Hnd-holder:

I call for seize fire, educate us who should pay tithe. Do not be personnal on this issue.
We can not fight for GoD

Tithing should be the focus.

You didn't make this call all through after TV01 left his aspersions. Why NOW?

I'm not taking anything personal. I simply stated I will NOT be tolerant ANYMORE to such discourtesies from anyone. QED. They serve me their uncivil manners, they shouldn't take anything pilgrim.1 offers them as personal.

Hi Pilgrim.1,

Seems I bring out the hidden bully in you huh ?

I noticed you NEVER addressed the core concern of Matthew 23:23 in your reposte. This is the one thing I continually have called the attention of tithe-ooposers to: the fact that you're least interested in dialogue and your unwillingness to answer questions.

Simply untrue, I have addressed it severally, from different perspectives and have given you credit for the applicable portion of your own insight. My gently joshing is no match for your industrial scale vituperation and sly invective. However, it doesn't stop me addressing issues. Ignore the asides, they are just that.

All the same, I'd like for you to deal with this particular issue as simply and directly as you possibly could manage:

Yes ma!

1)

        MATTHEW 23:23 and LUKE 11:42


Let me outline them for easier reference:

   ¤ (A) the 'CODE' - [tithes/tithing]

   ¤ (B) the INTENT - [weightier matters of the Law: judgement, mercy and faith]

   ¤¤¤ So, which of the two elements did He ask you to retain?

   ¤¤¤ Which one of them did He ask you to make redundant?

If you void one [(A)], then you'd have to void the other [(B)] - because the Lord voided NEITHER of them!!   This is His word:

   ¤¤ "THESE" ought ye to have done  -- (A) the 'CODE'

   ¤¤ AND not to leave the "OTHER" undone -  (B) the INTENT

So, if you argue to keep/retain "the intent" and make "the code" redundant, are you not really misinterpreting the Lord's WORD in that verse?

I earlier said this;

Quote from: TV01 on Today at 10:20:11 AM
How can you say its by an applicable written law and then say it's not by mandate.

To which you replied;

pilgrim.1:

The context is clear - don't twist it. I offered that its PRINCIPLES are applicable, did I not?

The answer in your own words;

The code is done away with, the intent is retained.

Look girl, no need to keep my company under pretence of a scriptural discussion. If you'd like a hot date with T_bloV_iate, just say . Fix your make-up and I''ll come get you. Leave the sparring gloves at home and I'm sure you'll be pleasantly surprised about how erudite I am on a whole range of topics. ! Eeerrrr, by the way, are you a fine girl !

(2)

        MATTHEW 23:23 and LUKE 11:42

         Christ simply pointed out this:

       
THESE do  . . . (a)



the OTHERS do also. . . (b)


     Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42

   (NLT - New Living Translation)

   'You should tithe, yes, but do not neglect the more important things.'

But to "deal with the issues" and for completeness, I'll answer this as well .

Matthew 23:23 - Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.

The Lord was clearly speaking to Jews under the law at the time - that the written law was still in effect. It was done away with His resurrection. QED.

Scribes ~ Teachers of the - religiousm- law (as some versions render it) and
Pharisees ~ An ultra religious Jewish sect

What law was He referring to? Was it not the Mosaic? Enough said.

If the Lord asked you to make "THESE" redudant, please come simply write it out for your readers to see the point.

And if He asked to you make the OTHERS redudant as well, please write it out as well.

At this point, you'd only make your readers see in print how well you can mis-"interpret" clear statements!!

Done away with, fulfilled, established by grace and not written ordinances, written in hearts and not on stones _{speaking of which I've won yours right} . REDUNDANT!!!!!

I really do need you to address them. NO evasions or prevarications, please.

Ok, where/when shall we meet !

God bless
TV

TV01,

TV01:

Seems I bring out the hidden bully in you huh ?

Jus behave - that's the message.

TV01:

Simply untrue, I have addressed it severally, from different perspectives and have given you credit for the applicable portion of your own insight.

You never addressed it; and that's why I simplified it by repetition. Please do so. Thank you.

TV01:

My gently joshing is no match for your industrial scale vituperation and sly invective.

That's why I warned that your repeated discourtesies will not be tolerated any further.

TV01:

However, it doesn't stop me addressing issues. Ignore the asides, they are just that.

They're not "just that" - and I won't ignore your uncivil manners any further.

TV01:

The answer in your own words;

The code is done away with, the intent is retained.

I never equated the PRINCIPLES to the "code", and you can't allege that I did.

TV01:

Look girl, no need to keep my company under pretence of a scriptural discussion. If you'd like a hot date with TbloViate, just say . Fix your make-up and I''ll come get you. Leave the sparring gloves at home and I'm sure you'll be pleasantly surprised about how erudite I am on a whole range of topics. ! Eeerrrr, by the way, are you a fine girl !

Please deal with the issues.

TV01:

The Lord was clearly speaking to Jews under the law at the time - that the written law was still in effect. It was done away with His resurrection. QED.

If that were true, where do we read that the Lord did away with the weightier matters of the LAW? Where do we read that the resurrection did away with "judgment, mercy, and faith"?

What was "done away with" in Matthew 23:23 that you quoted, TV01? Just simply show the verse, and it will suffice.

TV01:

Scribes ~ Teachers of the - religiousm- law (as some versions render it) and
Pharisees ~ An ultra religious Jewish sect

What law was He referring to? Was it not the Mosaic? Enough said.

Simply show HOW and WHERE the Lord's resurrection did away with Matthew 23:23 - that's all I ask.

TV01:

Done away with, fulfilled, established by grace and not written ordinances, written in hearts and not on stones speaking of which I've won yours right . REDUNDANT!!!!!

In other words, that which is not written in ordinances has been written by "grace" in the heart - and therefore we are not asked to keep the weightier matters NOR the OTHER matter mentioned in Matt. 23:23? Please be clear - show it.

TV01,

Here is what I asked you to deal with: (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-39490.32.html#msg1428224) where I simplified it by repetition. Could you kindly deal with it in a fair manner?

There are TWO issues there in Matt. 23:23:

[list]
[li]"THESE" -- weightier matters of the LAW - (judgment, mercy, and faith)[/li][/list]

[list]
[li]the "OTHER"  --  tithes[/li][/list]


WHICH one of the above did the Lord specifically in that verse ask YOU TV01 to make redundant?

                            Is it "THESE" or the "OTHER"?

If He ever asked you to make either of them redundant, please TYPE it out so others can read WHERE He said so!!!

[list]
[li]To void "THESE" is to void the "OTHER"![/li][/list]

[list]
[li]To RETAIN "THESE" is to RETAIN the "OTHER"![/li][/list]


TV01, which one of the above did the Lord specifically ask you to make REDUNDANT? 

Pilly, Pilly, Pilly,

Will you weary me?

You are not being coherent in your postulations and not seeming to understand what you yourself are saying.

pilgrim.1:

I never equated the PRINCIPLES to the "code", and you can't allege that I did.

No girl, the intent is what would at best equate to principles, not the code. Pilly dear, step into true liberty in Christ.

God bless
TV

TV01:

Pilly, Pilly, Pilly,

Will you weary me?

You are not being coherent in your postulations and not seeming to understand what you yourself are saying.

No girl, the intent is what would at best equate to principles, not the code. Pilly dear, step into true liberty in Christ.

TV01,

I am not in bondage - and I know the liberty we have in Christ by experience every single day.

For the record, dtry not prevaricating or evading the question/request I presented - please deal with it in as simple a manner:


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Here is what I asked you to deal with: (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-39490.32.html#msg1428224) where I simplified it by repetition. Could you kindly deal with it in a fair manner?

There are TWO issues there in Matt. 23:23:

[list]
[li]"THESE" -- weightier matters of the LAW - (judgment, mercy, and faith)[/li][/list]

[list]
[li]the "OTHER" -- tithes[/li][/list]


WHICH one of the above did the Lord specifically in that verse ask YOU TV01 to make redundant?

¤¤¤¤ Is it "THESE" or the "OTHER"?

If He ever asked you to make either of them "redundant", please TYPE it out so others can read WHERE He said so!!!

[list]
[li]To void "THESE" is to void the "OTHER"![/li][/list]

[list]
[li]To RETAIN "THESE" is to RETAIN the "OTHER" as well![/li][/list]


TV01, which one of the above did the Lord specifically ask YOU to make REDUNDANT?

Here is what I asked you to deal with: (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-39490.32.html#msg1428224) where I simplified it by repetition. Could you kindly deal with it in a fair manner?

There are TWO issues there in Matt. 23:23:


"THESE" -- weightier matters of the LAW - (judgment, mercy, and faith)


the "OTHER"  --  tithes


WHICH one of the above did the Lord specifically in that verse ask YOU TV01 to make redundant?

             ¤¤¤¤ Is it "THESE" or the "OTHER"?

If He ever asked you to make either of them "redundant", please TYPE it out so others can read WHERE He said so!!!

The Lord did not personally ask me to make anything redundant .

The tithe instituted under the Mosaic law was fulfilled and done away with as part of the saving work of Christ.

¤¤¤¤ Is it "THESE" or the "OTHER"?

If He ever asked you to make either of them "redundant", please TYPE it out so others can read WHERE He said so!!!

Please don't shout. The Mosaic Law has it's fulfilment in Christ.

To void "THESE" is to void the "OTHER"!

That is you not scripture, and sadly wrong.

To RETAIN "THESE" is to RETAIN the "OTHER" as well!

Ditto.

The written code route to righteousness is not applicable to NTC.  No NTC was ever asked to tithe by The Lord or His disciples. It is not taught in the NT. Anywhere!

TV01, which one of the above did the Lord specifically ask YOU to make REDUNDANT? 

Please don't nag me. You are not my wife !

You cannot teach tithing by recourse to the Mosaic law.

Galatians 2:16 - know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

Galatians 3:11 - Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."

Galatians 3:24 - So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.

Galatians 4:4 -  But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.

Galatians 5:4 - You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

Tithing is a work of the law. It's bondage and slavery girl, don't go there! It's doubly tragic as it's essentially denying the grace of God in Christ Jesus!

God bless
TV

_{Ceaselessly berating me won't change the clearly explicit and simple declaration of the holy scriptures. Don't take it personal, you are simply wrong 8 !}

TV01,

TV01:

The Lord did not personally ask me to make anything redundant .

Good point. So, please don't make this point a tedious one by trying to force your redundancy where the Lord did NOT ask you to do so.

TV01:

The tithe instituted under the Mosaic law was fulfilled and done away with as part of the saving work of Christ.

In other words, the Lord's "saving" work saved you from the tithes? Is that what Matt. 23:23 teaches YOU?

If that is so, did the Lord's "saving" work also "save" YOU from the other things - judgement, mercy and faith? If not, WHY not?

Remember, to VOID one is simply to VOID the other. To RETAIN one is precisely to RETAIN the other - that is the message in Matt. 23:23.

TV01:

Please don't shout. The Mosaic Law has it's fulfilment in Christ.

I'm not shouting. Please show me where the Cross "did away" with judgement, mercy and faith, and it sufficeth for now.

TV01:

That is you not scripture, and sadly wrong.

Please show HOW and WHY.

TV01:

The written code route to righteousness is not applicable to NTC.  No NTC was ever asked to tithe by The Lord or His disciples. It is not taught in the NT. Anywhere!

In which case, it is NOT taught ANYWHERE in the NT that no "NTC" was ever asked to regard "judgement, mercy and faith" as applicable, not so?

To simplify issues even further, WHERE were Christians specifically asked to NOT tithe?

The Lord did not ask that Christians NO LONGER Tithe - it is NOT taught anywhere! The Apostles did NOT ask that Christians NO LONGER tithe - it is NOT taught ANYWHERE!

Since you've tried to throw one of the issues away, you have no justification to throw the other away. If you feel you do, please show us HOW, WHY, and WHERE the Lord asked that you do so.

His word in Matt. 23:23 is not a PARTIAL matter. In one word: Do BOTH!!! If you don't agree that He presented BOTH, please show us where He asked us to do ONLY ONE!!

TV01:

Please don't nag me. You are not my wife !

I didn't nag you; nor do I hope to be what you dream I should be (your wife).

TV01:

You cannot teach tithing by recourse to the Mosaic law.

The aposte Paul did - and he specifically mentioned the Law of Moses in 1 Cor. 9:8-10.

TV01:

Galatians 2:16 - know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

Galatians 3:11 - Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."

Galatians 3:24 - So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.

Galatians 4:4 -  But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.

Galatians 5:4 - You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

Don't panic - neither the OT nor the NT teaches anywhere that tithing was a matter of "JUSTIFICATION"!! To make that inference here is to miss the whole point.

Does the apostle Paul seek to "justify" the Christian by the LAW Of MOSES that he mentioned in 1 Cor. 9:8-10 as being written "for OUR sakes, NO DOUBT"?!? Was he there speaking about "justification"? If he was NOT, why try to make tithing a matter of "justifying" anyone?

TV01:

Tithing is a work of the law. It's bondage and slavery girl, don't go there! It's doubly tragic as it's essentially denying the grace of God in Christ Jesus!

If tithing was "bondage", would the Lord Jesus have been preaching "bondage" to them in Matt. 23:23? If He was NOT, why are you TV01 trying to make it what it was NOT? Was Abraham in "bondage" when he tithed to Melchizedek? WHY are you forcing yourself to read into the text things that are not there and which you CANNOT defend?!?

