Reply to Change Worth Making, 11-3--2010

http://changeworthmaking.wordpress.com/

CWM: It is incumbent upon any man asserting any truth to be able to biblically defend that truth, and do so in a manner that is not unbecoming of the honest student of God’s Word.

Kelly: Amen, amen, amen.

CWM: While I have rarely preached on the subject over the last few years, I have at this place sought to stand up for this principle.

Kelly: This is a half truth and still a total lie. Your last statement says that you teach tithing to all new members!

CWM: Primarily because I have a personal resentment toward any insinuation that preachers who teach the tithe are less than honest in their ministry, or are disingenuous, or should be labeled as a false teacher.

Kelly: Most are “less than honest because they will not seriously study the subject and diaalog with us about it.” You are dishonest by deleting my posts.

CWM: While some may disagree with our conclusions about the teachings of the text, it is irresponsible to imply that all preachers who teach the tithe to their people are dishonest with their motives, ignorant about the scriptures or are somehow not on the up and up.

Kelly: “Somehow not on the up and up is my conclusion” – including and especially YOU.

CWM: Now that being said, I once again, and probably for the last time (Lord willing), want to explain the principle of the tithe rightly divided and clearly proclaimed.

Kelly: Good riddance. You have not made any sense up to now.

CWM: 1.) The Definition of the Tithe. First of all, when we are dealing with the Biblical text of the “tithe” we must not fall for the bait and switch. We must see it’s plain simple definition. The Biblical word, “tithe”, in Hebrew, Greek, English, Latin, and Piglatin speaks expressly of one-tenth, or 10%.

Kelly: YOU are the one who has made the “bait and switch.” You have changed the Bibilical CONTEXT of the tithe for a non-biblical context. What are your motives? Why have you attempted to change the obvious biblical usage of the word “tithe”?

CWM: Ten percent of mashed potatoes is a “tithe” of mashed potatoes. Ten percent of all of the left handed footballs in the world, is a “tithe” of all the left handed footballs in the world. Ten percent of all the dill pickles in the United States is a “tithe” of all the dill pickles in the United States. I think you get the point. In order to rightly understand the concept, you must stick with the clear meaning of the word.

Kelly: You have just DISPROVEN your own point! The Bible does not speak of “mashed potatoes,” “left handed footballs” or “dill pickles.” God’s Word always speaks of FOOD which has only been increaded within His own HOLY land of Israel.

CWM: The problem is that the opponents of the tithe principle do not do that. They attempt to use God’s word and their own dictionary.

Kelly: Our own “dictionary” consists of 16 texts from God’s Word which describe the CONTENTS of the tithe as ONLY FOOD which God has miraculously increased from inside Holy Israel. Biblical tithes could not come from what man increased, from Gentiles or from outside Israel. Why do you not try to refute that?

CWM: While the word for “tithe” speaks of an amount, they continually want to tie to a “medium”. They demand that the tithe is always tied to “flocks, fruits, herds, produce, grain, etc.” While the word deals with a percentage, they want it to deal with produce. Whatever the motive, they seem to very legalistically see the tithe concept tied expressly to a medium when that is simply not the case.

Kelly: We do not “demand” our defihition. God’s Word LIMITS it to what we see from studying His Word. You would place blinders on parishones and tell them to listen to you instead of the Word.

CWM: This is another example of what I mean when I say, we do not use the law to teach the tithe, it is they who use the law to avoid it.

Kelly: Excuse me, but the definition of the word “tithe” from Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Malachi and Matthew MUST be the definition of the Law since those passages are all under the Law. You would never win this kind of argument in an honest uncensored debate.

CWM: The fact is that the word is speaking of the “amount of a medium“, not the “amount AND medium.” It is the legalistic approach that demands that the definition of the word include the medium of whatever context it is nestled in.

