Rebuttal of sbcimpact Chris Johnson

Sbcimpact
http://sbcimpact.org/2010/10/10/melchizedek-priests-and-a-more-perfect-tithe/
by Chris Johnson

Johnson: Israel deemed a tithe as the picture of worth springing forth from the hands of its people.

Kelly: No. The holy tithe sprang fort from the hands of God as miraculous increase from His holy land.

Johnson: The quality and definition of a tithe did not so much come to rest in the accumulation of a fixed number, even as this was the expression used by Moses to maintain a Levitical Priesthood…and this mechanism supplied a nation, as well as created support for the poor.

Kelly: This is an erroneous shift in an already erroneous theology among Southern Baptists who teach that the tithe was a tenth of all increase (which they will not defend). In reality the tithe was only a tenth of the increase of food from inside God’s holy land which God had increased and not man.

Johnson: Yet even as a tithe can be revealed in a numerical factor,…the essence of a tithe sprang forth as an expression from the hands. Hands, expressed by ten fingers, giving all and yielding a perfect work as spelled out by God.

Kelly: This is flowing nonsense which totally ignores the biblical definition and use of the word “tithe.” It is accompanied by no texts whatsoever.

Johnson: I am reminded of the Apostle Paul’s expression to Timothy….1 Timothy 2:8 “Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension”…. Holy hands,..all ten fingers, representing full obedience to the effort of living a holy life in the midst of God’s people and the world.

Kelly: This is incredibly naïve. Muslims and Buddhists stretch forth their hands in worship also. Again you have no text connecting “hands” with “tithe.” In reality no tithe could come from defiled pagan dust or from defiled unclean Gentiles. The Temple would not accept tithes into it from outside Israel and Paul certainly would not teach Gentiles to tithe, especially after the events of Acts 15.

Johnson: Romans 3:19-27

Kelly: These texts are not discussing tithing. Why are they quoted? First, the “law” of Romans 3:1-18 includes Isaiah and Psalms. Second, the definite article is not in the Greek in verse 20. “The Law” which condemned Jews was God’s total revelation in the Old Testament. “Law” as a principle which condemned Gentiles was found in nature and conscience. By “the law” and by “law” all were guilty before God (3:19-20). And the “righteousness of God” is revealed apart from the law principle (3:21). The fact that sinful man must be saved by a righteousness outside of the law proves that law fulfilled its purpose (3:27-28).

Johnson: Romans 8:2-4

Kelly: This is not discussing tithing either. Why is it quoted? “The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death” is a reference to the Law of Christ, the Law of Love and the New Covenant.

Johnson: Why Is Understanding a Tithe So Important
First of all, the inspiration to tithe was born before the advent of the Levitical Priesthood.

Kelly: Tithing was practiced all around Mesopotamia – along with idolatry, worship of the heavens, child sacrifice and temple prostitution. The mere existence of something old and widespread does not make it an eternal moral principle. The question SBC authors will not approach is: ‘Why did Abram (not Abraham) tithe?’ The answer could just as easily be because he tithed in Babylon. Most likely he tithed because it was the Semitic law of the land to give tithes of spoils of war to one’s local king-priest. The Bible does not say that Abram freely chose to tithe.

Johnson: Tithing…. this expression of perfect giving from our hands, was expounded upon by Moses concerning Melchizedek. Abraham’s first impulse was to honor a higher Priest, as was Noah when he set foot outside the Ark, sacrificing from every clean animal and every clean bird…..

Kelly: This is not validated with scripture. You have changed what you are attempting to prove into a fact.

Johnson: Genesis 8:20

Kelly: Noah was acting as his own priest. This does not teach tithing.

Johnson: Only stiff necked people need to be reminded of apportioned giving.

Kelly: This does not teach tithing. Tithes were only accepted from farmers and herdsmen living inside Israel. It never applied to craftsmen, traders and teachers living in the cities. Jesus, Peter and Paul did not qualify as tithe-payers.

Johnson: Only a stiff necked people would not understand that the spread of the Gospel and the formation of the body of Christ were from house to house.

Kelly: The OT tithe was never used for mission work to convert non-Hebrews. There is no precedent.

Johnson: … new covenant, eclipsing and doing away with an older one that had met its match with death.

Kelly: Tithing is nowhere taught in the New Covenant to the Church after Calvary. Period.

Why Is This Principle of Faithful Giving So Important Today

Johnson: … week over week the excitement builds as the new sanctuary project comes into focus.

Kelly: You have left your topic of tithing. The OT Temple was built and maintained by freewill offerings. Again there is no precedent for tithing.

