Reply to Pastor Terry Grey, Aletheia [Truth] Seekers on Malachi [Tithing]

Reply to Pastor Terry Grey, Aletheia [Truth] Seekers on Malachi [Tithing] http://aletheia-seekers.blogspot.com/2012/04/malachi.html Grey: [Malachi] is God's final message to the Israelites of the Old Testament time. Kelly: Yes. This is Old Testament context addressed only to Judah under Law (Ex 19:5-6; Lev 27:30-34; Mal 4:4). Grey: Malachi 1:6-1:8 Israelites and priests no longer honored God. They essentially brought garbage that they wouldn't even bring to human governors to honor God. Kelly: Yes. The context is dishonest priests under the Old Covenant. The people brought the tithes to the Levites and the Levites gave a tithe of the best tithes to the priests. The priests, in turn, bred the best animals but gave God the worst of that which they bred (Num 18:21-28; Num 35). Grey: Malachi 1:9-1:14 Israelites no longer treated God as the Great king. They bring trash God but save the best for themselves. Kelly: No. Read the entire chapter. There is no break between verses 1:1-8 and 1:9-14. The people (Israelites) are not involved here; it is still describing dishonest priests from 1:6. Grey: Malachi 2:1-2:9: Priests no longer did what they were supposed to do. Kelly: Yes. Back to context. Chapter 2:1-9 continue the address to “O priests, you” from 1:6. Grey: Malachi 2:10-2:12 Marriage at the time has become corrupted. Marriage is a holy relationship between a man and woman. A holy covenant between a man and a woman and God. And as the nation became idolatrous, so man had become adulterous. Kelly: These “Judah” texts interrupt the “you – priests” from 1:6 to 2:9 and 2:13 to end and are third person. They alone refer to Judah as a whole. Grey: Malachi 2:13-2:16 Kelly: This is a return to “you priests” whose tears cover the sin offerings. Grey: Malachi 3:6-3:12 In the Old Testament, people were commanded to give 10% of their income to God. Kelly: Wrong. The only “people” in the Old Covenant who were “commanded to give 10%” were food producers who lived inside God’s HOLY land of Israel. HOLY tithes were strictly limited by God to FOOD which He had miraculously increased. Tithes could not come from non-food producers, from Gentiles, or from outside Israel. Period. It is wrong to call tithes “income.” Although money was common in Genesis and essential for sanctuary worship, money was never a tithed item. Grey: Here [3:6-12] the people were stealing from God, because not only do they defile God's honor by sacrificing animals they don't even want, they have also stopped tithing. Kelly: Not true. Those guilty of stealing from God in 1:6-14 were the priests who were cursed 4 times from 1:13 to 2:1. According to Nehemiah 13:5-10, the priests had stolen tithes belonging to their Levite servants and only the Levites went home for food. Grey: “Should we still tithe?” Kelly: Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. “We” Gentiles have never been under the law or commanded to tithe. Israel was forbidden to share its covenant with Gentiles and no tithes were ever used to convert Gentiles. The question confuses the difference between the Old and New covenants. Grey: Matthew 23:23 Jesus expected tithing from people. Kelly: Of course. Jesus lived and died under the law (Gal 4:4-5). It would have been sin if Jesus had not taught tithing to the temple system. It would have been sin if Jesus had accepted tithes. Matthew 23:23 is (1) addressed to “you, scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites” and not to the church, (2) is in the context of “matters of the law, and (3) nobody who teaches tithing today literally obeys Jesus by accepting tithes from garden spices. Grey: Also, from Paul's writing, we are told to give regularly. Kelly: Yes, but, as a doctor of the law and rabbi, Paul had been taught that it was wrong to accept money for teaching God’s Word. And Paul knew that Holy tithes could not come off defiled pagan land or from Gentiles. Grey: Malachi 3:10-11 This is the only place in the Scriptures where God essentially said, "I dare you. Test me." Kelly: Not in practical application. One could not expect blessings while, at the same time, breaking other commands of the law. The entire law was a test. Read Deuteronomy 28 to 30. “Obey all to be blessed; break one to be cursed” (Gal 3:10). Grey: God promises that when we give, we will also receive. As we bless others with what we have, God will bless us because how we have served others. Kelly: Yes, but this does not endorse post-Calvary New Covenant tithing. The “we” of this sentence is not the “we” of Malachi 3:10. Malachi 3:10 cannot possibly be addressed to all the people. (1) They were commanded to bring their tithes to the Levitical cities (Neh 10:37b). (2) Only Levites and priests brought the tithe to the temple (Neh 10:38-39). And (3) the small temple storeroom could not hold the tithe of the nation (1 Kings 6:6). Grey: And here, we see that God challenges the Israelites to take up that promise. Kelly: Grey is switching back and forth between the tithing text of Malachi 3:10 [where tithes are still only food] and freewill giving principles – they are not the same. Some can give 10% and not be giving generously and sacrificially. Others can give 2% and still be giving sacrificially (2 Cor 8:14-16). Please stop mixing Old Covenant tithing with New Covenant principles of giving. Join me. Russell Earl Kelly, PHD www.tithing-russkelly.com\ russell-kelly@att.net