Kelly: It is the legal definition given to the word “tithe” by the Law of which it is commanded and enforced. Go into a grocery store and ask for a “tenth.” The clerk will then ask you “A tenth of what.” When God’s OT workforce, the Levites, asked for a “tenth,” the people knew that it was a “tenth of food” from God’s HOLY land as the Law defined. They did not bring money or food from Gentile lands.

CWM: For example, their favorite passage of scripture to tear apart; Malachi 3:8 “Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. “ Note what the scripture does not say. The scripture does not say that they were giving “nothing”. The rebuke of Israel was not that they weren’t giving something, the rebuke was that they weren’t giving the right “percentage.” I find it strange that were the tithe tied to the medium, the Lord did not specify which medium it was that they were holding back.

Kelly: This is plain stupid! The text you stopped in front of says “… that there may be FOOD in my house” and the following texts refer to “grasshoppers” and fields of FOOD. Clearly the tithe was always only FOOD.

CWM: The fact is that His rebuke was a rebuke of the amount of their giving not the medium of their giving.

Kelly: Nonsense. Read the texts and let them tell you what they are talking about: Mal 3:10-12.

CWM: Furthermore, 10 percent is 10 percent, before the law, during the law, and after the law. Whatever else may be said, 10 per cent has not changed mathematically.

Kelly: “Travel” means the same whether it is travel by foot, horse, train or airplane. The word itself does not explain what kind of travel. Tithe before the Law was a pagan spoils of war tithe in obedience to the law of the land. Tithe during the law was defined by the law as a holy tithe from a holy land. There is no tithing after the law because both the Temple and priesthood are now within the believer. Even Jews today do not tithe because there is no Temple or priesthood.

CWM: Now I have not addressed the “compulsion” to tithe yet, merely that the word tithe means 10 percent, and ten percent alone, regardless of medium, and regardless of dispensation.

Kelly: Do you honestly see no difference between spoils of war and food from God’s HOLY land?

CWM: 2.) The Dispensation of the Tithe. The next question that we must deal with is the “when” of the tithe. For the sake of clarity I am going to leave the Mosaic Law out of this.

Kelly: Yes, of course. Leave out the 16 texts which describe the CONTENTS of the HOLY tithe from Leviticus to Luke. That is dishonest.

CWM: Of course we are given the example of Abraham giving 10 percent of the spoils of war to Melchizedek long before the Mosaic law was ever given.

Kelly: It was actually a pre-circumcized Abram who had learned tithing while in Babylon as part of pagan worship.

CWM: Now those who reject this as any form of compulsion quickly point to the medium of the tithe to say it has nothing to do with us. Once again, that’s a bait and switch discussion.

Kelly: It was a form of compulsion – pagan law of the land which required tithes of spoils of war to one’s local king-priest. You are the one ignoring the facts. What do you think was happening in Gen 14:21? The law of the land was involved in the conversation. If the 90% was controlled by pagan tradition, so was the 10%.

CWM: While we want to talk about the “tithe” of the treasure, they want to talk about the “kind of the treasure, or the source of the treasure.”

Kelly: The first rule of hermeneutics is context.

CWM: Now whatever else may be said, had Abraham had ten thousand bucket fulls of chicken, he would have given Melchizedek 10 percent. Had Abraham had 4o million U.S. dollars, He would have given Melchizedek a tithe of that too. The Bible says very plainly that Abram “gave him tithes of all.” (uh – hmm – amount, not medium)

Kelly: No, read your Bible. It says that Abram “gave the tenth of the spoils” in Hebrews 7:4. (uh-hmmm – amount of the medium)

CWM: Let’s not miss the example given. We have the High Priest of God receiving a “tenth” of the increase of Abraham, the “Friend of God” Prior to the law, and not under any legal compulsion. Freely given without hesitation.

Kelly: The Bible does not say that Abram “freely gave” anything. You have changed God’s Word. Why didn’t Abram give a tithe of what he received from Pharoah in Genesis 12?

CWM: What then does that have to do with now? Hebrews 7:8 – “And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.” Hebrews 7:8 is post law, and under grace.

