Hmmm just as I thought, wordtalk would ignore the issues I raised probably to avoid being exposed for his inconsistencies

1 Corinthians 9:13 (KJV) - Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?

The Levitical tithe was taken to the Levites WHO LIVED IN THE LEVITICAL CITIES.  The Levites then took a tenth of the tithe to the Temple for the priests.  Therefore, only ONE PERCENT goes to the Temple.

Matthew 17:24 (KJV) - And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?

Matthew 17:24 (NIV) - After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?”

And of course we don't want to forget all the freewill offerings mentioned in Leviticus.

IF tithing was a principle used by Paul, the principle is giving, NOT giving a tenth.

Isn't it amazing how a person can say the "principle" of tithing is the TENTH and nothing else when the most legalistic part of tithing is THE TENTH.

What is the "principle" behind giving 5% to the church? Would the "principle" be 5%? This just shows lack of common sense, and lack of ability to understand what a principle is.

@wordtalk

wordtalk:

In 1 Corinthians 9:13, Paul did not make omissions, and the point was indeed in answer to your request for "even ONE example in the NT where the Levitical system of tithing was used to as a principle to encourage giving". If the citation of 1 Corinthians 9:13 does not answer your request, please tell me what system other than the Levitical system Paul was referring to in that verse.

Specifically, the parallel passage in Numbers 18 was about the tithes in the Levitical system - and that is the same thing concerning the Levitical system in Hebrews 7 which mentions tithing rather than other types of resources for support.

True, there were various offerings (such as the heave and wave offerings in Numbers 18:8 & 11); yet, whatever they offered were in principle found in verse 21, where the Levites are in view - "I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance, for their service which they serve, even the service of the tabernacle of the congregation" (KJV).

It is therefore not difficult to see what Paul was pointing to in 1 Corinthians 9:13 in reference to those who served particularly in the Temple and the Altar.

Further, the tithes of Israel bore the character of a heave offering according to Numbers 18:24 - "the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as an heave offering unto the LORD, I have given to the Levites to inherit, " etc. It shows that Israel's tithes were offered as a heave offering in this verse. The question rather would be to seek out the basic meaning of a 'heave offering'. Do this and let's compare our notes.

My answers were also straightforward - and I went further to show you the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law as a principle. I feel that the difficulty here is not one of communication, but of how you read these things. If one reads them simply in black and white, then it is no wonder to find you highlighting each type or name of offerings - which is why I have just pointed out above from Numbers 18:24 that Israel's tithes were viewed as a heave offering rather than separate the one from the other.

How do you mean?

Oh, I see. Have you read me over and again make the point of HERMENEUTICS and EXEGESIS? If you're basically about a methodology, I'd like to remind you of what I said earlier: "There is no problem with seeking a Biblical principle - ask a sound theologian what it means in Biblical hermeneutics and exegesis." In short, the methodology I have used is that which theologians are well at home with in their hermeneutics.

Please see again the difference between 'the letter of the law' and the 'spirit of the law' in order to find the basic meaning of a Biblical principle. When you do so, you perhaps will go away happy to know that Israel's tithes were viewed as a heave offering rather than a separation between them - see Numbers 18:24.

I find discussing with you interesting enough, so no humours there.

The references for all intents and purposes were first in answer to your request that I bring forth "even ONE example in the NT where the Levitical system of tithing was used to as a principle to encourage giving". In so far as that was the initial request, 1 Corinthians 9:13 shows that Paul was pointing to the Levitical system of tithing as a principle to encourage giving - at any rate, that verse points to the Levitical system. if you feel otherwise, please let me know what other "system" he might possibly have been referring to than the Levitical system. Perhaps, from there you might begin to see the gist about the said principle.

You have said more than enough. There is no place where tithing was condemned or nullified . You don't need to respond to malicious questions that dont make sense.  It's waste of time . Some just keep going in circles trying to wear you out or trap you.

2 Timothy 2:23
23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

Luke 11:53-54
53 And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things: 54 Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.

Wordtalk makes the assumption that the goods Abram tithed from belonged to him, even though the Word doesn't say it, and even though Abram said he would keep nothing that belonged to someone else, and even though Abram was returning the people and goods to their original owners, and even though under the Mosaic law the victor did not own all the war spoils. Wordtalk says that Abram wouldn't have given a tithe of the spoils if he didn't own them. Nothing but assumptions. God's Word doesn't tell us why Abram gave the tenth.

But does it even matter? Nowhere in God's Word did God give Melchizedek permission to receive His tithe. And why would anyone with common sense be using Abram's one-time example of giving a tenth, not of his regular income or wealth, as a principle for giving a tenth of their income to the church? Can only be one reason - to manipute the thinking of those who can't figure this out on their own.

garyarnold:

Nowhere in God's Word did God give Melchizedek permission to receive His tithe.