TV01:

Ceaselessly berating me won't change the clearly explicit and simple declaration of the holy scriptures. Don't take it personal, you are simply wrong

Rather than whine and complain, heed the warning - do NOT address me with your discourtesies; rather face the issues being discussed. If I am wrong, you have yet to demonstrate HOW, WHY and WHERE.

Cheers.

Morning Pillgrim.1,

Good weekend? I'm quite hoping you had an epiphany on the "tithing" issue at some point during it . But until you confirm that, I'll assume the discussion continues as is.

Now;

Good point. So, please don't make this point a tedious one by trying to force your redundancy where the Lord did NOT ask you to do so.

But that the requirements of a written law have passed away is clearly demonstrated in scripture.

If that is so, did the Lord's "saving" work also "save" YOU from the other things - judgement, mercy and faith? If not, WHY not?

I find it very hard to believe that you continously fail to see this. I'm inclined to think you are just wilfully ignoring it due to a vested interest in maintaining recieved traditional notions. Never the less I shall repeat.

" The righteous requirements of the law - love in short - is still requisite. The means of achieving this - by grace - has changed".

That is why The Lord copmmanded those under the law to keep it. No Christian is ever commanded, told, encouraged or even advised to tithe. Not by the Lord or by His apostles as you keep falsely trumpeting.

Remember, to VOID one is simply to VOID the other. To RETAIN one is precisely to RETAIN the other - that is the message in Matt. 23:23.

Your logic is weak. If voiding the written demands of the law also voids the righteous requirement, then all the written code is still applicable.

Once again, you continously maintain that tithing is not by "law" and then try and justify it by recourse to same. Falsehood.

I'm not shouting. Please show me where the Cross "did away" with judgement, mercy and faith, and it sufficeth for now.

Christ fulfilled the written demands and the grace He ushered in enabled the righteous requirements - judgement, mercy, faith and the love of God.

In which case, it is NOT taught ANYWHERE in the NT that no "NTC" was ever asked to regard "judgement, mercy and faith" as applicable, not so?

Keep trying to bundle issues and ignore the plian facts. Righteousness (or holiness, justification, or sanctification) is no longer achieved by adherence to a written code. It's all by grace ~ The law came by Moses, but grace came by Jesus Christ ~ through faith.

The Lord did not ask that Christians NO LONGER Tithe - it is NOT taught anywhere! The Apostles did NOT ask that Christians NO LONGER tithe - it is NOT taught ANYWHERE!

Because the NT stricture is giving. Freewill and with a giving heart. Sacrificially if willing and able. All engendeed by grace. Giving is a grace. Please read 2 Corinthians 8 from the beginning. Thanks.

Since you've tried to throw one of the issues away, you have no justification to throw the other away. If you feel you do, please show us HOW, WHY, and WHERE the Lord asked that you do so.

Please tell the forum what the Lords death and ressurection accomplished - or failed to accomplish - regards the law, if you are adamant that parts of the written code are still to be adhered to by NTC. Please try and be brief and specific. Please state if the written code is still in effect, a yes or no would suffice. Thanks in advance!

His word in Matt. 23:23 is not a PARTIAL matter. In one word: Do BOTH!!! If you don't agree that He presented BOTH, please show us where He asked us to do ONLY ONE!!

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.

You glaring failure to appreciate dichotomies of grace/law, flesh/spirit and works/faith are the root of your error here. I daresay it's compounded by your flawed understanding of how money is to be used in NTC life, and the fact that you hold so strongly to incorrect traditional notions. Too much "book" appears to have further excacerbated the problem .

The aposte Paul did - and he specifically mentioned the Law of Moses in 1 Cor. 9:8-10.

No he did not. The reference to the law was to demonstrate that those who give themselves to alter service in such a way that denies them any other means of livelihood should be cared for bythe church community. As noted in Timothy, every able bodied man should work. Functioning in church in any ministerial capacity does not void this.

Don't panic - neither the OT nor the NT teaches anywhere that tithing was a matter of "JUSTIFICATION"!! To make that inference here is to miss the whole point.

Pray tell, what is tithing a matter of?

Does the apostle Paul seek to "justify" the Christian by the LAW Of MOSES that he mentioned in 1 Cor. 9:8-10 as being written "for OUR sakes, NO DOUBT"?!? Was he there speaking about "justification"? If he was NOT, why try to make tithing a matter of "justifying" anyone?

Your misunderstanding references to the law to make a point to NTC, as somehow charging that the law be kept is so wrong. The law was about oxen, and as Paul rightly points out, is it oxen God is concerned about? Is it tithing God is concerned about? Or the care and love for those in need? The weightier requirements!

If tithing was "bondage", would the Lord Jesus have been preaching "bondage" to them in Matt. 23:23? If He was NOT, why are you TV01 trying to make it what it was NOT? Was Abraham in "bondage" when he tithed to Melchizedek

The Lord did not preach tithing - ever! He was telling those under the law to keep the law. Gentiles were never asked to keep the law, and The Apostle you relentlessly slander, fought tooth and nail - even at the risk of schism - to keep the law being imposed on NTC life, even for Jewish converts.

Galatians 2:11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. 17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."

Nothing comes via adherence to a written code as I have repeatedly said. Not justification, not righteousness, not santification, not holiness and not wisdom. The NTC life is by faith in Christ to accomplish the righteous requirements of the law, through the grace this faith provides and the enablement this grace engenders.

Your recourse to a written code under the sorry guise of a "worship response, or law that is still in effect" screams that you have not fully grasped dying to the law. If you don't die to the law, you can't comprehend being baptised into His death and being raised with him in newness of life.

John 5:39 - You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.

God bless
TV

Hi TV01,

Good weekend it was for me; and I trust same with you.

After having gone through your rejoinder, it's unfortunate to observe your inconsistent propositions, untennable assumptions and partial arguments that you have not been able to defend from Scripture. I should not have bothered saying more than two lines to flush your latest comeback; but as usual, I offer a detailed response so that nobody is left confused by your weak summations.

TV01:

But that the requirements of a written law have passed away is clearly demonstrated in scripture.

That is not the issue here. You've been demonstrating a rather roundabout and inconsistent position all along, which I do not wish to keep pursuing any further.

Take a look again at your opening statement: "the requirements of a written law have passed away". That being so, it only shows that you're contradicting your own proposition again and again. Compare this with your previous assertions:

1. On the one hand, you argued that it is the "righteous requirement" of the Law that is being established!

A.

Is it the letter of the law that is being established? No, no, no. It’s the righteous requirement of it.

. . . and here again:

B.

Once again, the intent - the righteous requirement - of the law is not redundant, but a written code as the means to effect it is.

Your recent argument that the 'requirements' have passed away is NOT the same thing as previously asserting that the very same 'requirements' are 'NOT redundant' or "is being established"!

TV01, when you make an assertion and then come round contradicting that proposition, it comes across to me that you really have no consistent grounds for your arguements! This discussion would have progressed further if it were not for the same inconsistencies in your propositions that I find rather worrying.

It's either you do have a genuinely consistent issue to present; or we'd just have to wonder at all that there's anything tangible to look forward to in the persuasions of those opposing tithes. That is why I appealed that you don't make this point a tedious one.

TV01:

I find it very hard to believe that you continously fail to see this. I'm inclined to think you are just wilfully ignoring it due to a vested interest in maintaining recieved traditional notions. Never the less I shall repeat.

Again, I've made the point that my position is not fed by tradition - and that is why I've argued my points from the WORD of God rather than appeal to any particular institution or school of thought. It's easy to deflate the arguments built around such "received traditions", but not as easy to do so where the WORD is appealed to in debating every single point. Which is quite amazing - because I haven't seen you able to soundly defend your propositions, even though again and again I've answered every single query you've offered.

TV01:

"The righteous requirements of the law - love in short - is still requisite. The means of achieving this - by grace - has changed".

Honestly, I really can't over-emphasize this point! You're clearly contradicting your proposition, TV01!! Do you not see that this further confirms the inconsistencies in your persuasions? Here, let me quote you separately in your most recent reposte:

1.

TV01:

But that the requirements of a written law have passed away is clearly demonstrated in scripture.

2.

TV01:

The righteous requirements of the law - love in short - is still requisite.

What is the correlation between (1) "passed away" and (2) "still requisite"?!? How could you TERMINATE something and at the same time make it 'STILL requisite'/applicable?

I might as well be tempted to ask that you kindly withdraw from this discussion if these inconsistencies and contradictions are the substnace to your arguments. Please, TV01, you really have no serious proposition to offer!

TV01,

TV01:

That is why The Lord copmmanded those under the law to keep it. No Christian is ever commanded, told, encouraged or even advised to tithe. Not by the Lord or by His apostles as you keep falsely trumpeting.

I did not 'falsely' trumpet anything. There are two things you need to bear in mind by your own argument:

(a) if Matt. 23:23 applied to ONLY those under the Law, then Christians have no business thinking about 'judgment, mercy, and faith'! I've said so again and again that the Lord did not void either tithes or the weightier matters of the Law; and no matter how many times you try to force your misinterpretation into that verse, you still haven't been able to show me WHERE and HOW He voided either issues mentioned there.

(b) if indeed no Christian is ever "commanded, told, encouraged or even advised" to tithe, you'd simply have to provide the verse that categorically commands that they should NOT do so. To simply argue that Christians are NOT to tithe and you have no verse for that assertion, is a weak argument that immediately collapses on its face. WHY? Because you're making your untennable assertions the rule, while at the same time being UNABLE to establish that position by God's WORD! The one thing you'd have to do is simply show WHERE indeed Scripture commands Christians to NOT tithe!

TV01:

Your logic is weak. If voiding the written demands of the law also voids the righteous requirement, then all the written code is still applicable.

Trying to state that my logic is weak does not establish it so - rather, more than anything, it throws our your premise; especially because you've not been able to show WHERE the Lord or the apostles VOIDED the issues mentioned in Matt. 23:23 and Luke 11:42!

Secondly, you're trying to play games by introducing these ideas of a "written demand" and "code" into those verses, whereas that is simply NOT the point the Lord was making there. If that were the case, then you're arguing without reason that the Lord was asking them to keep the "written demand" and "code" while at the same time contradicting your argument by disavowing that same proposition!

Third, not in one instance did the Lord void anything in those verses. If He voided either the tithes or the weightier matters of the Law, please show me WHERE He did so! Why is it taking you forever to simply show it?

TV01:

Once again, you continously maintain that tithing is not by "law" and then try and justify it by recourse to same. Falsehood.

It is not falsehood. What you don't understand and then try to argue against without being able to establish your case should not be reason for your to be so accusative, TV01.

Indeed, I've stated clearly that Tithing did not originate from the Law - No, it did NOT! But even so, what is wrong with discussing both the meaning and principles of TITHES from the Law that incorporated it, TV01? Just what is wrong with discussing Tithes from the Law in order to better understand its principles?

Now, if there's anyone who's into falsehood, let me remind you of yet another inconsistent and contradictory proposition you've made earlier. You're the same person who's argued about tithe thus:

TV01:
3. It was nowhere instituted as a law or commandment with or at the time of Abraham.
Therefore, what was never enacted, can not be abrogated.

If you're so passionate about denouncing others who argue a point from the Law and fail to see your own untennable and often convoluted propositions, don't start reacting when your own infidelity is pointed out. It might be wise to simply observe a complete silence and pass on where you have no clue what you're arguing.

TV01:

Christ fulfilled the written demands and the grace He ushered in enabled the righteous requirements - judgement, mercy, faith and the love of God.

In other words, you assume that before Christ was born, nobody knew anything about "judgement, mercy, faith and the love of God"?!? Cheap interpolation, TV01.

In the first instance, if Matt. 23:23 and Luke 11:42 were a matter of "enabling" the righteous requirements, how could the Lord Jesus have reprimanded them for the enablement that they did not have? Don't see you see that you're reading into the text instead of letting it speak to your heart?

Second, His statement in reprimanding them was that 'ye. . have omitted' (Matt. 23:23) or 'ye . . pass over' those matters (judgement, mercy, faith and the love of God). They could not have been "passing over" or "omitting" those issues if God didn't give them already! The question would then be as to how you could ever suppose the Lord gave them those matters without the enabling?

Your point here is quite untennable in every consideration. Are you now arguing that nobody was "enabled" to love God, or have "faith", or even understand and experience "mercy" BEFORE the first advent of Christ?

TV01, are you just trying so hard to force interpolations into the texts simply because you have no viable, cogent or consistent proposition for your arguments?

TV01:

Keep trying to bundle issues and ignore the plian facts. Righteousness (or holiness, justification, or sanctification) is no longer achieved by adherence to a written code. It's all by grace ~ The law came by Moses, but grace came by Jesus Christ ~ through faith.

Which again throws out your argument - because neither Matt. 23:23 nor Luke 11:42 is predicated on "justification" or "sanctification". You're scooting away from the core of the argument and desperately confusing your position again.

TV01,

TV01:

Because the NT stricture is giving. Freewill and with a giving heart. Sacrificially if willing and able. All engendeed by grace. Giving is a grace. Please read 2 Corinthians 8 from the beginning. Thanks.

