was not written to Christians and binding a legalistic tithe on Christian giving (though done with good intentions) is a man made practice that I believe is not only unbiblical, but damaging to the Church.

No one in the Bible is ever command to give 10% of their gross income to anyone.

1. Abraham's tithe was a ONE TIME event.  It was not on his increase, but rather on the war plunder (Heb 7:4).  He had become wealthy yet there is no mention of him EVER giving a tithe of this increase to anyone.

2. The Mosaic tithe was always on things edible, notice Mal 3:10 "Bring the whole tithe into the storeroom that their may be FOOD in my house."  (They had money, but it was not tithed) Therefore the Mosaic tithe was ONLY on land owners that had produce of the fields and flocks.  Not everyone under the old covenant tithed, only land owners and only on their flocks and fields.
therefore, Jesus did not tithe, he was a carpenter
                 Paul did not tithe, he was a tent maker
                 Peter did not tithe, he was a fisherman

The reason for the Mosaic Lord's tithe was to feed the Levities as they owned NO land on which to grow their own crops or graze their own herds.  The Levitical priesthood has been abolished and so also the tithing that supported them.

All requirements for tithing were addressed to those BEFORE the establishment of the Church.  After the establishment of the Church, tithing is a non issue.

1.  No Christian is ever commanded to tithe.
2.  No Christian is ever corrected for not tithing.
3.  When Ananias lied and pretended to give all of the sale of is house, Peter did not tell him"why did you lie, all you were required to give is 10%."  This is an example of Christian monetary increase yet NO MENTION of the tithe.  Peter did not connect tithing with Christian giving and neither should we.   

Let me quote from THE ZONDERVAN PICTORAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE BIBLE, PAGE 758

"For several centuries in the Early Church there was no support of the clergy by a systematic giving of a tithe,   Rather, freedom in Christian giving was emphasized."

Let us do likewise.

Hi @seeker2,

seeker2:

1. "according to what one has, and not according to what one does not have." 2 Cor 8:12 (no % here)
2. "lay SOMETHING aside, storing up as he may prosper, " 1 Cor 16:1 (no % here)
3. ", so let each one give as he purposes in his heart, "2 Cor 9:7 (no % here either)

If you're looking for % here and there, you will never get to know the essence of tithing.

Even when you think you already had a handle on the subject, you probably missed it all. What was the attitude of the Lord Jesus to tithing? What do you read in Matthew 23:23?

Carefully consider the matter - perhaps you will begin to see.

Cheers.

The above reply illustrates the main (but certainly not the only) weakness of the teaching that Christians are commanded to tithe.  The proof text mentioned IS NOT a command to Christians.  If the scriptures had a command to or an example of Christians tithing that would be presented, yet it is not because there is none.  The practice of Christians tithing of their gross income to the local church is unknown in scripture.  The scripture has much to say about Christian giving, but NOTHING about Christian tithing.

Just because Jesus told those under the Mosaic Covenant  (Matt 23:23) that they needed to support the Levitical priesthood by tithing on their crops and flocks (did you know the Mosaic tithes were never money?) does not indicate He intended to fund the work of the Church in the SAME WAY.  If so, then we certainly must do so THE SAME WAY.  but what church would be happy if their members brought in buckets of pears, apples, walnuts, sheep and cows.  Clearly the New Testament method of taking generous, cheerful collections based on how we have been prospered and as we have purposed in our hearts is superior.

Many things Jesus did and commanded would be sinful to bind on Christians. 

Jesus COMMANDED animal sacrifices (Matt 8:4)

Jesus observed the Sabbath (Luke 4:16) although He rejected their man made up
                                                                  regulations concerning the Sabbath.

Jesus observed the Passover (Matt 26:18)

Yes, Jesus commanded JEWS (Matt 23:23) to tithe their crops and flocks to support the Levitical priests, but such would not work well as the support system for the work of the Church. 

Heb 7:12 says "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law."

That included the Levitical priesthood in all of its aspects, including it's financial support system.

There is no support in scripture that tithing was required of Christians in any form. 

Such is a man made practice (that if full of many evils) that is not supported by scripture or history.

Once again from THE ZONDERVAN PICTORIAL ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE BIBLE, p. 758

"For several centuries in the Early Church there was no support of the clergy by a systematic giving of a tithe, rather freedom in Christian giving was emphasized."

I am grateful for the opportunity to have shared and I wish you all the best.