Nowhere in Gods word did God condemn tithes and offerings nor put an end to it.

garyarnold:

Wordtalk makes the assumption that the goods Abram tithed from belonged to him, even though the Word doesn't say it, and even though Abram said he would keep nothing that belonged to someone else, and even though Abram was returning the people and goods to their original owners, and even though under the Mosaic law the victor did not own all the war spoils.  Wordtalk says that Abram wouldn't have given a tithe of the spoils if he didn't own them.  Nothing but assumptions.  God's Word doesn't tell us why Abram gave the tenth.

 

I did not make assumptions but have indicated that the spoils belonged to Abraham by rights of conquest. If the spoils did not belonged to Abraham, that would have been theft rather than tithes. Funny enough, the inspired Scriptures refer to his gifts as TITHES in both the OT (Gen. 14:20) and NT (Heb. 7:6).

When you alleged that I had assumed that the spoils belonged to Abraham by rights of conquest, you could not show me ANY VERSE in Scripture that denied the fact! I showed my point from Deuteronomy 20:14; Numbers 31:53; 1 Samuel 30:20, that the spoils ALWAYS belonged to the victor - yet you could not show any verse anywhere to deny the point.

Here is how I discussed this very issue in an article on my blog, in direct answer to the very same query you have recycled here:

The third implication above seems the most plausible: Abraham gave tithes from what he legitimately claimed from the victory in that war. There are reasons for this inference, and a few of them are considered below.

The meaning of Melchizedek’s Blessings

The fact that the spoils belonged to Abraham is found in the meaning of Melchizedek’s blessing in Gen. 14:20 – “And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand.” The significance of God delivering their enemies into their hand is found in Deut. 20:10-14, with the implication of the spoils in verses 13-14:

"And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

Abraham was not under the law of Moses when he tithed to Melchizedek; yet the fact rings true and has always been that “the victor claims the spoils” – and that is what we find in the blessing of the priest-king in Gen. 14:20. God had delivered Abraham’s enemies into his hand, and from that victory he had a legitimate claim to the spoils as affirmed in Deut. 20:10-14.

It would be needless at this point to further establish Abraham’s claim to the spoils; but the fact is strengthened when we compare with other references on the same subject.

see more:  http://givingtithes.com/did-abraham-tithe-from-his-own/

In another instance where you kept on with this wonder about the fact of Abraham's claim on the spoils, I outlined a few questions for you to consider:

@Gary,

Accusing me of what you cannot prove is beyond a joke.

My question was simple - and I gave you verses after verses plus an external source, using the very basic of all exegetical principles to show my case, and comparing scripture with scripture to establish meaning.

(1) What exegetical principle did you show in your argument? NONE.

(2) Where did you compare scripture with scripture in your arguments? NONE.

(3) [size=14pt]What external source did you use for your argument to show that spoils DID NOT belong to victors by right of conquest? NONE.[/size]

(4) [size=14pt]Which one of your cited dictionaries denied that spoils belonged to victors? NONE.[/size]

(5) [size=14pt]Which verse in Scripture tells you that spoils did not belong to victors? NONE.[/size]

(6) [size=14pt]What have you said about ANY of the verses that show indeed the FACT that spoils ALWAYS belonged to the victors by right of conquest? NOTHING.[/size]

(7) What have you said about Deuteronomy 20:14; Numbers 31:53; 1 Samuel 30:20, etc? NOTHING.

( What have you said about the scholarly work of Hugo Grotius that I cited for you? NOTHING.

After laying these things plainly, you showed absolutely nothing for your counter argument. Then you accuse me of having a closed mind, yes? Lol.

So, when you go about making fallacious allegations on what you cannot show and duck behind the lame excuses you often give, think again on the verses I cited (Deuteronomy 20:14; Numbers 31:53; 1 Samuel 30:20) as examples to show that it was well acknowledged that the spoils of war ALWAYS belonged to the victors by rights of conquest. If you disagree, you're very welcome to show that is not the case from Scripture - is that too hard for you to do?

^^^
@joagbaje
I don't need to remind you that tithing was nullified and condemned in hebrews 7: 11,12,18 & 19

Now, just to show you how untenable some of your own presumptiions are, consider this -

garyarnold:

. . . and even though under the Mosaic law the victor did not own all the war spoils.

Typical - you just arranged your fallacies around the globe, make statements and then show no verse for your assertion about your claims in the Mosaic Law.

Here again is clear text that under the Mosaic Law the spoils belonged to the victors by rights of conquests -

Deuteronomy 20:10-14

10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.
12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

. . . Now read verse 14 -

[size=14pt]14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.[/size]

So please show where in the Mosaic law you saw where "the victor did not own all the war spoils" - please oblige us.



What is even more remarkable is that this fact of ownership by rights of conquest is UNIVERSALLY KNOWN in scholarly works. I gave you a few references to check up when we discussed this in other places - I have been waiting forever for you to produce a single scholarly reference to show your denial. How long should I wait, sir?