SBC'S ROGER S OLDHAM DISTORTS TITHING FACTS

To: Dr. Roger S. Oldham April 20, 2012 From: Dr. Russell E Kelly On April 20, 2012, Baptist Press published an article by Roger S. Oldham, Vice President for Communications and Convention Relations for the Southern Baptist Executive Committee. http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=37652 The purpose of the article was to celebrate the May 13, 1925 beginning of the Cooperative Program on April 22. Yet the first two sentences of the article are either deliberate lies or reveal that Oldham does not even know the subject he is discussing as an authority. “Recognizing the drain frequent financial requests made on the churches, our Baptist forbears in the opening decades of the 20th century hammered out a plan that recognized and sought to address this problem. The plan was remarkably simple -- 1) individuals give their tithes and offerings to their local churches …” Oldham errs when he says “The (1925) plan was remarkably simple – 1) individuals give their tithes and offerings to their local churches.” This error is easy to demonstrate. Go to the SBC website and look up the 1925 Faith and Message. There no mention of tithing in that Faith and Message headed by E. Y. Mullins. And, more important, the Faith contains no tithing texts in its Stewardship section. Tithing texts did not appear until the 1963 Faith and Message and the word “tithing” is still missing. The omission is evidence of opposition to tithing in 1925. A second evidence of Oldham’s error is the 1925 Cooperative Program document. Its “twelve basic working principles” are found on the Baptist 2 Baptist website at http://www.baptist2baptist.net/b2barticle.asp?ID=240. This is found in Todd Starnes, June 2000 article, A Godly Heritage: A History of the Cooperative Program. There is no mention of tithing n that document. It simply reads “4. Money given by the churches was to be evenly divided between the state convention and SBC.” According to Starne’s article, Austin Crouch, who served as the first president of the Executive Committee from 1927 to 1947, said "The Cooperative Program is scriptural" and quoted First Corinthians 16:2 instead of any tithing text. I plead with Southern Baptist leaders to either stop teaching tithing or, at the very least, begin seriously studying the subject. (1) You are mixing law and grace contrary to Paul’s exhortations in Galatians 1:8-9 and 3:1. (2) You are ignoring your own beginnings which opposed tithing. (3) You are ignoring your own 1895 to pre-1963 history. (4) You are ignoring the biblical definition of HOLY tithes as only food from inside Israel which God has miraculously increased. (5) You are ignoring the doctrine of the priesthood of every believer and the fact that those who received Levitical tithes were not allowed to own or inherit property. And (6) you are ignoring the fact that O.T. tithes were never used for missionary evangelism of Gentiles – there is no precedent. Please go back to teaching post-Calvary biblical principles of giving: freewill, generous, sacrificial, joyful, not grudgingly, not by commandment, and motivated by love for God and lost souls. Russell Earl Kelly, PHD 6610 Skyview Dr SE Acworth, Ga 30101 770-974-4756 russell-kelly@att.net www.tithing-russkelly.com