Kelly: Hebrews 7:8 As far as the Jewish Christians in Judea were concerned around AD65, they were still tithing to the Temple system per Acts 21:20-21 because they were all “zealous of the law.” The Episele to the Hebrews was written to wean them from the Law. Any OT tithe or offering was considered a gift to God (Christ).

You keep ignoring the very palin teaching of Hebrews 7:12-18. The law of tithing (from 7:5) “muct be changed” (7:12) and that “change” was the “annulment of the commandment going before” (of tithing from 7:5) per 7:18. Why do you tithe teachers never attempt to explain 7:10-18? Sounds dishonest to me.

CWM: …Yet here in Hebrews 7:8, the writer, (Luke in my opinion) explains the difference between the earthly priests and our Great High Priest. In his discourse concerning Christ being our High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, and not after the order of the Levites, expresses the fact that “here, men that die receive tithes” referencing the law, and the Old Covenant. “but there he receiveth them of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.” “There” being reference to priestly order of Melchizedek which comes to our Great High priest Jesus Christ, of which it is clearly taught that He that is living is still receiving “tithes”. (amounts, not mediums)
Our Great High Priest, “post law,” separate from the Levitical compulsion is pictured for us as being receptive to the “tithes” of increases.

Kelly: You would make a great Ebionite. The Jewish Christians of Jerusalem, Acts 15 and Acts 21 evntually rejected Paul completely and set up their own narrow-minded legalistic church which survived for several centuries. They would have certaily rejected a Gentile such as Luke. Again you ignore the logic of 7:12-18.

CWM: 3.) The Dedication of the Tithe. There is a difference between a law and a principle. While we are not under the law of the Mosaic system, we are clearly under the authority of all Biblical principles. A principle is a concept, a system of thought, a fundamental idea. The Old Testament (even apart from the law) pictures for us “principles” to learn. The Apostle Paul explained that those things which were written aforetime were written for our learning.

Kelly: So now you are going to tell us exactly what ARE and what ARE NOT Bible principles.

CWM: The primary problem with those people who argue with the tithe, do so from the standpoint of law, and legality.

Kelly: Bill Clinton said that Southern Baptists teach that oral ls sex is not really sex. The judge found him to be a liar and fined him and removed his credentials as a lawyer.

We define “tithe” from Leviticus to Matthew 23:23 the way its hearers, its recipients (Hebrews under the Law), would have defined the word. You will not accept that plain fact.

CWM: They have rightly said that there is no “legal compulsion” in scripture for the New Testament Christian to tithe. THEY ARE RIGHT! There is no legal compulsion for the New Testament Christian to be in the practice of giving 10% of his income to the Lord, through the church.

Kelly: Wow! Why are you wasting your time on this blog?

CWM: Teaching the tithe rightly understood has nothing to do with “legal complusion”, but legal compulsions are not the only “compulsions” in the Bible. We are compelled by examples. We are compelled by patterns, We are compelled by Principles. Because there is no legal compulsion does not mean that there is no compulsions at all! Because there is not a legal compulsion to tithe, does not mean that there are not other compulsions within the text that lead us and direct us to do so.

Kelly: Why don’t you repeat the same line six different ways?

CWM: The example of Baptism carries with it all of the authority needed to practice immersion as the only Biblical method to accept!

Kelly: Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians and Methodists might disagree with you. Does that mean your example could be wrong about tithing also?

CWM: The example of the disciples meeting on the first day of the week is enough authority all by itself to compel us to meet on Sundays.

Kelly: Wrong again. Sunday does not replace the OT Sabbath and does not carry any compulsion with it. It is a freewill choice.

CWM: The principles of praying, praising and preaching, are all throughout the Bible, and are authoritative principles that formulate the structure, and substance of each, yet there are no spelled out laws.

Kelly: Moral principles are found within the heart of un-reprobate man. Giving is a principle; giving ten per cent is not. Worshipping is a principle; worship on a particular day of the week is not.