Joagbaje:

@wordtalk
You have said more than enough. There is no place where tithing was condemned or nullified . You don't need to respond to malicious questions that dont make sense.  It's waste of time . Some just keep going in circles trying to wear you out or trap you.

2 Timothy 2:23
23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

Luke 11:53-54
53 And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things: 54 Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.

I have only come to realise that of late. And your advice is well noted with thanks.

Joagbaje:

@wordtalk
You have said more than enough. There is no place where tithing was condemned or nullified . You don't need to respond to malicious questions that dont make sense.  It's waste of time . Some just keep going in circles trying to wear you out or trap you.

2 Timothy 2:23
23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

Luke 11:53-54
53 And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things: 54 Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.

@Joagbaje

You my Friend dictate funny characteristics.  You can say the above, yet put out a  silly "malicious" question in another thread.

Talk about double standards. 

Joagbaje:

Question,Which one is it right; for a pastor to drive private car or public bus?

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=727939.msg8860450#msg8860450

@  wordtalk

Pls, am waiting for your reply to my earlier question.

Thanks.

^^^

You call that malicious question ? I wasn't joking? As far I'm concerned ,a plane ,chopper etc is just a vehicle . If a man has need of it and has the money, what is anybody headache with it? If private jet is wrong, what of private car?

I was going to comment on your "list of tithing opponents" to show why it was a shoddy work (no disrespect for the person of Dr. Croteau himself, I'm just pointing out why we should not swallow everything an anti-tithing theologian says).

garyarnold:


LIST OF TITHING OPPONENTS IN HISTORY

Tithing opponents throughout the years as compiled by Dr. David Croteau, Liberty University, You Mean I Don’t Have to Tithe?, p271-292.

. . .
Thomas Aquinas 1275
. . .
. . .

My initial response was that several of the names listed did not "oppose" tithes (e.g., the Didache; Thomas Aquinas; Mark Driscoll, etc.). Just one example: Thomas Aquinas. He outlined some of the common objections to tithing in his day in his work 'Summa Theologica'; but most people often read the initial paragraph and stop there! They fail to see that Aquinas' reply to the objections come below the outlines, where among other things he clearly stated over and over again that -

There is this difference between the ceremonial and judicial precepts of the Law, as we stated above (FS, Q[104], A[3]), that it is unlawful to observe the ceremonial precepts at the time of the New Law, whereas there is no sin in keeping the judicial precepts during the time of grace although they are not binding.
. . .

For this debt is the principle on which is based the commandment of the Church about the payment of tithes. Now whatever man possesses comes under the designation of carnal things. Therefore tithes must be paid on whatever one possesses.
. . .

Hence it is not right to deduct one's taxes and the wages paid to workmen, before paying tithes: but tithes must be paid before anything else on one's entire produce.
. . .

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum343.htm

I could over through many other names that appear in Dr. Croteau's "list" to show that they cannot be on that list because they did not "oppose" tithing. The one thing to note here is that you often recycle that list, little aware that it is a shoddy script making unjustified claims.

In consonance, I noted that some anti-tithing theologians (from whose materials most of your arguments are harvested) only come round to agree with tithing pastors. I give you just one example - Russell Kelly, whose name appears on your "list" in capital letters. Although he may argue long and hard entirely against any form or appearance of tithing for Christians, does it not amaze you that he found ways of agreeing with some pastors that teach tithes? I give you one example:

From Russell Kelly:

IMPORTANT: This document was requested and received by mail from myself in 2000. Dr. Kennedy’s position may have changed since then. It is my conclusion that, although he appears to teach tithing, his allowances and other statements make him in much more agreement with myself than with the majority of tithe-teachers today. Dr. Kennedy reveals more “heart” in the entire discussion than is usually revealed by others.

What is this "agreement" that Kelly is claiming from Dr. James D. Kennedy on tithing? In other words, what can we know about Dr. Kennedy's view on tithing for Christians? This is what appears on Russell Kelly's page -

Kennedy, James [p63], tithing pamphlet, Presbyterian TV preacher. Note: He takes a middle position that tithes should be paid on whatever remains after all essential bills have been paid. See full discussion on this web site.

[THE FOLLOWING IS NOT IN THE BOOK]

Here is the key to understanding Kennedy’s position. He first wants his audience to read the previous statements which, very honestly, do NOT place him in the tithe-teaching camp at all! He says “In light of these Biblical principles I encourage believers in Christ to tithe.”

1. The tithe was only from profit (no profit means no tithe). #1

2. The poor do not pay tithes. #2)

3. The poor receive tithes. #2

4. Those who have no increase are not required to tithe. #2

5. Welfare recipients and those living off savings should not tithe. #2

6. Our FIRST economic duty is to pay family essentials. #3

7. Tithe-payers can give it directly to the poor if they choose. #4

8. Tithe-payers should only give SOME of it to the local church. #4

9. Situation ethics determine whether or not tithes should be paid (2)

10.“God wants you to assign a high priority to taking care of family needs.)