Reply to J. Robert White on Tithing

Dr. J. Robert White April 20, 2012 Executive Director, Georgia Baptist Convention jwhite@gabaptist.org RE: Christian Index, April 19, 2012, page 7 Sir I was born, raised, and saved in the Southern Baptist Church. After questioning a majority teaching of the SBC, I was gradually pushed out rather than given a hearing. First, it disturbs me that your M. Div. and Th. M. are both from the SBC Seminary in Louisville. Since this was before Moehler’s time, I ask “Are you a Calvinist? How many points of Calvinism do you subscribe to?” Secondly, and to the point of my writing, why do you teach tithing when it is not taught in the SBC Faith and Message? Did you know that the texts for tithing were not even included until 1963 and the 1925 had no tithing texts? That should tell you it is a relative recently change of approach. The Mar/Apr 2009 issue of the SBC’s own Facts and Trends Magazine revealed that 20% of SBC pastors do not teach tithing! Being a scholar, your arguments for tithing are first grade level. Do you not know that, in Matthew 23:23 Jesus was: (1) speaking before Calvary in the context of the Law (Gal 4:4-5), (2) speaking about “matters of the law,” (3) speaking to “you, scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites,” and (4) speaking about HOLY tithes which were always only FOOD from inside God’s HOLY land of Israel which He had miraculously increased? In ten years neither you nor anybody else in the GBC or SBC has had the spiritual integrity to dialog with me on this subject. You cannot win. Your hermeneutic is wrong. The truth of God’s Word will prevail. (1) You base your argument on Matthew 23:23 which is not addressed to the church. In fact it would have been SIN if Jesus had accepted tithes for His support. (2) You boast that Abram’s tithe trumps the law when his tithe was only spoils of war, was only paid once, was not commanded by God, was probably in obedience to the law of the land, and following his example would mean giving our 90% to the equivalent to the king of Sodom. (3) Your totally ignore 16 texts which clearly define the HOLY tithe as only FOOD from inside Israel. Why do you do this? “Giving” is an eternal moral principle; tithing is not written in the heart, nature, and conscience. Tithes could not come from what man increased, from Gentiles, or from Gentile lands. (4) You totally ignore Numbers 18:21-24 and Neh 10:37b which assign the whole Levitical tithe first to the Levites who were not the ministers. (5) You totally ignore the fact that Num 18:25-28 and Neh 10:38-39 teach that priests only received one per cent. (6) You totally ignore the fact that those who received the Levitical tithe were, in turn, not allowed to own or inherit property. Yet you dishonestly receive the whole tithe and own your own house and property. (7) We are New Covenant believers. Malachi was only addressed to Israel. Wise up. (8) Your comment “Does God expect us to give less in the New Covenant than in the Old?” is based on the erroneous assumption that every Hebrew in the Old Covenant was required to tithe and began their level of giving at ten per cent. That is a lie and it is SIN to keep on quoting it. Only food producers who lived inside God’s HOLY land of Israel qualified as tithe-payers. Jesus, Peter, and Paul did not qualify. Be honest! Please be a leader and open this subject up to public dialog. Russell Earl Kelly, PHD 6610 Skyview Dr SE Acworth, Ga 30101 770-974-4756 russell-kelly@att.net www.tithing-russkelly.com

Hemphill and Eklund Exposed on Tithing

Review of The Foundations of Giving, Perspectives on Tithing,
Ken Hemphill and Bobby Eklund
by Russell Earl Kelly
April 22, 2011

“Position Statement: We assert that tithing is the foundational base from which believers can and must be challenged to become grace-givers.” (20)

Reply: This come from the SBC Position Paper which is the required position for all who receive paychecks from the Convention. All SBC members are expected to begin their level of giving at ten per cent.

Although this attempted imposition has been in the SBC since 1895 and, although the SBC Faith and Message did not even insert tithing texts into its stewardship statement until 1963, and although the Faith still does not teach tithing per se, it is the background expectation for all employees.

“We further agree that … the tithe was established prior to the giving of the Mosaic Law.” (20)

Reply: It is without dispute that all nations surrounding Abram practiced tithing to pagan gods. Common sense teaches that this was probably the source of Abram’s and Jacob’s knowledge about tithing. However, when the law arrived, God gave Moses special divine revelation that the “holy” tithe could only come from food within God’s holy land of Israel. Hemphill and Eklund totally ignore this biblical truth and it destroys their entire argument.

“We believe that Jesus assumed the tithe would be practiced by his followers.” (20)

Reply: The statement makes no sense before Calvary. Until Matthew 28:19-20 Jesus’ mission was to preach to fellow Hebrews who had already possessed and practiced tithing since Moses. No new teaching was needed as long as the law was still in full force. While living under the jurisdiction of the Law, Jesus MUST teach the whole law, including tithing, or be a sinner. He could not and did not teach His Jewish disciples to tithe to himself. And he could not and did not teach His Gentile disciples to tithe at all because it would not have been accepted.

“We believe that Paul taught and practiced biblical giving. … These challenges to give beyond the tithe are based on the assumption that a believer under grace would never do less than those who had lived under the Mosaic Law.” (20)

Reply: Again, sixteen texts validate the fact that true biblical holy tithes were always only food from inside God’s holy land. Tithes belonged to the Levites and priests –not to gospel workers. As a Pharisee Paul would certainly know that his trade of tentmaker did not qualify him as a tither, especially from defiled pagan land. Paul would never assume that one could pay a holy tithe from outside God’s holy land –especiall to himself. Even if he did, three tithes would require 20-23% be paid.