I'm truly sorry for you, TV01. Because you're here demonstrating the typical attitude of men who no longer read God's WORD and only resort to fractional arguments for their epoused but utterly untennable propositions. Here, let me help you see HOW you're playing partial games with this subject.

If you're trying to make the elements you mentioned (as highlighted in the quote above) as only applicable to the NT (with a creel appeal to "grace", then please get it once and for all that those elements are also mentioned in THE LAW!! You're often sounding as if "Freewill" and "willing" and "able" are perculiar to the NT and never found operative in the OT. Take another look and see that they are mentioned in the LAW in connection with "GIVING" and "OFFERING" (emphasis all mine):

Exodus 25:2
'Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering: of every man that
giveth it WILLINGLY with his heart ye shall take my offering. '

Exodus 35:5
'Take ye from among you an offering unto the LORD: whosoever is of a WILLING heart,
let him bring it, an offering of the LORD; gold, and silver, and brass'

Exodus 35:22
'And they came, both men and women, as many as were WILLING hearted, and brought
bracelets, and earrings, and rings, and tablets, all jewels of gold: and every man that
offered offered an offering of gold unto the LORD.'

Exodus 35:29
'The children of Israel brought a WILLING offering unto the LORD, every man and woman,
whose heart made them WILLING to bring for all manner of work, which the LORD had
commanded to be made by the hand of Moses.'

Deuteronomy 16:17
'Every man shall give as he is ABLE, according to the blessing of the LORD thy God which
he hath given thee.'

1 Chronicles 29:14
'But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer so WILLINGLY after
this sort? for all things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee.'

Ezra 7:16
'And all the silver and gold that thou canst find in all the province of Babylon, with
the FREEWILL offering of the people, and of the priests, offering WILLINGLY for the house
of their God which is in Jerusalem'

Ezekiel 46:5
'And the meat offering shall be an ephah for a ram, and the meat offering for the lambs
as he shall be ABLE to give, and an hin of oil to an ephah.'


Do you now see how confused you sound by trying to force your own ideas into the NT just to win an untennable and inconsistent proposition? Your argument simply demonstrates that you have not read the WORD carefully on this subject - and that's the reason you keep making these fractional arguments and confusing yourself all the more!

Even so, TV01, since you argue for "Freewill" as if that is only a matter of "grace" in the NT, I'd just like to make you sweat and put you on spot. Please, do this one thing:

Find me the NT verse that uses the word "FREEWILL" in connection to NT 'giving' or 'offerings'.

You've been mulishly and impetuously trying to force the argument that neither the Lord nor the apostles 'ever commanded, told, encouraged or even advised' any Christian to TITHE, not so? Now, rather than cheat behind the counter and pass your own "freewill" collection plate through the backdoor, just simply find me that verse in the NT where the word "FREEWILL" instead was used, since the term 'tithe' seems to be a nightmarish word to you and your tithe-opposing team!

TV01,

It's rather not surprising to me that you'd interpose the word "Freewill" into the NT where it is not used in even one verse there! If it is, please without the mind games that you're well known for, just simply post the verse with the word "FREEWILL" clearly stated! That it occurs in several verses of the OT is undeniable; but I'll again demonstrate to your readers just how untennable your arguments have been. It does not appear that you understand the teaching of God's WORD on the issue of Freewill offerings! Heres HOW and WHY:

You once argued thus:

If giving is freewill, how can there be a command?

Since I read that classic blather of yours, I've reserved the verses that connect "freewill" to God's divine "command" - because I knew you'd again bring up the issue. More than that, both "freewill" and "willing" (or, 'willingly') are connected to God's commandments! Here are the verses:

Exodus 35:4-5 & 22
'And Moses spake unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, saying, This is the thing
which the LORD COMMANDED, saying, Take ye from among you an offering unto the LORD:
whosoever is of a WILLING heart, let him bring it, an offering of the LORD; gold, and silver, and
brass . . . And they came, both men and women, as many as were WILLING hearted, and brought
bracelets, and earrings, and rings, and tablets, all jewels of gold: and every man that offered
offered an offering of gold unto the LORD. '

Exodus 35:29
'The children of Israel brought a WILLING offering unto the LORD, every man and woman, whose
heart made them WILLING to bring for all manner of work, which the LORD had COMMANDED
to be made by the hand of Moses.'

Deuteronomy 12:14 & 17
'But in the place which the LORD shall choose in one of thy tribes, there thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings,
and there thou shalt do all that I COMMAND thee. Thou mayest not eat within thy gates the tithe of thy corn,
or of thy wine, or of thy oil, or the firstlings of thy herds or of thy flock, nor any of thy vows which thou vowest,
nor thy freewill offerings, or heave offering of thine hand'

Your problem has been that since it is 'FREEWILL', there's nothing to suggest it is under a 'COMMAND'. What you should understand is that God never defines 'freewill' as 'freelance' where anyone could do niggardly as they chose. Indeed, the Bible shows that even "freewill offerings" were guided by God's commandments; and anything else is you've been arguing to the contrary is willful rebellion of a queer sort!

I deliberately chose my two initial questions on this subject carefully. Now your worries can begin to drown you. Remember what I said when you first argued between "freewill" and "command"? Here: "In other words, there's no command obliging Christians to give? No wahala. . . we go see wetin happen to you after I leave you in one lump for Poseidon! "

When you go over to the NT, you would still have to find me that verse for the term "FREEWILL", since the word "TITHE" is a nightmare to you. Don't evade this request as you often do - go there and find that verse!

As regards a command in the NT for TITHES, I've repeatedly offered you 1 Corinthians 9:14 - which I've discussed earlier as well in the other threads! If your memory fails you, then please tell your readers how you redefine the phrase "the Lord ORDAINED" to mean something else than "command"!

TV01, I request an answer to my questions. If you evade them, then it would be obvious that something is definitely wrong with you and the way you read God's WORD.

TV01,

TV01:

Please tell the forum what the Lords death and ressurection accomplished - or failed to accomplish - regards the law, if you are adamant that parts of the written code are still to be adhered to by NTC.

You're such a cheat! I've discussed this BEFORE, and I offered that if you're not satisfied as to what particularly is meant by the term "the LAW" as used in the NT, please open another thread, post your concerns there in detail, discuss your persuasions, and I'll meet you there! Do anything you want to do; but please do NOT be so dishonest as to allege your own duplicity and misconceptions against my posts - because more than anyone here, you TV01 has been the very person arguing that "the LAW" is no longer applicable to NTC! And now you come back pretending to have agreed that "parts of the written code are still adhered to by NTC"! Who infact has just argued that "the requirements of a written law have passed away"; while in the same rejoinder making an opposite claim that "the intent - the righteous requirement - of the law is not redundant"? How dishonest can you get?

TV01:

Please try and be brief and specific. Please state if the written code is still in effect, a yes or no would suffice. Thanks in advance!

NO - The LAW is NOT WHOLESALE done away with - and I quoted Romans 3:31 to that effect: "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law"!

I further have outlined the meaning of the term "the LAW" in its VARIOUS contexts in the NT as including:

* the Sinaitic Law (including the 10 commandments - see Rom. 2:15)
* the Pentateuch/Torah (Genesis to Deuteronomy - see Rom. 3:21; Luke 24:44)
* the specific commandments God gave in the OT - (see Neh. 9:13-14)

. . . in which case also I offered that its application in the NT furnishes us with the following:

* specific commandments
* prophecies
* exhortations
* divine principles

Now, if we should argue that the "written code" has been done away with, by which you're supposing therefore that what was "written" in the Law has now been nullified, then you'd be saying at the same time that people are free to no longer pay attention to the specific commandments God gave as guiding PRINCIPLES for ALL time in the Law!

TV01, I've been patient enough with your penchant to be accusative, forcefully read your misconceptions into my posts where they do not exist, and end up confusing yourself further. Once again, if you want to discuss the Law, open another thread and there spew all you think you know about the LAW, and I'll give you enough towel to mop up your gurgitations. And if at all you're man enough to take my challenge, please remember also to clearly state if you are persuaded that NO PART of the Law applies to the Christian today!

TV01

TV01:

His word in Matt. 23:23 is not a PARTIAL matter. In one word: Do BOTH!!! If you don't agree that He presented BOTH, please show us where He asked us to do ONLY ONE!!

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.

Does Romans 8:4 ask you to do ONLY ONE of what was stated in Matt. 23:23?

This is the kind of duplicity that I've always cautioned you deal with in your own heart before trying to cheat your readers in issues you have not been able to defend.

Matthew 23:23 presents two things: (a) TITHES; and (b) the weightier matters.

Which ONE of the TWO did the Lord nullify? How does Romans 8:4 demonstrate that the Lord asked you to deal with ONLY ONE of them and disregard the OTHER? WHICH ONE did Romans 8:4 ask you to keep in Matt. 23:23 - and which one did the same Romans 8:4 ask you to retain?

Please be honest when dealing with this issue, TV01. If you supposed that you're dishonest games would wear me out, then you should have long achieved your aim. But still keeping up this duplicity of yours is not the best way to defend your acuse.

TV01:

You glaring failure to appreciate dichotomies of grace/law, flesh/spirit and works/faith are the root of your error here. I daresay it's compounded by your flawed understanding of how money is to be used in NTC life, and the fact that you hold so strongly to incorrect traditional notions. Too much "book" appears to have further excacerbated the problem

My dear kindergarten, what THE Book says is what I've been presenting. And in doing so, your farce is not supported by Matthew 23:23 or Luke 11:42. How could the Lord have been using dichotomies of "works/faith" or "flesh/spirit" to reprimand those you affirm as being under the Law? Is it not clear that those two texts was simply as regards their partial obedience to God's WORD?

If you're supposing that your fallacy could be helped by your repeated defeatist mentality to see my posts as "traditional notions", you're only making matters worse for yourself - because only losers whimper the way you do. And I've always asked such losers to deal with the ISSUES being discussed instead of the sly invectives. More often than not, it turns out that such losers only resort to such self-defeatist devices where they've demonstrated their contradictions endlessly - as if substituting rascality for common sense has helped your post in any wise!

TV01:

No he did not. The reference to the law was to demonstrate that those who give themselves to alter service in such a way that denies them any other means of livelihood should be cared for bythe church community. As noted in Timothy, every able bodied man should work. Functioning in church in any ministerial capacity does not void this.

See? You fell for the noose! TV01, before you make more serious noise, simply open your Bible and read verse 14 of 1 Cor. 9! I deliberately quoted up to verse 10 earlier, because I know that you would panic if I had included vs. 14 - "EVEN SO hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel."

First, the apostle refers to what obtains in the Law (vs. 10) - and then goes on to state that the Lord had ordained it "EVEN SO" to Christians! I've asked earlier that you discuss what precisely the apostle was referring to by verse 13 - those who ministered about the holy things in the Law; wnad why the same apostle in the very next verse 14 declared that the Lord had ORDAINED the very same thing in the NT!

Only blind inconsistent scholarship such as you demonstrated at the beginning of your rejoinder will fail to see the point. Again, since you've tried to cleverly smuggle in your own "FREEWILL" into the NT, please provide the verse that uses that same word, seeing that TITHES have proved to be your death knell. Don't evade that!

TV01,

TV01:

Pray tell, what is tithing a matter of?

I've done so before, and you rejected it! So, rather than keep repeating myself endlessly, I ask that you clearly show us HOW tithing ever was a matter discussed in the Bible as "justification" for anything or anybody.

TV01:

Your misunderstanding references to the law to make a point to NTC, as somehow charging that the law be kept is so wrong. The law was about oxen, and as Paul rightly points out, is it oxen God is concerned about? Is it tithing God is concerned about? Or the care and love for those in need? The weightier requirements!

Read the verse yourself. Paul quoted from the LAW (Deut. 25:4) and argued that the verse he quoted was written "for OUR sakes!!" Not only so, he went on to use that same argument from the LAW to the point that the Lord had "EVEN SO" ordained that Christians have the responsibility to financially support those who preach the Gospel!

Since you're so way off this point and arguing an inconsistent proposition that you've not been able to defend, it's no surprise that you couldn't clearly see what the apsotle was quoting. Let that serve as another example to the point I made earlier that the LAW has divine PRINCIPLES still applicable to Christians today. NO? Then quarrel all you want with Paul's quoting Deut. 25:4 and asserting that it was written "for OUR sakes!".

TV01:

The Lord did not preach tithing - ever!

Assertive denial - as ever! Here is where He preached it:

Matthew 23:23 - "ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: THESE ought ye to have done, and NOT TO LEAVE the OTHER undone."

Did He preach that they do "THESE"? -- YES!! ('THESE ought ye to have done')

Did He preach that they do the "OTHER"? -- YES!! ('not to leave the OTHER undone')

You can deny as much as you want, it won't change the WORD!

TV01:

He was telling those under the law to keep the law. Gentiles were never asked to keep the law, and The Apostle you relentlessly slander, fought tooth and nail - even at the risk of schism - to keep the law being imposed on NTC life, even for Jewish converts

I did not "slander" any apostle - do you care to keep your duplicity to yourself? Thank you.

Now, the apostle Paul was clear what he fought against - "circumcision" - and we read it in the NT in white and black (Gal. 5:11 and 6:15). He never preached against tithes anywhere - nor id there a hint anywhere in any verse of the NT that it was preached AGAINST! You're once again making bloviates that you have NO VERSE in Scripture to defend!