11. Churches should allow tithes to be paid in the form of work performed

12.Tithes are only on what is left after necessary expenses and after taxes.

13.“In light of these biblical principles, I encourage believers to tithe.”

http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/id2.html

Something is wrong here. We know that if you asked Russell Kelly today whether he "encourages believers to tithe", his flat answer would be NO. That is the strain of his anti-tithing theology. So where does he get off from his bus to paint an "agreement" with Dr. James Kennedy who "encourages believers to tithe"?

You guys should try and be consistent in your arguments. Those who label tithing pastors as 'false teachers' can rest assured that the same label might apply to the anti-tithing theologians who are agreeing to "encourage believers to tithe". But I anticipate anti-tithers here would not be so daring. . . this all seems 'strange', doesn't it?

@ Jo

I will give you the reply I gave in the original thread

dare2think:

Whichever is morally, ethically right.

With consideration of the "Flock" that may be contributing to his welfare. Bearing in mind the welfare of the Pastor's "Sheeps" are also his responsibility, hence the reason he is a pastor in the first place.

An abuse on that role "Pastoring" and responsibility (Congregation) is an hypocrisy.  Failure to address that abuse is also an hypocrisy.


In short, moderation and consideration is key.

Your question was silly. (As for you not Joking, that is the scary part)

Joagbaje:

^^^

You call that malicious question ? I wasn't joking? As far I'm concerned ,a plane ,chopper etc is just a vehicle . If a man has need of it and has the money, what is anybody headache with it? If private jet is wrong, what of private car?

If you work for the money, then you can buy the moon for all I care. Atleast it is your money.

As for revenues generated from the sweats, "tithes" and offerings of people, that is taking advantage of innocent people's faith and exploiting them. Private jet or private car, Fraud is Fraud.

dare2think:

@  wordtalk

Pls, am waiting for your reply to my earlier question.

I apologise. To be honest, I passed it over simply because I've answered such a question in the body of my previous comments. I have said repeatedly that Christians are not called to legalism; rather, we are to seek principles from the OT Scriptures for our application today.

But let me oblige you -

dare2think:


Pls why are we not tithing as God instructed in Deuteronomy 14 vs 22-29?

What has changed?

Among others, the operative covenant has changed - from the old covenant to the new covenant.

What implications does this have? Here are a few for your consideration -

1.  While we are not bound to the Mosaic Law in a legalistic manner, we as Christians cannot make it void of its substance or principles - "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law." (Romans 3:31, ESV).

2.  When we find references to the Law as used by the apostles to teach Christian doctrines, it is not a matter of legalistic applications, but of principles - please see my comment above where I tried to distinguish between the 'letter of the law' and "the spirit of the law".

3.  To ask questions like, 'why are we not tithing as God instructed in Deuteronomy 14 vs 22-29' depends on what you're driving at - that is, are you asking that we should adhere to a legalistic application or rather seek out the principles that the Law provides us with? If you're asking for a legalistic application, then perhaps you should understand that is not my view - rather, I propose that we look for the principles instead.

4.  Let me give you another example apart from tithing (I have used the example of circumcision before, so I won't repeat that here). What if I read a passage in the Law regarding the Passover in Exodus 12:11? And then I ask you: do you as a Christian keep a "passover" feast? If you say 'No', then I point you to 1 Cor. 5:8 where Paul says "Let us therefore celebrate the festival" (from verse 7 it is clear he was talking about a "passover". So you agree that Christians do celebrate a passover, right - since "Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed"?

5. So far so good. The Passover is part of the Mosaic Law. But in the NT, Paul also teaches that Christians should celebrate "this festival". The problem here is this: a legalist would ask the same question in the manner you asked: "why do we not celebrate the passover as God directed in Exodus 12:11? What has changed?"

However, any reader who is acquainted with the OT knows that the idea of the Passover is intrinsically imbedded in the Mosaic law. But for us as Christians, when we celebrate our "Passover", it is in principle and not in the literal manner as stipulated in the Law. What this means is that the basic meaning of this feast is what we are pointed to, rather than outward "letter" in the Law.

6.  This is why we find in many other things that the apostles used the law of Moses to teach Christian doctrines without seeking a literal application, but rather seeking out the principles. Circumcision is not denounced; rather it is the "outward" circumcision that people tend to read in "the letter" that is the problem (Romans 2:29). The "passover" is not denounced; rather it is not a matter of "the letter" (1 Cor. 5:7-. The Sabbath is not denounced; rather, it is the legalism in application that becomes a problem (Heb. 4:9). Etc. etc.


So, when you ask: "what has changed", I ask: "what has changed" in the passover or circumcision or sabbath, etc, etc. Look for the principles, not "the letter".

I am using TLB here for clarity purposes only. You may use the KJV as you will get the same result.