CWM: Christians have the example and lesson of the Friend of God tithing to the High Priest of God, before and after the law.

Kelly: Who are you to filter out what Abram did by faith and what he did by compulsion? Are we to copy Abram and go to Egypt during a famine? Are we to copy Abram and lie about our wife being our sister? Are we to copy Abram and tell God to let his blessing come throgh a concubine’s son? If you are giving permission to tithe pagan spoils of war because Abram learned that in Babylon, then go right ahead.

CWM: Christians have the principle of 10 percent, being expressed as the hearts desire of God throughout the scriptures.

Kelly: Where “throughout the Scriptures”? These are the same Scriptures which defien the CONTENT of the tithe as only FOOD from God’s HOLY land and nowhere else!

CWM: Christians have the simple definition of the word and concept. Now all of that being said, “to knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin.”

Kelly: You have proven nothing about the tithe being an eternal moral principle.

CWM: 4.) The Disagreement with the Tithe. I do not want to impune the motives of every person on planet earth that genuinely disagrees with me. Some just do not see what I am saying, and as Paul said, “let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” That’s just fine. If I can talk you into it, someone else can talk you out of it. When the Lord talks you into it, you’re there!

Kelly: So now you begin to “impune motives.”

CWM: Some however, just simply do not want to tithe. It’s too much. They don’t like giving that much money “to the church.”

Kelly: Some have pressing medical needs, children to feed, utility bills to pay, etc. And I am talking about a lot of very poor who have been “tithing” for denerations and have not been blessed. You would rather they ignore 1st Timothy 5:8 and do without essentials so the church can have its share first.

CWM: They have a lifestyle that would have to be downsized in order for them to practice tithing. They are accustomed to a certain level of living and tithing infringes upon that. Their problems are not textual, their problems are deeper than that.

Kelly: Hmmmm. Sounds like a lot of rich preachers fit this description while many of those they suck the blood out of do without. Ever heard of generous sacrificial giving motivated by the love of God and the desire to see souls saved for God’s kingdom?

CWM: Some assert that the tithe is an “undue burden.” They will always, and I mean always attempt to use a “health issue” or “medicine need” or “food need” as the primary target against those who teach the tithe, with accusations of heartlessness, or spiritual brutality, or carelessness or whatever they want to say.

Kelly: If you equate the tithe with the “firstfruits” then you are guilty, guilty, guilty. Shame on you. Biblical tithes were never the same as “firstfruits.” Deu 26:1-4; Neh 10:35-38.

CWM: Of course they do so not understanding the spiritual purpose of the tithe, which I haven’t even gotten in to yet, and won’t here for time and space.

Kelly: The purpose fo the frist Levitical tithe was to support the Levites and priests. It was cold, hard LAW. The second festival tithe had a spiritual aspect but it reminds us that the Levites were to remain part of the poor of the land.

CWM: But I will say this. Ten percent is not the “live or die” question that most of these men want to make it. I have learned first hand, that I cannot afford, NOT to tithe. The Lord makes my 80+% (after tithe and offering) go farther for my family of 6, than 94-95% seems to. The “live or die” argument is the last line of defense for those who do not like the tithe. More often than not, that argument is intended to impune the teacher, rather than disagree with the tithe.

Kelly: Now you are making things up so you can sound intelligent with your reply. Sounds very legalistic to me. Why not just follow the “equality” principle of 2nd Cor 8:12-15?

CWM: While I have not exhausted my full defense of the principle, I have exhausted my time allotted for posting this article. Gone over it actually. Lord willing, I am done with this subject. If I had my druthers, I’d much rather see people give their hearts to Jesus, than worry about how much money people are giving to the Lord through the church. I’ve never worried about it before, so I don’t plan on starting now. I will however continue to teach this principle to new and growing believers as the Lord gives me opportunity. When I realized the difference that it made in my life it was a wonderful change worth making.

Kelly:
Gal 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?