TV01:

Galatians 2:11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. 17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain."

Nothing comes via adherence to a written code as I have repeatedly said. Not justification, not righteousness, not santification, not holiness and not wisdom. The NTC life is by faith in Christ to accomplish the righteous requirements of the law, through the grace this faith provides and the enablement this grace engenders.

TV01, where in Galatians 2:11-21 did Paul "destroy" tithes? Just be honest, please - WHERE did he ever preach against TITHES?

You see how silly you try to parade your off-key arguments? You had argued that tithing was a matter of "bondage", and I asked simply if the Lord Jesus was preaching bondage to them in Matt. 23:23 - and the next thing is to disregard that issue and run to Galatians 2! You're ever so desperately confusing your position, TV01.

TV01:

Your recourse to a written code under the sorry guise of a "worship response, or law that is still in effect" screams that you have not fully grasped dying to the law. If you don't die to the law, you can't comprehend being baptised into His death and being raised with him in newness of life.

John 5:39 - You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.

From the onset, you've been confusing yourself about "the LAW" - and up until now have consistently demonstrated your feeble mindedness to desperately snatch verses here and there and dress them together for yet a weaker proposition! The NT does not disparage TITHES anywhere. If it does, please show it as clearly, instead of snatching verses that don't negate it and pretending that you see tithes in them!

@ Pilgrim,

Hello. I posted once #72 and you posted 7 times in response Wierdly enough, a good deal of that was dancing around semantics and wilful misreading of what I have consistently posted. Hmmmmm.

NTC do not attain to any of the blessings in Christ by slavish adherence to a written code. The grace that comes through faith in Christ Jesus, enable us to keep the righteous requirements of the law. Please note the distinction between said requirements and the written code.

Your limbo dance around a wilfully decietful reading of something I posted is characteristic of you, and a sad reflection of the depths you will go to to "win" as opposed to open yourself up to the clear leading of the word of God .

Read the verse yourself. Paul quoted from the LAW (Deut. 25:4) and argued that the verse he quoted was written "for OUR sakes!!" Not only so, he went on to use that same argument from the LAW to the point that the Lord had "EVEN SO" ordained that Christians have the responsibility to financially support those who preach the Gospel!

Run around in the burning sun and your likely to collapse from heat exhaustion. Support of those who "preach" the gospel is predicated on their circumstances. If they are indeed itinerant or dislocated and cannot reasonably be expected to earn a livlihood sufficient to care for themselves and any family, they should be supported. Those who "teach" in the local congregation are not to be treated differently from any other member of the body. That is they should work to support themselves and their families, and if they have a need, as much as possible it shpuld be met by the congregation, just like for any other non-ministering member.

Paul worked when he was not itinerant and relied on gofts or went without when he was not. He also worked at a level far below his pedigree and vocational training. Keep pushing for a salaried clergy, it is not found in the scriptural blueprint and is a man-made construct.

Since you're so way off this point and arguing an inconsistent proposition that you've not been able to defend, it's no surprise that you couldn't clearly see what the apsotle was quoting. Let that serve as another example to the point I made earlier that the LAW has divine PRINCIPLES still applicable to Christians today. NO? Then quarrel all you want with Paul's quoting Deut. 25:4 and asserting that it was written "for OUR sakes!".

Your confusion is sad, and indeed I pity you, but sometimes love is tough. Firstly, in a sense you are very right that there are "Divine Principles" - i have severally labelled that the intent or the righteouss requirement - still applicable today. Your error lies in believing and promulgating that those divine principles are satisfied by recourse to a written law.

I did not "slander" any apostle - do you care to keep your duplicity to yourself? Thank you.

Now, the apostle Paul was clear what he fought against - "circumcision" - and we read it in the NT in white and black (Gal. 5:11 and 6:15). He never preached against tithes anywhere - nor id there a hint anywhere in any verse of the NT that it was preached AGAINST! You're once again making bloviates that you have NO VERSE in Scripture to defend!

You didn't just slander him, you trashed the whole of his ministry. Thank God he had seen beyond a written code, otherwise you'd be indicted for libel !

Will you declare before all and sundry in a public forum that Galatians was all about doing away with circumcision? Circumsicion was but a metaphor for the law, as was sabbath keeping. Noting that both pre-dated the Mosaic law, and by Divine edict - whilst pre-law tithing was never by divine fiat - both enacted and both abrogated. Lets have a look shall we?

Galatians 1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly turning away from Him who called you by the grace of Christ, and are turning to a different gospel-- 7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are troubling you and want to change the gospel of Christ.

It was about a wholescale perversion of the gospel of the grace of Christ. And how better to pervert grace than by law ?

13 For you have heard about my former way of life in Judaism: I persecuted God's church to an extreme degree and tried to destroy it; 14 and I advanced in Judaism beyond many contemporaries among my people, because I was extremely zealous for the traditions of my ancestors.

Some info about his background as a Pharasaic Jew and lover of inherited - law based - tradition

Galatians 2:8 For He who was at work with Peter in the apostleship to the circumcised was also at work with me among the Gentiles. 9 When James, Cephas, and John, recognized as pillars, acknowledged the grace that had been given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to me and Barnabas, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

Although Pauls constituency was mainly the uncircumcised, it was not about fleshly circumcision.

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned. 12 For he used to eat with the Gentiles before certain men came from James. However, when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, because he feared those from the circumcision party. 13 Then the rest of the Jews joined his hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were deviating from the truth of the gospel, I told Cephas in front of everyone, "If you, who are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel Gentiles to live like Jews?" 15 We are Jews by birth and not "Gentile sinners"; 16 yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no human being will be justified.

It was about incorporating works of the law into the gospel of grace. Circumcision was a main point in question, but not the only thing. There is nothing to suggest that it was only about that. Peter also ceased eating with gentiles, in accordance with Jewish law. Label it "bloviate" all you like. Anyone who cares to read Galatians with an open heart will see it straight from the git go. Rush to the penultimate chapter and pick to metaphorical verses to remove the whole thrust of the epistle why don't you!

TV01, where in Galatians 2:11-21 did Paul "destroy" tithes? Just be honest, please - WHERE did he ever preach against TITHES?

He was preaching against re-introducing a written code in the dispensation of grace. It covered all the law, of wich the tithe was a part.

You see how silly you try to parade your off-key arguments? You had argued that tithing was a matter of "bondage", and I asked simply if the Lord Jesus was preaching bondage to them in Matt. 23:23 - and the next thing is to disregard that issue and run to Galatians 2! You're ever so desperately confusing your position, TV01.

Keep, misacribing, misrepresenting and mis-whatevering. Enforced tithing or tithing under the misapprehension of it being a divine command for NTC is bondage.

From the onset, you've been confusing yourself about "the LAW" - and up until now have consistently demonstrated your feeble mindedness to desperately snatch verses here and there and dress them together for yet a weaker proposition! The NT does not disparage TITHES anywhere. If it does, please show it as clearly, instead of snatching verses that don't negate it and pretending that you see tithes in them!

No, you are confused - or decietfully misrepresenting - the difference in keeping and applicability of the written law for NTC. Nowhere in the NT is the Law ever deliniated as you have done with your ongoing ruse of anal taxonomy. It's the Law & The Prophets, The Law of Moses etc etc. ~ The Law came through Moses, but grace through Jesus Christ ~ Which of the various stratifications you have applied to the law are not covered?

Again, is the Lords work incomplete? Which parts of the written code did He not fulfil by His saving work and the ensuing grace?

Does Romans 8:4 ask you to do ONLY ONE of what was stated in Matt. 23:23?

How blind, and haughty with it? It clearly states that the wiegthier matters, the intent - or to use your words, the divine principles - are kept not by

=> Law => Works => Flesh => Death, but by
=> Faith => Grace => Righteousness => Eternal Life

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.

Matthew 23:23 presents two things: (a) TITHES; and (b) the weightier matters.

Which ONE of the TWO did the Lord nullify? How does Romans 8:4 demonstrate that the Lord asked you to deal with ONLY ONE of them and disregard the OTHER? WHICH ONE did Romans 8:4 ask you to keep in Matt. 23:23 - and which one did the same Romans 8:4 ask you to retain?

Exactly, written code of the law & the righteous requirement of the law

Keep ranting and fail to see the obvious. Please state clearly for the board that your position is that the written code has to be kept by NTC.

If you're supposing that your fallacy could be helped by your repeated defeatist mentality to see my posts as "traditional notions", you're only making matters worse for yourself - because only losers whimper the way you do. And I've always asked such losers to deal with the ISSUES being discussed instead of the sly invectives. More often than not, it turns out that such losers only resort to such self-defeatist devices where they've demonstrated their contradictions endlessly - as if substituting rascality for common sense has helped your post in any wise!

Word count: Loser x3, defeatist x2, sly x1, rascal x1, real issues x0. True to form.

See? You fell for the noose! TV01, before you make more serious noise, simply open your Bible and read verse 14 of 1 Cor. 9! I deliberately quoted up to verse 10 earlier, because I know that you would panic if I had included vs. 14 - "EVEN SO hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel."

Keep laughing at your own jokes. First, I've answered that previously and severally. Secondly comparing the law and grace does not mean making them synonymous or incorporating the law wholesale. The Lord has ordained. Is the ordinance via the Mosaic law? The principle applies. Those who are wholly seperated to service, should be supported. Your strange extrapolations and poor application are not doing you any favours.

First, the apostle refers to what obtains in the Law (vs. 10) - and then goes on to state that the Lord had ordained it "EVEN SO" to Christians! I've asked earlier that you discuss what precisely the apostle was referring to by verse 13 - those who ministered about the holy things in the Law; wnad why the same apostle in the very next verse 14 declared that the Lord had ORDAINED the very same thing in the NT!

My, you are so obvious, like I saw it coming already. If the OT law was applicable, why would the Lord ordain again in the NT. Shine eye dear!

Only blind inconsistent scholarship such as you demonstrated at the beginning of your rejoinder will fail to see the point. Again, since you've tried to cleverly smuggle in your own "FREEWILL" into the NT, please provide the verse that uses that same word, seeing that TITHES have proved to be your death knell. Don't evade that!

2 Corinthians 8:3 For I bear witness that according to their ability, yes, and beyond their ability, they were freely willing,

Keep publishing your knowledge that is devoid of understanding and your learning that is not wed to understanding.

Plus you demonstrate your inability to take instruction and marrow deep waywardness. I specifically asked you to read that chapter last time around. No probs, you'll soon be grounded, for that in particular and the tripe that you have been spewing generally .

Death knell? Evade you? You provide nothing more than nuisance value. Your position became untenble ages ago. It's for the sake of any who may think my non-response is agreement or ceding this issue to your entirely incorrect position .

NO - The LAW is NOT WHOLESALE done away with - and I quoted Romans 3:31 to that effect: "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law"!

I further have outlined the meaning of the term "the LAW" in its VARIOUS contexts in the NT as including:

* the Sinaitic Law (including the 10 commandments - see Rom. 2:15)
* the Pentateuch/Torah (Genesis to Deuteronomy - see Rom. 3:21; Luke 24:44)
* the specific commandments God gave in the OT - (see Neh. 9:13-14)

. . . in which case also I offered that its application in the NT furnishes us with the following:

* specific commandments
* prophecies
* exhortations
* divine principles

Attaining to the the intent by slavish devotion to a written code is wholesale done away with. It's by grace through faith, as are all the enduements of God in Christ by the Holy Spirit.

Your anal classification of law in "contexts" is not necessary nor used in NT teaching on law and grace. When your eyes open, please share with them at the RCCG, as they also fail to see that written codes do not engender righteousness.

Regards your Sinaitic/Pentateuch/Specific laws, which of these did the saving work of Christ not redeem us from. Briefly please.

Now, if we should argue that the "written code" has been done away with, by which you're supposing therefore that what was "written" in the Law has now been nullified, then you'd be saying at the same time that people are free to no longer pay attention to the specific commandments God gave as guiding PRINCIPLES for ALL time in the Law!!

Keep broadcasting your need for a tutor. Unable to live by simple faith in the completeness of the Lords work. Insist on adding works.

NTC do not live by faithfully observing written laws. The righteous requirements are fulfilled by the Spirit of Grace working in them. Changes in Law do not change NTC conduct, as by increasing grace, we more than satisfy any written requirements. Geddit? Can't cook, won't cook

TV01, I've been patient enough with your penchant to be accusative, forcefully read your misconceptions into my posts where they do not exist, and end up confusing yourself further. Once again, if you want to discuss the Law, open another thread and there spew all you think you know about the LAW, and I'll give you enough towel to mop up your gurgitations. And if at all you're man enough to take my challenge, please remember also to clearly state if you are persuaded that NO PART of the Law applies to the Christian today

It is not necessary for NTC to slavishly adhere to the writtren code of the OT. In fact, to do so, means to slip from grace, which is the NT way of fulfilling the righteous requirement of said code.

I believe that pretty much answers everything. Your next 3/4 posts, where mixtures of slander - no probs, you've done it to loftier beings than me - willful misreading and semantic belly aching, and generally repetitive nonsense. Forgive me for not answering each in turn.