Numbers 31:26-27 (TLB)
26“You and Eleazar the priest and the leaders of the tribes are to make a list of all the loot, including the people and animals;
27then divide it into two parts. Half of it is for the men who were in the battle, and the other half is to be given to the people of Israel.


Numbers 31:28 (TLB)
28But first, the Lord gets a share of all the captives, oxen, donkeys, and flocks kept by the army. His share is one out of every five hundred.

1/500 = 0.2% of the Army’s share

Numbers 31:29 (TLB)
29Give this share to Eleazar the priest to be presented to the Lord by the gesture of waving before the altar.


Numbers 31:30 (TLB)
30Also levy a 2 percent tribute of all the captives, flocks, and cattle that are given to the people of Israel. Present this to the Levites in charge of the Tabernacle, for it is the Lord’s portion.”

2% of the people’s share

Total war spoils given = 1.1%
2% to the Levites – taken from the people of Israel’s share
.2% to the Lord – taken from the Army’s share
equals 1.1% of the total went to The Lord

When wordtalk speaks of the victor owning the spoils and refers to Deut, that has to do with God giving the Children of Israel the promised land. Nothing else.

Again, wordtalk takes something out of context.

Wordtalk ignores Abrams OWN STATEMENT that he wasn't going to keep anything that DIDN'T BELONG TO HIM. In other words, Wordtalk must think that Abram was a liar.

From Abram's tithe, why not use the principle of KEEPING NOTHING for yourself.

Wordtalk INVENTS principles.

Again, since wordtalk says a tithe simply means a tenth, I can take ten dollars to church with me. If I give one dollar of that ten, I have tithed. Therefore, I would be a "tither." Wordtalk makes the word tithe meaningless for religious purposes. It means nothing if we can give a tenth of whatever we decide to give.

@  garyarnold

Mark my words, the poster wordtalk will just keep taking you to more and more digressions and irrelevance.

If "tithing" is the "principle" today, then why is it only about money?

Can a person not tithe crops from his garden?

Can a carpenter not give a tithe of his furniture?

Can a person not tithe clothes he recovers from the back of his debtor?

All these of course as a matter of "principle"! Unless it is only a "principle" when it concerns money! Yeah, right.  

Oh and if tithing is a "principle" for application, how is the tithing in Deuteronomy 14:22-29 (which someone raised) to be effected in application today? In "principle", of course.

@ Wordtalk

Thanks for your reply,

I do see that the main contention in your argument is between "Legalism" and "Principle". Whilst I understand to an extent your analogy drawn from the "passover" in reference to adherence in form of principle, I can't help but notice a Flaw.

Pls, who determines the procedures and blueprint of these principle? Is it dependant upon individuality or do we have an elite group that dictate the process of this "Principle"

Pls bear in mind the nature of Tithing as it involves money and it's submission towards those very Elite that may dictate the way in which this principle may be conducted. I am sure you are aware of the"Evil" capabilities Money possesess in the mind of Men. Hence the increased chances of collusion and corruption.

This was why I asked earlier that  what might have changed. Definately not God, or does God change?
He has stated what should be done when "Tithing" and how it shoud be done. What then is behind this change that has to be followed in the manner of Principles and not in the exact nature.

If God stated how something should be done, I feel it is Only God that should state if there is a change in the set of instructions that he set himself. Afterall, the very 10 commandents he gave in the OT has not been euphemized to the nature of Principles?

Anticipating your reply

(Pls forgive me If you might have mentioned anything already in relation to what I asked, I want to to indulge with me freshly if you have the time, Thanks)

garyarnold:


Total war spoils given = 1.1%
2% to the Levites – taken from the people of Israel’s share
.2% to the Lord – taken from the Army’s share
equals 1.1% of the total went to The Lord

I'm sure you still haven't read that passage carefully, even though I've shown that the "total" of the spoils given to the Lord was far more than 1.1%. You can maintain the "1.1%" fallacy if you continue to ignore the verses at the end of Numbers 31. Let me show you again - Numberse 31:50-54

We have therefore brought an oblation for the LORD, what every man hath gotten, of jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, earrings, and tablets, to make an atonement for our souls before the LORD. And Moses and Eleazar the priest took the gold of them, even all wrought jewels. And all the gold of the offering that they offered up to the LORD, of the captains of thousands, and of the captains of hundreds, was sixteen thousand seven hundred and fifty shekels. (For the men of war had taken spoil, every man for himself.) And Moses and Eleazar the priest took the gold of the captains of thousands and of hundreds, and brought it into the tabernacle of the congregation, for a memorial for the children of Israel before the LORD.

Let me ask you (as I have asked you in other places) -

1. were the "jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, earrings, and tablets" not part of the spoils?

2. were the "sixteen thousand seven hundred and fifty shekels" which they offered not part of the spoils?

3. if these also were part of the spoils which they offered to the Lord, how do you keep maintaining the fallacy that only "1.1% of the total went to The Lord"??