Johnson: You see,…the art of building bigger temples most often forces a poor hermeneutic. The SBC was almost deceived by poor instruction from various leaders in 1895, as “storehouse” giving was brought to the floor of the convention. The convention came out better at the end of the day as she rejected an alluring contemporary hermeneutic of New Testament “storehouse” giving. She came out better, because she did not retreat into the death of the Law, but she pressed on, remaining faithful to honor her only Priest and King, Jesus Christ.

My question for you today…. What do you teach your congregation concerning a tithe? Do you retreat back into the Law just a little while you justify certain projects?
Share the solid principles you teach with respect to understanding a “tithe”.

Kelly: It appears that the author of this article, a SBC pastor, thinks tht the SBC should have never eventually adopted “storehouse” tithing as an apportionment of ten per cent.

1. stephen fox says:
October 11, 2010 at 4:43 am
Chris: It would be interesting to see if Ken Ezell will invite you to the NAMB to share this conviction, these questions with his trustees; then later with the SBC Megachurch pastors who some say are now running the SBC.
Ask them if this Principle carries over to CP giving; especially for a group of churches that articulate bloggers like Howell Scott of FromLaw2Grace blog are discussing. Howell thinks it could be the unraveling of the SBC.
My point is you have put it out there strongly for individuals and congregations. Now take it to the Denominational hierarchy and do it boldly.
2. Chris Johnson says:
October 11, 2010 at 8:53 am
Brother Stephen,
Most of the leaders within the SBC movement will find it hard to disagree with the biblical context of tithing. It is finding the context that is important. In the current American landscape,…the problems arise when the enticement of larger complexes mix with personal aspirations of a single pastor. Then as I have stated,…the hermeneutic from clear biblical doctrines become abandoned for a jaunt down yet another path. A teacher and fellow church member many years ago in Texas, Daniel Vestal, has been enticed to abandon a clear hermeneutic for overseers (God’s responsibility for the man) in the church in much the same way that tithing is bantered about by some in the SBC.
Fortunately, the SBC did not succumb to the enticement brought about by leaders in 1895, and have been held at bay now for over 100 years. So …on the record of what “tithing” means, at least in their young history…the SBC has not faltered. My encouragement is that she continue to press on toward a more meaningful commitment to giving with respect to “all”, not a portion.
Blessings,
Chris
3. stephen fox
FTR I did not find much at all in your Intro piece here that my Baptist preacher Dad would have disagreed with on tithing.
4. David Rogers
Do you want to give a summary of what happened in 1895, and save me the time of doing the “Google” research?
5. Jeremy says:
I really like this post! I was wondering if you had any additional sources that comment on the 10-fingered aspect? The tithe did obviously exist before the Law, but as a linguist I can’t help but favor the origin of our word “tithe” as being “a tenth”.
That being said, I think we are to give all, not just a tenth (which is why I liked your post). The New Testament believers demonstrated a total change in the course of their lives, and clearly showed total commitment both in the giving of their properties and of their lives.
… 100% commitment, not just 10%.
6. Chris Johnson
The New York Times reported this concerning the convention in 1895 which can be found at http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=FA0D15FC3C5811738DDDAB0994DD405B8585F0D3
Of course I’m sure that there is more to the story…..
7. Chris Johnson says:
8. Chris Johnson says:
Resources like Kittel’s Unabridged Greek and other historical reference works reveal to us some fascinating information about how Israel used “hands” to qualify completeness, as well as a system of counting. So, the nation settled on ten’s represented by the fingers on the hands, etc. while other nations and languages settled on other forms for quantifying like the cuneiform tablet system or the duodecimal systems.
In other words,…it was about objects and numbers in these other languages, where in counter distinction we see an interesting and new quality with the perfection of the hands and Israel, making the definition of tithing more than a simple quantifying act…so that tithing is an act of love that is expressed as we use these hands, bringing all that we have to God and to those we serve. That concept of the tithe was there before Israel existed,…but because of their continual failings they were simply given a reminder to follow as an apportionment, where all along they could have given all.
We should never settle for apportionment in our teachings. God’s people have all things in common….as they choose to follow Christ.
9. Jeremy says:
October 12, 2010 at 8:11 am
Thank you! Ever since I started seminary I’ve been asking, “Why can’t they teach us this stuff in Sunday School?” Things like this help put the Bible back into its original context and add new light and deeper meaning.
I know how hot the debate can get when you talk about contextualizing the Scripture, but the more I learn, the more I realize just how much of that we’ve already done.
I thought last night, as my tithing paradigm was shifting, that having a commonly understood straightforward teaching turned on its head like this must be what the Pharisees experienced with Jesus.
… I’m begging pastors to teach this! It will be more easily accepted than the 10% sermon (harder to do though…). But hey, if people shoot for 10% and hit 2%, imagine where they’d land if they aim at 100%. Maybe that’s where that 80/20 rule comes from…