God bless
TV

@TV01,

TV01:

Hello. I posted once #72 and you posted 7 times in response  Wierdly enough, a good deal of that was dancing around semantics and wilful misreading of what I have consistently posted. Hmmmmm.

NTC do not attain to any of the blessings in Christ by slavish adherence to a written code. The grace that comes through faith in Christ Jesus, enable us to keep the righteous requirements of the law. Please note the distinction between said requirements and the written code.

Your limbo dance around a wilfully decietful reading of something I posted is characteristic of you, and a sad reflection of the depths you will go to to "win" as opposed to open yourself up to the clear leading of the word of God .

I think you're dancing around issues and still not saying anything. How difficult is it for you to deal with the issues in Matt. 23:23 and Luke 11:42 instead of franctically dancing away from those verses and franically now coming back to allege that I was willingfully rading into your posts? Have you not done that very same thing repeatedly in trying to read my rejoinders?

If you really have concerns, post them. If you do not, save the rest and don't play the typical hypocritic games that has become second nature to you to abandon an issue and make bloviates on other verses.

TV01:

Run around in the burning sun and your likely to collapse from heat exhaustion. Support of those who "preach" the gospel is predicated on their circumstances. If they are indeed itinerant or dislocated and cannot reasonably be expected to earn a livlihood sufficient to care for themselves and any family, they should be supported. Those who "teach" in the local congregation are not to be treated differently from any other member of the body. That is they should work to support themselves and their families, and if they have a need, as much as possible it shpuld be met by the congregation, just like for any other non-ministering member.

Already discussed in the other thread - and you scooted away without making any remarks to the issues you tried to read into that text that are simply NOT there! Neither the Lord nor the apostles made it a matter of "circumstances" - only men who have closed their hearts to God's WORD are ready "circumstances" into the text where they are clearly NOT there!

TV01:

Paul worked when he was not itinerant and relied on gofts or went without when he was not. He also worked at a level far below his pedigree and vocational training. Keep pushing for a salaried clergy, it is not found in the scriptural blueprint and is a man-made construct.

I already dealt with that as well - and you could not discuss HOW or WHY the verses I left you contradicted what I discussed! 1 Tim. 5:17 & 18 and 1 Cor. 9:14.

TV01:

Your confusion is sad, and indeed I pity you, but sometimes love is tough. Firstly, in a sense you are very right that there are "Divine Principles" - i have severally labelled that the intent or the righteouss requirement - still applicable today. Your error lies in believing and promulgating that those divine principles are satisfied by recourse to a written law.

I never made reference to this confused soup you're now adjusting your contradictions to. If anything, you've been the one making overblown contradictions and holding inconsistent propositions - and I've demonstrated it earlier!

TV01:

You didn't just slander him, you trashed the whole of his ministry. Thank God he had seen beyond a written code, otherwise you'd be indicted for !

Rather than display your duplicity once again, why don't you rather save it and intelligently present your case?

TV01:

Will you declare before all and sundry in a public forum that Galatians was all about doing away with circumcision? Circumsicion was but a metaphor for the law, as was sabbath keeping. Noting that both pre-dated the Mosaic law, and by Divine edict - whilst pre-law tithing was never by divine fiat - both enacted and both abrogated.

Sabbath keeping and circumcision were not "metaphors" for the LAW - please, please and please, don't cheat your readers by dribbling in that hypocritical jargon in here. Neither the apostles nor the Lord Jesus Christ used such terms as metaphors for "the Law" - unless you're once again seriously at pains to confirm to the public that your IQ is that low you haven't checked out the meaning of "metaphor".

TV01:

Lets have a look shall we?

Galatians 1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly turning away from Him who called you by the grace of Christ, and are turning to a different gospel-- 7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are troubling you and want to change the gospel of Christ.

It was about a wholescale perversion of the gospel of the grace of Christ. And how better to pervert grace than by law

Sorry, where did Paul mention "sabbath" and "circumcision" as metaphors for "the Law" in Galatians 1:6 you just quoted? Do you care to be honest at all? Or you just have a special talent for being so confused?

TV01,

TV01:

13 For you have heard about my former way of life in Judaism: I persecuted God's church to an extreme degree and tried to destroy it; 14 and I advanced in Judaism beyond many contemporaries among my people, because I was extremely zealous for the traditions of my ancestors.

Some info about his background as a Pharasaic Jew and lover of inherited - law based - tradition

Galatians 2:8 For He who was at work with Peter in the apostleship to the circumcised was also at work with me among the Gentiles. 9 When James, Cephas, and John, recognized as pillars, acknowledged the grace that had been given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to me and Barnabas, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

Although Pauls constituency was mainly the uncircumcised, it was not about fleshly circumcision.

I am still waiting to see how you forcefully read a "metaphor" into Galatians. Patiently waiting.

TV01:

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned. 12 For he used to eat with the Gentiles before certain men came from James. However, when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, because he feared those from the circumcision party. 13 Then the rest of the Jews joined his hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were deviating from the truth of the gospel, I told Cephas in front of everyone, "If you, who are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel Gentiles to live like Jews?" 15 We are Jews by birth and not "Gentile sinners"; 16 yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no human being will be justified.

It was about incorporating works of the law into the gospel of grace. Circumcision was a main point in question, but not the only thing. There is nothing to suggest that it was only about that. Peter also ceased eating with gentiles, in accordance with Jewish law. Label it "bloviate" all you like. Anyone who cares to read Galatians with an open heart will see it straight from the git go. Rush to the penultimate chapter and pick to metaphorical verses to remove the whole thrust of the epistle why don't you!

All this just to "prove" that the Lord Jesus was reprimanding the Jews for "incorporating works of the law into the gospel of grace" - in Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42?!?

TV01, I had better hope for a clown than for you. Wasted years you must have had in school.

TV01:

He was preaching against re-introducing a written code in the dispensation of grace. It covered all the law, of wich the tithe was a part.

I see. So the Lord was reprimanding the Jews for supposedly "re-introducing a written code in the dispensation of grace" - that's what you read in Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42? Please grow up!

TV01:

Keep, misacribing, misrepresenting and mis-whatevering. Enforced tithing or tithing under the misapprehension of it being a divine command for NTC is bondage.

Ah, "bondage" - so that's what the Lord was admonishing them to "DO" and "not leave. . undone" in Matt. 23:23 and Luke 11:42, not so? Mr "bond", act your "age"! You're sounding ever so comical!

TV01:

No, you are confused - or decietfully misrepresenting - the difference in keeping and applicability of the written law for NTC. Nowhere in the NT is the Law ever deliniated as you have done with your ongoing ruse of anal taxonomy. It's the Law & The Prophets, The Law of Moses etc etc. ~ The Law came through Moses, but grace through Jesus Christ ~ Which of the various stratifications you have applied to the law are not covered?

Again, is the Lords work incomplete? Which parts of the written code did He not fulfil by His saving work and the ensuing grace?

I've asked several times that you open a thread and post your worries there. Seeing you're so slaved to your confusion, I'll take you there and pare your fare free of charge.

TV01:

How blind, and haughty with it? It clearly states that the wiegthier matters, the intent - or to use your words, the divine principles - are kept not by

=> Law => Works => Flesh => Death, but by
=> Faith => Grace => Righteousness => Eternal Life

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.

Mr "bond", please kindly explain HOW the Lord would have been speaking to the Jews to keep the "weightier matters of the Law" through Romans 8:4 BEFORE He went to the Cross!!

TV01:

Exactly, written code of the law & the righteous requirement of the law

Oga, please don't patronize me with your inconsistencies. I've clearly demonstrated that you don't have a serious proposition to make from your belly-dancing and hopping between both sides of the fence. Go there and see your inconsistencies: (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-39490.64.html#msg1441590)

TV01:

Keep ranting and fail to see the obvious. Please state clearly for the board that your position is that the written code has to be kept by NTC.

I'm not the one parading your fallacies; neither did I introduce that fraud of a "written code" into Matt. 23:23! Since you're the champion of that confused soup, could you kindly serve the Forum how you arrived at the same confusion that you're now begging pilgrim.1 to clear up after your mess?

TV01:

Word count: Loser x3, defeatist x2, sly x1, rascal x1, real issues x0. True to form.

Keep crying. How many times did I ask you to save the aspersions and deal with issues? Now you're making a "word-count". I never even start with you yet. Did I not warn you that I won't ignore your sly invectives? What was your reply to that? Keep crying, you haven't met the REAL pilgrim.1!!

TV01,

TV01:

Keep laughing at your own jokes. First, I've answered that previously and severally. Secondly comparing the law and grace does not mean making them synonymous or incorporating the law wholesale. The Lord has ordained. Is the ordinance via the Mosaic law? The principle applies. Those who are wholly seperated to service, should be supported. Your strange extrapolations and poor application are not doing you any favours.

My simple request was that you save the illiterate remarks and show HOW, WHY and WHERE you think my persuasions are deeply flawed. That you're at pains to whine every single time in the same caterwaul does not mean you've addressed the issues. If you've got nothing to say and instead you resort to cheap handouts from your utility-grade school, how does that persuade anyone that you have the slightest clue what you're ranting all along about?

TV01:

My, you are so obvious, like I saw it coming already. If the OT law was applicable, why would the Lord ordain again in the NT. Shine eye dear!

Because for people like you who would try to cheat behind the counter, the apostle used the clause "EVEN SO" to re-iterate that the Lord "ORDAINED"! Were you reading under wet candles to have missed that point?

TV01:

2 Corinthians 8:3 For I bear witness that according to their ability, yes, and beyond their ability, they were freely willing,

Keep publishing your knowledge that is devoid of understanding and your learning that is not wed to understanding.

Thank you, TV01, thank you. You're simply a clown to have missed how I showed that the very same thing concerning being "ABLE" was also given in the LAW! Reminder: Deuteronomy 16:17!

TV01:

Plus you demonstrate your inability to take instruction and marrow deep waywardness.

Thank you again O. . . thank you! (Who was doing a "word-count" just now, eh?)

TV01:

I specifically asked you to read that chapter last time around. No probs, you'll soon be grounded, for that in particular and the tripe that you have been spewing generally.

I read the chapter and DISCUSSED it. What did you rather do?

TV01:

Death knell? Evade you? You provide nothing more than nuisance value. Your position became untenble ages ago.

Thank you yet once again. I especially like that one - "nuisance value"!

TV01:

It's for the sake of any who may think my non-response is agreement or ceding this issue to your entirely incorrect position .

Ah there - you finally came round to beg for a release that we don't share your assertive denials and decorative farcé, eh? Good boy!

TV01:

Keep broadcasting your need for a tutor. Unable to live by simple faith in the completeness of the Lords work. Insist on adding works.

Nope - I never argued to add "works". Your inability to clearly enunciate the meaning of the term "the LAW" in its various connotations should not translate into my need for an kindergarten with subaltern repuatation from your quarters.

TV01:

NTC do not live by faithfully observing written laws.

No, throw them away because they are "written". Your problem is hinging on that one word "written". Pity!

TV01:

The righteous requirements are fulfilled by the Spirit of Grace working in them.

And that was what the Lord told them in Matthew 23:23, not so? TV01, wetin do you? Keep denying the WORD - you hgo answer before the LORD.

TV01:

Changes in Law do not change NTC conduct, as by increasing grace, we more than satisfy any written requirements. Geddit? Can't cook, won't cook

That's the same lullaby that hasn't yet waxed in your defences, which unfortunately collapses in the face of the meaning of Matt. 23:23.

TV01:

It is not necessary for NTC to slavishly adhere to the writtren code of the OT.

I never said they should. You've imprisoned your heart on that "written code", and from that platform made absolute bunkum of your desperate inconsistencies. ]Do I need to remind you again?

TV01:

In fact, to do so, means to slip from grace, which is the NT way of fulfilling the righteous requirement of said code.

And that, you suppose, was what the Lord meant in Matt. 23:23 when He said "these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone"?!?

TV01:

I believe that pretty much answers everything. Your next 3/4 posts, where mixtures of slander - no probs, you've done it to loftier beings than me - willful misreading and semantic belly aching, and generally repetitive nonsense. Forgive me for not answering each in turn.

I forgive you, TV01 - because you really have demonstrated the predicatble emptiness your possess and carry about in your skull. When you grow up and deal with issues, I may be more accommodating to your aspersions - and that's no guarantee, if you come back with the same utility-grade scholarship.

Is it not obvious that you had nothing to offer than the noise you littered this thread with - as you often do in other threads? By the way, what has happened to the several requests I left you - including the one I asked that you don't evade? You prediactably argued round it to show how overblown you could be and yet say nothing! If you're not going to be man enough to deal with issues, please keep coming back and making a clown of yourself - a penny for lollypops after your empty demonstration wouldn' be such a bad pay for your poor job.

Cheerio!

@Pilgrim.1,

Your whole position boils down to a refusal to see the proper context of this;

And that was what the Lord told them in Matthew 23:23, not so? TV01, wetin do you? Keep denying the WORD - you hgo answer before the LORD.

That's the same lullaby that hasn't yet waxed in your defences, which unfortunately collapses in the face of the meaning of Matt. 23:23.

Once you properly contextualise it and realise Jews under the law were being addressed here, you have nothong left. End game.

God bless
TV

TV01,

I've contextualized my position on Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42 as simply as anyone could read and grasp. If you have nothing to post in reply, no worries.