4. from where did they get the "sixteen thousand seven hundred and fifty shekels" which they offered to the Lord? are these also not part of the spoils?

If you are going to calculate any so-called "Total war spoils given", you cannot ignore the "sixteen thousand seven hundred and fifty shekels" in verse 52 - therefore, your 1.1% is inaccurate.

Eureka - got it!

From http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0030014/quotes


Sir Humphrey

It's clear that the Committee has agreed that your new policy is really an excellent plan. But in view of some of the doubts being expressed, may I propose that I recall that after careful consideration, the considered view of the Committee was that, while they considered that the proposal met with broad approval in principle, that some of the principles were sufficiently fundamental in principle, and some of the considerations so complex and finely balanced in practice that in principle it was proposed that the sensible and prudent practice would be to submit the proposal for more detailed consideration, laying stress on the essential continuity of the new proposal with existing principles, the principle of the principal arguments which the proposal proposes and propounds for their approval. In principle.

dare2think:

@ Wordtalk

Thanks for your reply,

I do see that the main contention in your argument is between "Legalism" and "Principle". Whilst I understand to an extent your analogy drawn from the "passover" in reference to adherence in form of principle, I can't help but notice a Flaw.

Thanks for considering my reply to yours. I would have liked to see the flaw you detected though.

Pls, who determines the procedures and blueprint of these principle? Is it dependant upon individuality or do we have an elite group that dictate the process of this "Principle"

I have used the simple principles of Biblical hermeneutics - the very same exegetical principles that theologians (both tithing and anti-tithing) are well conversant with.

Pls bear in mind the nature of Tithing as it involves money and it's submission towards those very Elite that may dictate the way in which this principle may be conducted. I am sure you are aware of the"Evil" capabilities Money possesess in the mind of Men. Hence the increased chances of collusion and corruption.

I am aware of the corruption - it's not new, rather should we spend all our days pretending that this is taking us by surprise. We have numerous verses warning of such things; but besides the warnings, we have exhortations to help us as well. This is why I don't deviate into adventurous distractions of name-callings and slander, as long as we focus on the subject. There is nothing in Christianity that can escape being corrupted - should we therefore throw everything out simply because of that?

This brings me to the conclusion to ask  what might have changed. Definately no God, or does he change?

No, God in Himself does not change - but He definitely shows us that there is a change in His dealings with His people. An example: the covenants - these have changed from the old covenant to the new covenant.

He has stated what should be done when "Tithing" and how it shoud be done. Whe then is behind this change that has to be followed in the manner iof Principles and not in the exact nature.

When people mention "exact nature", that is simply the legalism I have tried to highlight. When Paul, for instance, talked about the "Passover" in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8, was he asking Christians to 'keep the festival' in the "exact nature" as found in Exodus 12:11? I would like to read your answer, and why.

If God stated how something should be done, I feel it is Only God that should state if there is a change in the set of instructions that he set himself. Afterall, the very 10 commandents he gave in the OT has not been euphemized to the nature of Principles?

Really? Okay, perhaps you might help me here by thinking on a simple question: do the 10 Commandments apply to you as a Christian? Any part of it? No? If they do not, I then would gladly point you to other verses in the NT.

(Pls forgive me If you might have mentioned anything already in relation to what I asked, I want to to indulge with me freshly if you have the time, Thanks)

Thanks for the dialogue, I'll oblige.

wordtalk:

I apologise. To be honest, I passed it over simply because I've answered such a question in the body of my previous comments. I have said repeatedly that Christians are not called to legalism; rather, we are to seek principles from the OT Scriptures for our application today.

But let me oblige you -

Among others, the operative covenant has changed - from the old covenant to the new covenant.

What implications does this have? Here are a few for your consideration -

1.  While we are not bound to the Mosaic Law in a legalistic manner, we as Christians cannot make it void of its substance or principles - "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law." (Romans 3:31, ESV).

[b]2.  When we find references to the Law as used by the apostles to teach Christian doctrines, it is not a matter of legalistic applications, but of principles - please see my comment above where I tried to distinguish between the 'letter of the law' and "the spirit of the law".

3.  To ask questions like, 'why are we not tithing as God instructed in Deuteronomy 14 vs 22-29' depends on what you're driving at - that is, are you asking that we should adhere to a legalistic application or rather seek out the principles that the Law provides us with? If you're asking for a legalistic application, then perhaps you should understand that is not my view - rather, I propose that we look for the principles instead.

4.  Let me give you another example apart from tithing (I have used the example of circumcision before, so I won't repeat that here). What if I read a passage in the Law regarding the Passover in Exodus 12:11? And then I ask you: do you as a Christian keep a "passover" feast? If you say 'No', then I point you to 1 Cor. 5:8 where Paul says "Let us therefore celebrate the festival" (from verse 7 it is clear he was talking about a "passover". So you agree that Christians do celebrate a passover, right - since "Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed"?