“His requirements for His children.” (p21)

Reply: The most fundamental hermeneutic (“To whom was it written? Was it written to me?”) is ignored. Hemphill and Eklund do not “rightly divide the word of truth.” While God clearly said in Exodus 19:5-6 that the Old Covenant law was given specifically to national Israel, they sporadically apply whatever parts of it they like to the Church without any post-Calvary textual evidence.

“The very fact that we have a tithe to bring indicates that God has given material blessings.” (21)

Reply: God said the tithe only belonged to Levites and priests. “We” the (mostly) Gentile church do NOT have a “tithe.” The tithe was always only FOOD from inside God’s holy land specifically legislated to support the Levites and priests who ministered in the sanctuary and had no land ownership rights. The Old Covenant is gone; the Levites are gone; ministers own much property; and the priests and temple now reside within every believer. Hemphill and Eklund do not address any of these tithing laws from Numbers 18.

“The practice of giving encourages the steward to … acknowledge that his stewardship encompasses not only the tithe …” (21)

Reply: This article is full of statements with no scriptural validation. It is “make it up as you go” hermeneutics.

“Craig Blomberg stated …” (20, 22, 35)

Reply: Craig Blomberg does NOT agree with them. In fact he was intimately involved in Dr. David Croteau’s PHD dissertation on tithing when he graduated from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, NC.

“By the time Abram appears in Genesis, the concept of giving a portion back to God as an offering of gratitude is understood and defined as ten per cent.” Gen 14:20. (23)

Reply: Hemphill and Eklund conveniently never refer to Abram and Jacob’s tithe as “holy.” “Giving” is an eternal moral law written nature and in the heart and conscience of every human. “Tithing” –giving ten per cent is not. If God had instructed Abram to give ten per cent of spoils of war, then why did He change it to only ONE per cent as a “statute” in Numbers 31? We must conclude that Abram was following a different definition and that God had not yet revealed the quantity and definition of a “holy” tithe.

“Language describing giving as ‘legalistic’ or an ‘obligation’ is not the principle theme of any biblical discussion of giving.” (23)

Reply: This is coming from those who describe tithing as a“foundational base,” “minimum standard” and “expectation.” Sounds like a “legalistic obligation” to me.

“Nowhere else in Scripture does God encourage His children to put Him to a test.” Mal 3:10 (23)

Reply: The whole law was a test (Deu 28-30). Obey all to be blessed; break one to be cursed. God does not bless murderers, thieves and adulterers who tithe. See Galatians 3:10.

“We cannot overlook the importance of the ‘whole tithe’ which settles the issue of what constitutes the tithe.” Mal 3:10 (24)

Reply: Malachi is 1000 years after Leviticus and the holy tithe is still only food from Israel. In Nehemiah 10:37-38 the people were commanded to bring the tithe to the Levitical cities where the Levites and priests met them. This is because 98% of those who needed the tithe for food lived there and not Jerusalem. (Figure 24 tribes rotating to the Temple one week at a time minus women and younger children.) Even in 2 Chronicles 31:15-19 the tithe was redistributed back to the Levitical cities. Only a small portion was kept in the Temple storehouse. It would make no sense for Levites and priests to travel to the Temple every time they needed to eat.

“Moses had instructed Israel that ‘Every tenth of the land’s produce … and every tenth animal is .. holy to the Lord.’” Lev 27:30, 32 (24)

Reply: This is the ONLY definition of a “holy” tithe which is repeated 16 times. While money was common and essential for sanctuary worship, money was never included in the tithe. Hemphill and Eklund never address this basic consistent definition and greatly err because of it.

“After Israel settled in the land they were to bring the tithe annually to the to the sanctuary and consume a portion of it “before the Lord,” leaving the remainder with the Levites who were, in turn, to share a tithe with the priests.” (24)

Reply: Herein Hemphill and Eklund hide a multitude of errors. They will not admit to the existence of three tithes because they do not want to teach a minimum beginning place of giving at 20-23%. (1) The first whole Levitical tithe was brought to the Levitical cities and a small portion of it was brought to the Temple by the Levites (Neh 10:37-38; Num 18:21-28). (2) A second festival tithe was brought and eaten in the streets of Jerusalem during three annual feasts (Deu 12:6,7; 14:23). (3) A third third-year poor tithe was kept in the cities and homes for the poor (Deu 14:28, 29: 26:12, 13).