Cheers.

TITHING

TITHES AND TITHING: CAN WE HONESTLY FACE UP TO THE TRUTH?



(BE ASSURED: IF YOU ARE A FAITHFUL TITHER, THIS ARTICLE WILL IN NO WAY ATTACK YOU BUT WILL BRING A FEW FACTS TO YOUR ATTENTION).


I will start this article/essay by making five opening statements:



1. The Apostle Paul NEVER ONCE appealed to tithing even though he obviously often suffered financial difficulties. However, he wrote rather a lot about FREELY giving financial support where one is able.
2. The early Church - prior to Constantine - DID NOT uphold tithing.
3. Tithing was a widespread practise in the ancient world - not something peculiar to Israel.
4. In our day, strongly tithing congregations often become very wealthy congregations with much to spend on various projects and with the minister enjoying an affluent lifestyle, even while many within that congregation might live in a financially very precarious world. Is this not at odds with the examples within the Book of Acts which show Christians within a congregation SHARING their substance so that none should suffer lack? Why do we ignore this clear NEW TESTAMENT example, while being quick to seize an Old Testament example which finds no real New Testament support?
5. 2 Corinthians 9:7 effectively bars tithing for the New Testament Church of God since it plainly states that Christians should not give (and the whole context is of financial giving) "under compulsion."
INTRODUCTION; A FEW EXPERIENCES

I once sat down to view a video recording which featured a sermon given by a noted American minister who has both a Television and a Radio ministry. It opened with some lovely singing from an elegantly attired choir. When the sermon commenced, however, I was in for a shock; I had expected a sermon on 'Giving,' but what soon followed genuinely astonished me. The pastor started loudly berating a section of his congregation for not paying their tithes regularly! I continued to sit and listen with some measure of incredulity. For a while, I thought that the preacher may have been purposely playing the role of some bad kind of example of what ministers/pastors really should not do! I wanted to believe the best about this preacher. I do know that this man is capable of good biblical preaching, he does not, for example, uphold the 'prosperity gospel.' But I eventually realised that no more excuses could be made for this man. There he was, striding the stage in an obviously highly expensive silk suit, as he loudly berated a few who did not pay their tithes regularly. Soon, he would tell this section of his congregation that they needed to "Repent!" Apparently, this gentleman lives in some opulence and prosperity and the whole 'set' which was apparently within the congregational meeting place (I try to avoid the word 'church' where it will be wrongly applied), betrayed a very prosperous and large congregation.
Now I don't know who might need to repent within his congregation but - to be perfectly frank - THAT MINISTER MIGHT NEED TO!! I won't say why right now but will continue with one or two more examples.

I once encountered a young minister - straight out of Bible college - who somewhat rashly, and without receiving much wise counsel, decided that he was going to impose tithing upon his new congregation. I had a private meeting with this young man and advised caution, but he was not prepared to listen. Then I wrote out quite a long essay explaining why tithing should NOT be considered a REQUIREMENT for Christians today. This essay proved to be more a less an initial 'blueprint' for the article which you are now reading. I asked him to get back to me to show me where I was wrong, if he still thought so. Well, you have probably guessed it, 5 years later I am still waiting! But unfortunately, just 8 months later the young man was fired from the pastorate (absolutely nothing to do with me).
I also presented the same arguments to a much older - and wiser - minister to test his reaction. Again, I said, if I am wrong please get back to me and show me where since I value your judgement. Again, I heard nothing!

The final minister to whom I presented my case was an elderly, retired minister. His former congregation had indeed tithed, he told me. But upon hearing my argument, he stated,
"By jove! You are right. Why did I never see this point before?"

THE MAIN POINTS OF ARGUMENT

A. Why JUST Lift Tithing Out Of The Law?

Tithing is something which we certainly find in the Old Testament since the Israelites were plainly required to tithe. In fact, they were required to pay not one but three tithes! The tithing texts in the Old Testament are not always exactly clear but it appears that the first tithe was used to support the Levites since they received no inheritance as the priestly tribe. The second tithe was apparently set aside in order to pay for that family's attendance at the various feastdays (especially the Feast of Tabernacles). And the third tithe was used to help support the poor among the Israelites; this third tithe was payable every third and sixth year out of a cycle of seven years. This might seem to present an enormous burden during that particular year, but once we start to unravel the complexities of these tithes with the help of Josephus and other early Jewish writers, it starts to become clear that the first tithe (to the Levites) was dropped in the third tithe year.

We should notice something straightaway here:

These tithes were inextricably bound up with meeting the needs of the poor, by either:

a. Supporting the Levites (the Lord's chosen priestly tribe), who would have had no other income.

or,

b. Supporting the other poor who wished to rejoice in the Levitical feast days.

Any concept that the tithe could be employed as a tax to make the wealthy even more wealthy would be total anathema to the true intention of the Levitical system! What too often happens today is that the 'tithe' is employed in societies in which the needs of the poor are already fully met and it is used entirely incorrectly.The expressed intention is usually "to support the spreading of the gospel" and it cannot be denied that it is partly used for evangelism, but too often the tithe is also used to make local churches wealthy and to ensure that a ministry team live in some luxury!

The original Levitical system was terribly legalistic of course, but a legalistic system is precisely what we are discussing here! If one starts to consider the complexities of the various kinds of animal sacrifices which were required under this system, one wonders how the whole Levitical system did not entirely break down under a sea of confusion! But the point is this:
Tithing was just ONE PART of an entire system. Therefore the question must be asked;
Why ONLY pick out the principle of tithing (I say 'principle' because, as we have already seen, the complete tithing system was quite complicated and the 'first tenth' was only part of it). As has been pointed out many times, the Old Covenant system really was ONE SYSTEM. Attempts to talk about the 'ceremonial law,' or the 'sacrificial law' and the 'civil law' must always recognise that these definitions are imposed upon the Old Testament; these definitions are not biblical. Rather, the Old Covenant presents one complete legal system and - within that - we notice these different aspects, including ceremonial, financial, civil and so on.

It also seems inescapable that much within this law was intended for a particular people at a particular time. The laws presume an agrarian and land-based society. The laws also presume a society which necessarily had to set its own laws: Capital punishment, for instance, formed part of this system; obviously we know that we can't just lift this out of the Old Covenant and claim that the Church should be practising it!! In like manner, tithing presumed a people essentially poor except for flocks, herds and crops.
So, again I ask, why just lift tithing out of this system which Hebrews 8: 13 plainly says is now obsolete??!!

Now a few will raise an objection to this. They will point out that we see tithing practised pre-Old Covenant in two Scriptures, one involving Abraham, the other involving Jacob. People who put this argument, often go on to say that this "proves" that God's system of law predates Mount Sinai and that He made all His laws known to the patriarchs and all Mount Sinai represents is the formal giving of the law to a people who had largely forgotten it. Such people might even go as far as to claim that tithing has always been God's way of financing His work upon earth. But by this time, they are, indeed, miles out on a limb with no scriptural support whatever!

This is not the place to debunk the concept that Old Covenant law was in existence prior to Mount Sinai. Of course, certain principles of law were certainly in existence and God made some of these known to Abraham, but even the very wording of the Mount Sinai package showed that this was a new thing in the world!

If we consider Abraham's tithe to the mysterious Melchisedec related in Genesis 14:17-20, this was not strictly speaking a tithe at all since it does not appear to refer to normal earned income!
Then in looking at Jacob's promise to tithe in Genesis 28:18-22, we may note further problems since we really do not know if Jacob actually fulfilled his promise. But - in both of these cases - these were not 'tithes' in the way that word is now used, they were freewill offerings which were a tenth.

But these texts in no way 'prove' that the Lord had revealed His tithing laws to the patriarchs. Why do I say this?
Because we now know that the principle of the tithe was already around in the ancient world. What the Lord did in Leviticus and Numbers was to point at a principle which was sometimes practised in the ancient world, and show how this could be used to assist the Levites and all the poor!

It is not difficult to substantiate the great antiquity of tithing:

According to Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible:
'The institution of offering tithes of the fruits of the field and of the flocks is one which dates back to a period greatly anterior to Israelite history. A tenth of the flocks, fruits, and possessions of all kinds, as well as of the spoils of war, was given to their gods [referring to pagan tithing] by many peoples.' (James Hastings, ed., Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, New York: Hendrickson, 1994, s.v. "Tithe," by W. O. E. Oesterley, 940).

'The widespread practice in the ancient world of tithing by giving a portion of one's profit or spoils of war extended from Greece to China. Donation of a tenth portion was common apparently because most people "counted in tens, based on ten fingers."' (Walter A. Elwell, ed., Baker Theological Dictionary of the Bible, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996, s.v. "Tithe, Tithing," by Brian K. Morley).

'The custom is very ancient and widely practiced,, being known in Athens, Arabia, Rome, Carthage, Egypt, Syria, Babylon and China.' (Tithes, Tithing by R.E.O. White, Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 4, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997, page 2072).

B. A Brief Historical Overview

There is no doubt that it fell largely to the Apostle Paul to be the main theologian of the New Testament. He is the man who tells us that we are now all one in Christ, no matter what nationality. He is the one who carefully outlines the glorious doctrine of Justification By Faith. But Paul outlined much else too, even down to such matters as the pattern of a church service and whether women should speak in church. Paul later also passes on much information to Timothy when he realises that his own time is short, but nowhere does Paul ever mention tithing! This is especially important to notice in view of the fact that Paul does occasionally talk rather a lot about financial giving. In 2 Corinthians chapters eight and nine, Paul is continually writing on the subject of giving; mainly, its true, on the subject of the collection for the struggling congregation at Jerusalem. He finally expounds the principle of the 'cheerful giver' in 2 Corinthians 9:6-7. These are two whole chapters on the subject of financial giving by members of the body of Christ. Tithing is not once mentioned. Elsewhere Paul occasionally mentions his determination not to expect funds to come his way, but to work whenever the opportunity was there. Of course, he also mentions that ministers of Jesus Christ should expect to be financially supported. It is vital to consider 1 Corinthians 9:1-18 here, because now Paul is talking about the right of ministers to receive financial support while preaching the gospel, although it seems clear from his comments that he tried hard not to take up this right wherever possible, in his own case. But here are a large slab of eighteen verses where Paul could have appealed to tithing but plainly refuses to do so! This must surely be significant, for Paul is exactly addressing the right of ministers to be supported by the brethren. But Paul's silence on tithing here must be significant!

It must be fair to say that the overwhelming majority of Bible scholars have concluded that Paul could only have made the comments which he did in a situation in which church members were not tithing. Moreover, Paul's own silence in these sections of Scripture must lead one to the inescapable conclusion that Paul did not wish to teach first century Christians to tithe! Surely it is simply impossible to come to any other conclusion!
When Jesus sent out the very first preachers of the Gospel, He appears to outline a financial approach based entirely on faith. Notice Luke 9:3, Luke 10:4-7 and especially Matthew 10:7-10. The Gospel was to go out entirely without charge. Jesus appears to be saying, 'What has been given to you freely, must never be charged for. Have faith in the Lord to supply the need.' This helps us to see why Paul refuses to go beyond that in laying down any particular financial approach for the people of God to adopt! (By the way, in the interests of space, I am not writing down the Scriptures which I quote for the most part, but I STRONGLY URGE THE READER TO LOOK THESE SCRIPTURES UP).

We can be quite sure that what Jesus and Paul refuse to do, i.e., set up a particular programme of financial regulation for the Church, the early 'Church Fathers' did not wish to do either. This is especially clear from the writings of such people as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian. In these writings we do indeed see 'tithes and offerings' occasionally mentioned but only as a type of the fact that the ministry is to be supported - certainly not as a system which was in operation in their own time. In Didascalia Apostolorum 2.35 we read,

"No more be bound with sin offerings, holocausts,etc., nor yet with tithes and firstfruits, and part-offerings, and gifts and oblations. For it was laid upon them to give all these things as of necessity, but you are not bound by these things, thus shall your righteousness abound more than their tithes and firstfruits and part-offerings, when you shall do it as it is written: 'Sell all thou hast, and give it to the poor'"


This is the approach which we now find. These early writers appeared to have had no doubts that a legalistic system of financial giving was now outmoded, replaced by something far better! Some of these writers do occasionally mention church finances but never appeal to tithing.

This approach continues for the first few centuries. It should not be entirely surprising that we discover that it is none other than Cyprian who first starts to wonder whether tithing might be employed by the church, although it does not happen during his lifetime. Cyprian wanted to re-introduce elements of the Levitical system into the Church. He was concerned that the ministry were not always getting the respect which he felt that they deserved. He wanted to lift the ministry above the level of the congregation. He was concerned about schism and heretics and felt the answer must be to place the ministry on a pedestal. Regarding tithing, Cyprian will, of course, have been very aware that tithing was widely practiced in the world of his day. Many of the ritualistic things which we now see in the Orthodox and Catholic churches can be traced to the influence of Cyprian, which influence others were to build upon.