5. So far so good. The Passover is part of the Mosaic Law. But in the NT, Paul also teaches that Christians should celebrate "this festival". The problem here is this: a legalist would ask the same question in the manner you asked: "why do we not celebrate the passover as God directed in Exodus 12:11? What has changed?"

However, any reader who is acquainted with the OT knows that the idea of the Passover is intrinsically imbedded in the Mosaic law. But for us as Christians, when we celebrate our "Passover", it is in principle and not in the literal manner as stipulated in the Law. What this means is that the basic meaning of this feast is what we are pointed to, rather than outward "letter" in the Law.

6.  [/b] This is why we find in many other things that the apostles used the law of Moses to teach Christian doctrines without seeking a literal application, but rather seeking out the principles. Circumcision is not denounced; rather it is the "outward" circumcision that people tend to read in "the letter" that is the problem (Romans 2:29). The "passover" is not denounced; rather it is not a matter of "the letter" (1 Cor. 5:7-. The Sabbath is not denounced; rather, it is the legalism in application that becomes a problem (Heb. 4:9). Etc. etc.


So, when you ask: "what has changed", I ask: "what has changed" in the passover or circumcision or sabbath, etc, etc. Look for the principles, not "the letter".

You make some solid points and your effort is commendable. But the essential weakness of your argument that you've not been able to overcome is that you've not identified what the tithing principle is or the principle behind tithing. You mention passover, human sacrifice, circumcision and talk about how christians observe them today - in principle. However, when it comes to tithing, you state that christians should observe it - as it was in the Old Testament, that is, a tenth. So, while you preach against literalism, you embrace it wholeheartedly - only when it comes to the tithe. I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound consistent with your position on passover, circumcison, etc where you accept that substitutes are fine and the way to go today. What's the substitute for the tithe, so that the christian would be seen to be observing the principle without giving or paying a tenth?

Finally, some people say that tithe is not a law but a principle. Others say, it is based upon principle. Which is it?  And if it is a principle, what is that principle? If it is based on principles, what are those principles? These questions are at the core of the debate.

wordtalk - and with your math, did the victors in Numbers 31 own ALL of the spoils?

nlMediator:

You make some solid points and your effort is commendable. But the essential weakness of your argument that you've not been able to overcome is that you've not identified what the tithing principle is or the principle behind tithing. You mention passover, human sacrifice, circumcision and talk about how christians observe them today - in principle. However, when it comes to tithing, you state that christians should observe it - as it was in the Old Testament, that is, a tenth.

The highlighted words are the answer you seek concerning my identifying the said principle.

So, while you preach against literalism, you embrace it wholeheartedly - only when it comes to the tithe. I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound consistent with your position on passover, circumcison, etc where you accept that substitutes are fine and the way to go today. What's the substitute for the tithe, so that the christian would be seen to be observing the principle without giving or paying a tenth?

What does the word "tithe" mean to you in basic definition? I'm sure you saw where I defined other terms such as circumcision (ie., consecration), etc? When you see the basic meaning behind the term, it would not be difficult to see the difference between a legalistic application and an application in principle.

Finally, some people say that tithe is not a law but a principle. Others say, it is based upon principle. Which is it?  And if it is a principle, what is that principle? If it is based on principles, what are those principles? These questions are at the core of the debate.

The reason why some keep asking this question repeatedly is because they ignore the explanations and references cited already in order to maintain a legalistic argument.

nLMEDIATOR just echoed my thoughts.

What exactly is this principle of tithing or the principle behind tithing.

How should it then be done since it has evidentley changed.

In short, Wordtalk, how should a christian tithe without deviating from the "Principle"?

Thanks.

Ignore the above,

I have seen your explanation.

Edit: A tenth of what though?

garyarnold:

wordtalk - and with your math, did the victors in Numbers 31 own ALL of the spoils?

Please grow up. Your fallacy of a "total" which you pegged at 1.1% is just that - a fallacy! This is not new, as I have shown you in other places the huge mistake you're making in maintaining that shoddy idea. As long as you keep ignoring verses 50-54 of Numbers 31, you will be stuck on that fallacy of 1.1% in complete denial of what the whole chapter clearly shows.

Did the spoils belong to the victors? Please tell me: what does Deuteronomy 20:14 mean to you?

garyarnold:

When wordtalk speaks of the victor owning the spoils and refers to Deut, that has to do with God giving the Children of Israel the promised land.  Nothing else.

You are sounding very frantic now. Please read Deuteronomy 20:14 in any version of English translation of your choice - start from verse 1 -- "When you go out to war against your enemies". So, this "going out to war" is all about 'God giving the Children of Israel the promised land'? You really need to read the reference rather than ignoring and excusing what it says.

Again, wordtalk takes something out of context.

No, I didn't. You only make these lame accusations when you clearly ignore the reference for what I have pointed out already: that is, Scripture shows us that spoils of war always belong to the victors by rights of conquest - as Deuteronomy 20:14; Numbers 31:53; 1 Samuel 30:20, etc. show. If you have ANY VERSE to show for your denial, please quote it! It is that simple.

Wordtalk ignores Abrams OWN STATEMENT that he wasn't going to keep anything that DIDN'T BELONG TO HIM.  In other words, Wordtalk must think that Abram was a liar.

Putting words in my mouth is not helping, garyarnold. When you cried that piece on my blog, my reply was this -

    Gary: “If Abram isn’t saying that the goods belongs to the King of Sodom, just what is he saying?”

(my reply) :

(1) The spoils of war belong to the victor – we all know that, don’t we? There is a difference between “goods” and “spoils of war” – and what the king of Sodom proposed was the former – “goods” (verse 21).

(2) The word “goods” in that verse is ‘rekûsh‘ and is often used in Scripture to indicate ‘substance’ or ‘riches’. What this means is that the king of Sodom was slyly proposing that Abraham ‘enriches’ himself through Sodom’s “goods” – which was failure on the part of the former to recognize those things as “spoils” (shâlâl in Hebrew – cf. Gen. 49:27).

(3) Abraham responded that he would not give the king of Sodom any grounds for the latter to boast that he had made Abraham “rich”. In effect, there was nothing that the king of Sodom could claim back since his city was soundly defeated in the war!

(4) The key here is seeing the meaning between “goods” (‘rekûsh‘) and “spoils” (‘(shâlâl‘) – if Abraham did not recognize his claim over the spoils (which is what Hebrews 7:1 calls it), then he would be in no position at all to have taken anything from the spoils to give as tithes to the priest of the most high God! To have done so would simply be theft, not tithes!

Gary, I do hope that this sorts things out for you. However, if you are somewhat still unclear, I would be glad to share more. Besides, you could consult a good scholarly work that sets things out with these distinctions (I recommended Grotius earlier). I do not know of any source that shows an Arab custom where “spoils of war” do not belong to the victors in warfare – and I would appreciate it if you could recommend any good source.

http://givingtithes.com/what-moved-abraham-to-tithe/

From Abram's tithe, why not use the principle of KEEPING NOTHING for yourself.

If you understand the meaning of a Biblical principle in hermeneutics, this would not be hard for you.

Wordtalk INVENTS principles.

Yea, I lived before Thomas Aquinas who used the same Biblical Principle that your anti-tithing theologians were busy quoting up and down the corridors, not so? Sorry, I didn't invent "Biblical principles" in hermeneutics and Biblical exegesis - this is why I asked you to consult good scholarly works, and the reason why you never do so is perhaps indicative that such an exercise is beyond your horizon.

Again, since wordtalk says a tithe simply means a tenth, I can take ten dollars to church with me.  If I give one dollar of that ten, I have tithed.  Therefore, I would be a "tither."  Wordtalk makes the word tithe meaningless for religious purposes.  It means nothing if we can give a tenth of whatever we decide to give.

I didn't make the definition of 'tithe' meaningless. Have you not quoted Bible dictionaries and reference work defining that term elsewhere? Have their definitions channged as well? Do you know what it means to DEFINE a word?

Again, wordtalk is all talk and keeps taking verses out of context.

This is getting to be quite funny.  Wordtalk says the principle of "tithe" is a tenth.  And here I thought the DEFINITION of tithe is a tenth.  Now wordtalk says the principle of something IS the definition.  How absolutely rediculous!

And wordtalk says he/she is not legalistic!!  Wordtalk KEEPS the MOST LEGALISTIC part of the tithing laws - the TENTH!  And then claims that it is a "principle."

I think wordtalk needs to go back to school.

"Tenth" cannot be a principle.  It doesn't meet the definition of principle.  Plain and simple.

You are wrong, wordtalk.

And I showed you plain as can be that the victor did not own ALL of the spoils in Numbers 31.  Rather than admit your error, you try to put the emphasis on something else.  You need to grow up.

garyarnold:


wordtalk - and with your math, did the victors in Numbers 31 own ALL of the spoils?

I asked you earlier:

wordtalk:


Please tell me: what does Deuteronomy 20:14 mean to you?

This is what Deuteronomy 20:14 says -

- but the women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, ALL its spoil, you shall take as plunder for yourselves. And you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you.

What does "ALL the spoil" in that verse mean to you, garyarnold? What did God mean by "you shall take as plunder for yourselves"??

What again does Numbers 31:53 mean by "the men of war had taken spoil, every man for himself"?? Were they violating Deuteronomy 20:14? Please tell me, I'm curious: what does "ALL its spoil" mean to you in Deut. 20:14?

Have you also checked with external references I shared elsewhere with you concerning the fact that it is a UNIVERSAL truth that spoils of war belonged to victors by rights of conquest? Have you? What did those external references say? Please share your findings with me.