But it is only with the arrival of Constantine the first 'Christian emperor' (many historians have suspected that he was never really converted), that we see much serious thought given to church finance. Soon people would want magnificent buildings to be constructed in honour of Christ. How was all this to be financed? Now Christianity was becoming respectable, Christians were no longer persecuted and, in fact, it started to be in a person's interest to claim to be a Christian in order to 'get ahead' in society. After all, was not the very emperor now a Christian? Over the next few centuries we witness thousands pouring into the visible, institutional church many of whom - without question - were not converted. It is only now that the principle of tithes and offerings starts to be strongly pushed in order to help finance an ecclesiastical system which - to be frank - was largely unknown to the New Testament.

Of course, within this system in which 'Christianity' became a domain (hence the name 'Christendom') true Christians were still to be found, indeed, without doubt, they remained the majority. Yet we now frequently find the leadership of the organised church falling into the hands of "bishops" who were really politicians much more than they were men of God! So this was a start of a system which led to the much despised imposed tithe. So tithing had not been practiced in the early Christian church but gradually became common by the sixth century. The Council of Tours in 567 advocated tithing. Tithes were made obligatory by civil law in the Carolingian empire in 765 and in England in the tenth century. Much has been written about the dissent, anger and hatred which this was to cause in places like England and Germany. Sometimes plainly corrupt "bishops" (who were really what we would now call politicians) were to be found living in luxury amidst the starving. The established church amassed great lands, properties and untold wealth by means of this system. Yet, perhaps nothing has made the established church so hated as this abused and misappropriated tax.

Evangelicals who - in our day - have so enthusiastically embraced the tithing principle seem genuinely unaware of the often hideous record of this system, as well as the fact that this tax was not finally abandoned in England and Wales until the Tithe Act of 1936!!

C. New Testament "Proof Texts"

Modern restored tithing, as we have seen, bears little semblance to the biblical model which was part of the legal code of ancient Israel. That law - within a simple and agrarian society - was concerned with the needs of the poor. Modern tithing, however, is mainly concerned with funding local church congregations in a society - or societies - which usually bear little or no resemblance to the Israel of Leviticus. Therefore those who strongly promote tithing realise that there is little point in quoting Old Testament Scriptures.
So attempts are sometimes made to appeal to the very few New Testament Scriptures in which tithing gets a mention. Unfortunately these people are in serious trouble before they even start. Why? Because they know that New Testament premier writer and theologian, the Apostle Paul, is completely silent on the subject, whereas these people would dearly love to have a Scripture in which he enthusiastically backs it!
In all honesty, I have to say that NOT A SINGLE NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE SUPPORTS TITHING AS SOMETHING WHICH CHRISTIANS SHOULD BE PRACTISING IN OUR DAY! We might as well say that straight away.
Nevertheless, since some writers have indeed claimed that there is New Testament support for tithing as a thing which Christians should practise, let us look at the so-called 'Proof Texts.' PLEASE CHECK THESE REFERENCES IN YOUR OWN BIBLE.

MATTHEW 23:23

Here Jesus complains to the Pharisees that they have tithed 'mint, dill and cumin' (herbs) when they have neglected weightier spiritual matters such as mercy and faithfulness. He told them that those matters are more important and should have been practised 'without neglecting the former' (tithing). It is a little hard to believe that this has been used as a text showing that Christians should now tithe, but it has been! One important Christian writer, British-based but of American origin, even said,
"His approval and exhortation to tithe ought to be sufficient motivation for any Christian."
But of course, Jesus is talking to Pharisees who operated under the Old Covenant, and tithing was part of their system. Today Christians stand under the New Covenant which renders the Old Covenant obsolete. Both the writer of the Book of Hebrews (original manuscripts bear no author's name) and the apostle Paul (especially in the Books of Galatians and Romans) make this very plain.

LUKE 11:42

Luke's parallel account to the Scripture which we have already considered.

LUKE 18:12

This is the Scripture in which a Pharisee boasts that he fasts 'twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.' Of course, there was a problem with his attitude since he sought to justify himself and Jesus said that it was the tax collector who simply asked God to be merciful to him who went away most justified. Again, we would expect a Pharisee to tithe - it was part of their legal system. Yet is it not interesting that tithes are only mentioned in these Scriptures in association with self-righteousness?

HEBREWS 7:1-28

This refers back to the story of Abraham and Melchisedec. Of course, the central message of the Book of Hebrews is how the New Covenant is immeasurably greater than the Old Covenant. A few will say that since Abraham was the 'father of the faithful,' then Christians of today should therefore "follow his example" and tithe as he did. But this Scripture is not even saying that Abraham normally tithed; it refers to a specific occasion which - as we have already noted - was not even a tithe in the sense the word is usually used today (referring to normal earned income). If - on the basis of this - it is proposed that Christians should tithe, I could propose that on the basis of Abraham's life we should also be circumcised, or go out into the desert and wait for God's instructions as to where He will have us go!!

In order to get the full sense of this Scripture it is vital to continue to the end of the chapter. Obviously, the chapter is not about tithing at all but about the greatness of the New Covenant compared to the Old. Just reading as far as the tithing verses 4-9, as many tithing enthusiasts like to do, will not give a full sense of the Chapter's meaning. This Scripture is saying that Abraham recognised Melchisedec as a great man so gave him a 'tenth,' symbolic of recognising a greater authority than oneself, and of giving offering/tribute to him.
Melchisedec was very mysterious, many believe that he must have been the Angel of the Lord, still others feel that Jesus revealed Himself directly to Abraham through this person who was our Saviour Himself! (This seems a little harder to accept). But if this Melchisedec was just a pagan High Priest (as some like to say) it is hard to see why Abraham should have been in such awe of him! Here is a much closer consideration of Melchisedec for any who are interested.

But nothing here is saying that Christians today should give a tenth as a legal (or even an optional) practice, and one can only arrive at such a conclusion by suspending all logical reasoning. Despite this, on about three occasions in my life I have either read or actually heard Christian ministers (who really should know their Bibles better!), claim that Abraham's example means that modern Christians should tithe.
Neither - of course - would we expect to see such an instruction here since - elsewhere in the New Testament - both Jesus and Paul show this would simply be inappropriate. The New Covenant offers a freedom which was just not available to those who lived under the Old Covenant. Only we are to use this freedom to serve God and our neighbour - not to sin.


There are no further New Testament references to tithing. Against this, however, we have 2 Corinthians 9:7 in which the context is clearly one of financial giving within the Church and which appears to be a plain enough instruction:

'Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.'

Imposed tithing means that one is giving "under compulsion." The reader may find further consideration of Paul's use of the Greek word, 'anangke' in this verse here.

D. The Effect Of Tithing Upon Congregational Life

An Indian missionary visited several congregations in the affluent Western world, and came away in some state of shock. Why? He was just simply astonished at what Western Christians waste! The wealth of some of these congregations staggered him. In one such congregation, he was given what he considered to be a sizeable donation for his mission, but he was later invited to a meal in which far, far more money was spent!
This man began to realise that some wealthy North American congregations could - just on their own - support huge numbers of indigenous missionaries! Modern Tithing (which, again, I wish to separate from Levitical Tithing, since it has almost nothing in common), can make a large congregation very wealthy, where the tithing is strictly and legalistically imposed. But what message does this give to the church member? It tends to teach them a message of Justification by Works. But the New Testament upholds Justification By Faith Alone clearly and unequivocally! Tithing is especially popular among the cults and sects and among the newer - and often more extreme - charismatic groups. It is also considered a particularly vital teaching in the prosperity gospel churches. Let us honestly admit that some of these groups only have the most superficial understanding of Christian theology. But many have noted that a strict tithing regime also tends to undermine the correct understanding of Justification among more mainstream Christian groups which strongly push tithing! Many tithers tend to boast about what God does for the tither, a few even feel that non-tithers will only get into heaven by the skin of their collective teeth!! But this is plainly displaying a works-based approach toward salvation. But we can NEVER EVEN IN A MILLION YEARS EARN SALVATION! It is all a matter of God's bountiful grace!

A very keen observer of the Christian world, made this comment to me in an e-mail;


"I have come to the conclusion that some very strongly tithing churches are too inward-looking. They are no longer looking outwards at how they can help others, especially missionaries, but they become - in some cases - almost obsessed with their local scene. Some of these congregations become quite wealthy but although they will often give asistance to foreign missionaries, it tends to be a 'drop in the ocean' in comparison with their resources. I have also noticed that the underlying legalism involved in a 'You Must Tithe' approach spreads to other areas of church life. If a member encounters financial difficulties, it is too quickly thought by some that he or she could not have been tithing, or had been witholding part of the tithe. Apart from being a theologically perilous position to adopt in its own right, this appears to be the eager judgmentalism of the spiritually naive. I just wonder how many in those churches made prosperous through tithing realise the original purpose of tithing, that is, to assist the needy. I have also wondered whether a few folks who attend such churches are in private financial straits!"

This man - once a fervent advocate of tithing - tells me that he now supports voluntary tithing only. I take this man's comments seriously; although he wishes me not to mention his name, he is a seasoned observer of Christian life, an experienced preacher and a Bible-believing conservative. But he is 'nobody's fool' (as we Brits say!).

Another - and very serious - problem can be noted in some congregations:
The congregation becomes divided into two groups, the tithers and the non-tithers, but only the tithers can ever become "members" of that congregation. I am frankly astonished that more have not spoken out about this practise!
ALL WHO HAVE REPENTED AND ACCEPTED CHRIST'S SACRIFICE IN THEIR OWN LIVES, BECOME MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH OF GOD IN ITS TRUE AND ETERNAL SENSE!!
Pastors need to ensure that this is carefully pointed out to all their congregation! The very concept that only those who tithe can be considered 'members' of any local congregation is so very seriously flawed that I find it astonishing that the practise continues unchecked in some places!

E. A Better Way
What the Encyclopedia Brittanica says about Tithing.

Tithing: (from Old English teogothian, 'tenth'), a custom dating back to Old Testament times and adopted by the Christian church whereby lay people contributed a 10th of their income for religious purposes, often under ecclesiastical or legal obligation. The money (or its equivalent in crops, farm stock, etc.) was used to support the clergy, maintain churches, and assist the poor. Tithing was also a prime source of subsidy for the construction of many magnificent cathedrals in Europe.
Despite serious resistance, tithing became obligatory as Christianity spread across Europe. It was enjoined by ecclesiastical law from the 6th century and enforced in Europe by secular law from the 8th century. In England in the 10th century, payment was made obligatory under ecclesiastical penalties by Edmund I and under temporal penalties by Edgar. In the 14th century Pope Gregory VII, in an effort to control abuses, outlawed lay ownership of tithes.
During the 16th-century Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther approved in general of paying tithes to the temporal sovereign, and the imposition of tithes continued for the benefit of Protestant as well as Roman Catholic churches. Gradually, however, opposition grew. Tithes were repealed in France during the Revolution (1789), without compensation to tithe holders. Other countries abolished certain kinds of tithes and indemnified the holders. By 1887 the tithe had been brought to an end in Italy. It was abolished in Ireland at the disestablishment of the Anglican church in 1871, and it gradually died out in the Church of Scotland. In England in 1836, the tithe was commuted for a rent charge depending on the price of grain, and in 1936 the tithe rent charges were abolished. New methods of taxation were developed in those countries that provided financial support of the church out of government funds. Remnants of the tithing system do exist, however, in certain Protestant European countries. In Germany, for example, citizens must pay a church tax unless they formally renounce membership in a church.

Tithe was never a legal requirement in the United States. Members of certain churches, however, including the Latter-day Saints and Seventh-day Adventists, are required to tithe, and some Christians in other churches do so voluntarily. The Eastern Orthodox churches never accepted the idea of tithes, and Orthodox church members have never paid them.
("tithe." Encyclopedia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopedia Britannica Premium Service. 4 June 2006. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9072648).

It sometimes happens that ministers withdraw from teaching a tithing approach (unfortunately, all too rarely), but what too often happens is that within months the congregation faces a financial crisis and, perhaps under pressure from the treasurer, the church returns to a tithing position. This is very, very sad but turning from a tithing system to a faith position does not mean that God will automatically bless where churches have not put their financial house in order!
In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul describes the incomparable greatness of the New Covenant compared to the Old. He shows that while that which was passing away was glorious, what remains is "much more glorious." He writes of the veil which remains over the face of those who read the Old Testament without spiritual understanding, then he says,

"Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty"
(2 Corinthians 3:16-17)

Sometimes we forget how much liberty is involved in serving Christ. In that same chapter (verse 7), Paul refers to the Old Covenant with its legalistic package as, 'the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones.'
The Christian stands in real liberty under the grace of God, the penalty of the law no longer stands over such a person since they are now forgiven and covered by God's grace. This is the great time which Isaiah wrote about;

"The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the LORD has appointed me to preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound."
(Isaiah 61:1)

I leave the quote there but would advise the reader to read the whole of this glorious chapter, which looked forwards to the preaching of the Gospel, and to the Church. Later in the chapter there are fairly clear allusions to the Jubilee Year in which the Israelites were cleared of debt and all land reverted to its original owners. The Gospel is always associated with freedom and liberty. The New Testament emphasises the 'Koinonia' which was to occur among believers. This Greek word means 'sharing' and involves the principles of fellowship and community. This word implies a real commitment to serving and sharing and it was part and parcel of the early Church. We see this glorious principle in action in Acts 2:

"Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need."
(Acts 2:44-45)

This principle is seen again in Acts 4:

"Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need."
(Acts 4:32-35)

We should note that this principle of Koinonia goes way beyond the principle of tithing! But it is vital to note that this principle ensures that congregation members are well provided for. This obviously goes way above and beyond any situation where tithes are demanded to support the "ministry" (sometimes including a pastoral team living in some luxury!), no matter what the financial status of the individual member!! I have been told of many places where this happens - can we honestly call this 'Christian practise'??

I know of a minister who went to see a student who was struggling to get through his degree with a wife and a few children. During this period, life was one long financial struggle for this family. The first thing the minister asked was, "Do you own your own home?" (He was assessing the family's financial situation). The answer was No. Yet very soon the student was asked when he would start tithing! I have the full facts of this particular case in front of me. Of course, if Koinonia was being practised, that student should have been offered generous financial help from his minister, especially in view of the fact that the degree which he was seeking to attain was a theology degree!! This sort of thing is unbelievably insensitive.

I would like to see the principle of VOLUNTARY GIVING taught in every congregation in the land. People could be reminded of their responsibilities to help keep their congregation afloat. What tends to happen now is that if the congregation is a strict tithing group, members are rarely taught about voluntary giving. The finances are coming in due to the tithes so why worry? But this is not good; Christians need to learn about Koinonia in action!


About the Writer

Robin A. Brace was born in 1944 in Cardiff, south Wales, UK and started developing a passion for Bible study at the age of 16. Robin took a B.D. theology degree from 1995 at the University of Wales, Cardiff, graduating with honours in 1998. In 2001 he decided to devote his energies and biblical knowledge (which only comes by the grace of God) to developing a presence on the internet as an internet evangelist. In 2006 his websites were receiving 100,000 annual 'hits,' but by mid-2008 this had grown to 100,000 plus per month and Robin is kept busy answering Bible questions which come in from all over the world. Married to Tina since 1977, the couple have four children and also spent twelve years as foster carers.

I would like to see EVERY SINGLE MINISTER FACE UP TO THE TRUTH ABOUT TITHING! That it actually masks the glorious truth of Koinonia. Yes, such voluntary giving and sharing requires active, living faith! But what a joy and a thrill when we see the fruits of such faith!
But nobody should expect this approach to equal what tithing can achieve finance-wise. Don't forget: God promises to supply what is really required, not luxury! If a congregation has enjoyed a very substantial income because it has very strongly taught tithing, there is going to be a drop if tithing is abandoned, that is just simple arithmetic. But all good evangelistic activities within that congregation's locality will still be able to go ahead if they are approached in faith, and if they receive the Lord's blessing. Yes, more earnest prayer-time is probably going to be required! Can that ever be a bad thing? But there will be a need, perhaps, of a tightened up financial approach. The minister might also have to be paid less, in order that there is a good strong 'help fund' for those in the congregation who are experiencing financial difficulties! Yes, I can see that this approach might be very, very unpopular with some! But this is New Testament Koinonia in action!

Let me respectfully suggest to you ministers reading this that you remind your congregation that - under the New Covenant - tithing can only ever be a voluntary action, NEVER a mandatory act.

Also let me urge you to remind your people that tithing was concerned with assisting the poor. Please be bold enough to tell your people that, yes, there is a responsibility to support one's own fellowship, but if 10% has been a struggle, why not 5% or 3% because if one's heart is right before God the amount does not matter (remember the widow's mite?). If a few members insist on continuing with their tithe, that is absolutely fine since they will hopefully now understand that it is not a matter of command. But you may need to mention the subject to these people again in case their understanding is legalistic. Legalism undermines the correct comprehension of Justification By Faith.

DO NOT CAUSE DIVISION!


Let us imagine that one is coming to this understanding afresh and with great joy. What should the reader do? Please let me make a plea here:
DO NOT CAUSE DIVISION IN YOUR CONGREGATION!
Do not spread this topic right through your congregation but take it to your minister for his reaction! You are free to print this article out for this purpose if your minister is not able to connect to the internet. Please be patient with your minister, he may well be under terrible pressure to continue a tithing approach whether or not he understands the approach which I have outlined here! You may feel that you would like to discuss this with your minister several times. Don't expect him to jump in response to this article. It may well be that you will not be able to make any difference and your fellowship will continue to be one which encourages tithing. Should you leave? While this will be a personal decision, I don't necessarily feel that the reader should leave their congregation over this matter. Have you been contented paying tithes? Are you assured that the tithes are administered wisely with surpluses regularly going to the poor? Or has tithing caused your congregation to build a 'big barn' of unused money even while many within your community are in serious need? These would be some of the pertinent questions to ask. But PLEASE DO NOT be afraid to discuss this with your minister! If you have been faithfully tithing within your own congregation perhaps over many years, you have every right to query your minister over your fellowship's tithing policy. But also please don't make this the conversational 'topic of the month' among the brethren. None of us should wish to cause division within any fellowship!

An E Mail Question On This Article And My Response To It!
(Please consider this question, it might be your question!)

"You seem to be saying that God does not bless the tither but I have always been taught that God greatly blesses the tither! What about the 'Windows of heaven' Scripture?"

The answer to your question is that God greatly blesses the GIVER. I once heard a lady from a Seventh Day Adventist background saying, "Isn't it wonderful how God blesses tithers?". But I also heard an old lady who had never tithed in her life say, "Isn't it wonderful the way God blesses Christians? I live on very little money on paper, but God always showers me with blessings!" This old lady was a real Giver. God blesses those who give willingly with a cheerful heart. Frequently (though not entirely always) the blessings of a cheerful giver start to come to them even in this life. Lets look at the Scripture:
"Give, and it shall be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you."
(Luke 6:38)

Please notice that the context in this verse is the cheerful giving which Paul also talks about. Tithing is nowhere mentioned here. But does God bless the tither? Absolutely!! But not only the tither, but all who are cheerful and generous givers. But Luke 6:38 is no reason to pay a 'mandatory tithe' especially since this Scripture does not even mention tithing! Of course, I could say that God blessed me when I was single, but is that a reason not to seek a wife? I could say that God often greatly blesses those who are 'babes in Christ' but is that a reason for them to try to remain 'babes in Christ' and not move on in knowledge and understanding?
Malachi 3 is an interesting chapter. It starts off with a prophecy of John the Baptist, but from vese 7 it reverts back to,
", the days of your fathers, "
Then of course, Israel is really slammed for witholding their "tithes and offerings" (verse . The "whole nation" (verse 9) are accused of robbing God in this way. Of course this is referring to Old Testament Israel and Malachi was a Prophet who stood within the Old Covenant. In verse 10 (the one which pro-tithers love to quote), Israel are given the famous challenge to,
"Bring all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in My house, and prove Me now in this, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out such a blessing that there will not be room enough to receive it."

Halley said of this,"By the Mosaic constituition, the tithe was God's property."

But the point here is that Israel were disobedient in this very serious matter. Under the various kings of Israel the land became prosperous, but they were rarely interested in paying their tithes except spasmodically. But it is very problematic to refer this to the New Covenant Church when nowhere in the New Testament do we find even a gentle reminder to tithe! Moreover, as already pointed out, it is quite obvious that the early Church was not tithing when Paul wrote his epistles and certainly obvious that the apostle never appeals to tithing.

Again, let us remind ourselves that Christians enjoy a liberty in such matters which was not enjoyed under the Old Covenant; we should not be surprised therefore, that Jesus does not refer to tithing when speaking about the financial approach of the New Testament Church (Matthew 10:9), neither does Paul (though he even finds time to discuss the length of men and women's hair), it should not be surprising, either that Luke 6:38, perhaps the premier 'giving' Scripture in the New Testament, does not mention it. While it is indeed true that Israel were a clear type of the Church to come, the specifc 'tithes and offerings' of Malachi 3 can hardly be applied to the Church in that form; but the principle of Christians being ever ready to give financial support to the Church of God certainly does apply.

To conclude my answer to this question, it is surely worth pointing out that, perhaps, the great majority of Bible scholars down through the ages have felt that Malachi 3:10 cannot be applied to the Church.

CONCLUSION

We have seen that tithing formed an important part of the Old Covenant which was ratified at Mount Sinai. This Mosaic code came to a conclusion when the veil of the temple was torn when our Saviour expired upon the cross. Christians now live under the New Covenant. Both the apostle Paul and the writer of the anonymous Book of Hebrews plainly show that we are no longer subject to the legalistic Levitical system.
It is true that tithes are also mentioned prior to Sinai in connection with both Abraham and Jacob, but, as we have seen, we can deduce little from those examples for two reasons:
1. Tithing was not confined to Israel, the concept appears to have existed elsewhere in the ancient world.
2. Strictly speaking, those examples were not even a 'tithe' in the way in which that word is now often used, they were freewill offerings of a tenth.

We have also noted that neither the apostle Paul nor the early Church appeared to hold any concept of paying tithes, with the concept only emerging post-Constantine when a means was sought to finance huge 'church' and cathedral buildings.
With hopefully a little sadness, we noted that increasingly the visible, organised church was now all too often led by "bishops" who were really more politicians than spiritual leaders. Of course, there were some exceptions to this but Christian history - all too often - paints quite a depressing picture. Hopefully we have also seen that the imposed tithe became associated with terrible abuses of power at times by the established church, leading to terrible periods of unrest in England and Germany, including the Peasant's Revolt (this is not to say, of course, that tithing - all on its own - caused the Peasant's Revolt, but that it was one of the things which appeared as gross injustices to the poor, such injustices finally leading to that revolt).

We have seen that the 'modern tithe' (which appears to have emerged in the late 19th century United States), bears little resemblance to the Levitical tithe. That tithe was concerned with meeting the needs of the poor of the land, whether the Levites who received no land inheritance, or others who wished to travel to the Levitical Feast days, or the poor in general. It was not the sort of tax which, as Samuel warned, kings would impose, thereby making themselves richer and financing their various projects!

Finally, I pointed out that the New Testament points out a financial approach which is best summed up by the word 'Koinonia'(sharing). We see this approach employed in the Book of Acts; it was a complete committment by all Christians to each other, so that none should suffer lack or privation, and out of this, the preaching and advance of the Gospel was also funded. If this were practised today, it is fair to say that congregations would no longer have poorer members, though pastors might have to accept lower pay for their labours in some cases, especially in more affluent areas. It is also true to say that if this kind of total Christian sharing were practised today, third world missions would surely receive much greater financial support than is often the case at present.

Once again I make a plea that all reading this and accepting these conclusions, be committed to not causing division within congregations. If any are feeling angry about any of my comments, please first ask yourselves WHY you are feeling angry before sending off an irate e-mail to me! If what I say is unbiblical, then show me where I am being unbiblical. May I just say, God bless all of you and if any feel that big and uncomfortable decisions are now called for, please petition the Lord to give you the strength and courage which you will undoubtedly need.
Robin A. Brace
2002

A FURTHER FOLLOW-UP QUESTION;


"Your views on tithing are close to mine, but here is a question for you:
I heard a minister on an audio tape sermon say this about 'Koinonia:'
'Koinonia was tried by the early Christians but it did not work and the Church was almost bankrupted because of it. This was partly because some 'spongers' took advantage of it and refused to work, so the Church abandoned it.'

How about this?"

MY ANSWER:
My! The man who made this comment seems to have put a lot of things in the New Testament together and come up with a conclusion which most theologians would shy away from! In other words, he appears to be adding 4+4 and making it 20!

He is obviously thinking of those Scriptures in Acts which we have considered in this study which show that the early Christians really did practise this all-out sharing.
Secondly, he appears to be considering the fact that the congregation at Jerusalem got into some financial difficulties.
Thirdly, he is apparently considering those one or two texts where the apostle Paul complains about a few who were not too keen on working, and he says, 'If any don't work, neither should they eat.'
(By the way, we should not misunderstand this comment by Paul, he was speaking in a day where work was always available. Modern western unemployment in which some older men find it almost impossible to get full-time work once they are made redundant is, indeed, a modern phenomenon. Nobody who is in that position should reproach themselves).
But Paul does not say that a few did not want to work because 'koinonia' meant that they did not have to work! There have always been a few such people within society. Do we seriously think that a system of koinonia could not impose a few guidelines to ensure that it was not abused?

But with all due respect to the minister who made those comments on an audio sermon tape, I don't know what he is referring to. Perhaps he is suggesting that tithing came along 'just in the nick of time' to save the early church. If he is suggesting that (and I don't know if he is), that is absolute nonsense; it was many centuries before tithing came into the church. It only really caught on when Christianity became a domain and people were assumed to be Christians - even from birth (as long as they were baptised) - and when a means was sought to finance cathedrals and a whole system of clergy (which, in any case, was hardly a biblically prescribed system).

So, if I knew who that minister was (which I do not), I would say that the onus was on him to quote chapter and verse to back up his points! Certainly, we know that Jerusalem was affected by a famine and the apostle Paul was keen to summon help from the other churches to provide assistance. A famine is a famine, if the inspired text tells us that a famine was the cause of the financial problem, why do we start to 'second guess' that?

I'm afraid that this minister's comments cannot be sustantiated from the New Testament.

© This article is Copyright Robin A. Brace 2002. If you want it on your own website please do so but please also do the honourable thing and correctly quote the writer and state where the article comes from. You are also free to use 3 or 4 quotes from this article, but again, the writer's name should be quoted and you should provide a link to this website on the same page as the article.