“The storehouse clearly refers to God’s house, the place of worship for his children, and the meeting place of the local congregation.” (24)

Reply: (1) This is impossible because the church had no buildings for over 200 years after Calvary and Christianity was not legal for over 300 years. (2) Solomon, who built the temple and would have had the greatest volume of food, built no storerooms for the tithe. This is why Hezekiah was forced to do so after incorrectly telling the people to bring all the tithes to Jerusalem. The Temple was not used for congregational worship until after the exile when a synagogue was built inside it.

“Even in the matter of the tithe being dedicated to aliens, the fatherless and widows every third year, the giving was done through the priests serving in the temple.” (24)

Reply: Wrong. The third-year tithe for the poor was kept in the villages and homes and was not brought to the temple (Deu 14:28, 29: 26:12, 13). Hemphill and Eklund’s hermeneutic is to make things up as they go.

“Are we to seriously believe that God, who by this time had personally instructed His followers in all matters related to giving and to the tithe, suddenly decides the tithe is no longer important, no longer considered holy? There is no such statement in Scripture and no basis for teaching that such a declaration was uttered or intended.” (24-25)

Reply: (1) Jesus’ followers were Old Covenant Hebrews; He never instructed the Church to tithe. (2) The tithe was “holy” because: a) it was food miraculously increased by God and b) it came off His holy land. c) Some reasons for ending the holy tithe are: 1) The covenant in which it was an ordinance ended, 2) the priesthood it was legislated to support ended, 3) the Temple it was legislated to support ended, 4) the holy land and Levitical cities ended and 5) modern preaches own and inherit much land contrary to the tithing ordinance of Number 18.

“Genesis 14 recounts how Abram gave a tithe freely, willingly and worshipfully to Melchizedek.” (25)

Reply: God’s Word says none of this. We are not told WHY and HOW Abram tithed. We are only told THAT he gave a tenth of spoils of war to his local king-priest. It is even more likely (though one cannot be dogmatic about this) that Abram was obeying the well-documented law of the land and had no choice in the matter.

“The Macedonians begged to participate in the offering Paul was gathering for the impoverished saints in Jerusalem.” (2 Cor 8) (25)

Reply: There is no reason to mention this in a discussion of tithing because it demonstrates the spirit of freewill giving. The SBC says that freewill offerings are in addition to the tithe. Therefore its use by Hemphill and Eklund here is suspicious.

“When Jesus observed the love of the poor widow as she sacrificed …” (25)

Reply: Again this demonstrates the spirit of sacrificial freewill giving and should not be associated with tithing which was cold hard law and was expected whether one was joyful or not.

“We learn much later in Scripture how God has a special regard for the firstfruits of the harvest, the firstborn in families, the firstborn of flocks.” (26)

Reply: Again, this has nothing to do with tithing. Firstfruits were very small token offerings taken directly to the Temple and consumed inside it (Deu 26:1-4; Neh 10:35-37a). Firstfruits are never the same as tithes. Tithes teachers want believers to equate them and bring tithes to the church before any bills such as medicine and essentials are paid.

“In our studies we have found it fascinating that the tithe of agriculture was used in a family feast celebrating God’s provision and presence.” (Deu 14:26) (26)

Reply: The second holy feast tithe, an additional 10%, was commanded to be eaten in the streets of Jerusalem. Why is this command of the tithing law ignored today? Hemphill and Eklund’s “pick and choose” hermeneutic is very inconsistent.

“(Malachi) The result was that they were suffering under a curse. In other words they had forfeited God’s presence, provision and protection.” (26)

Reply: What is the motive of Hemphill and Eklund for writing this? Are they implying that Christians today who do not tithe are also “suffering under a curse” and have “forfeited God’s presence, provision and protection”? Are they forgetting that the law and the curse ended at Calvary? Are they replacing a New Covenant hermeneutic with an Old Covenant one?

“God assures His blessings on the tither.” (27)

Reply: The Old Covenant ended at Calvary (Heb 8:13). God is not now dealing with the Body of Christ using Old Covenant curses and blessings. God is now operating in the sphere of the New Covenant and does not bless New Covenant believers because of their obedience to or disobedience to conditional Old Covenant promises. Those blessings which Christians receive today are wholly because of compliance with ew Covenant teachings.

“What price tag can we put on the things of God? Some might say that we cannot buy the blessings of God for any price. God says we can have them for a tenth.” (27)

Reply: Christ appropriated all the blessings of God for us on Calvary. This statement by Eklund is childish. The context of Malachi ended at Calvary and has been replaced by New Covenant giving principles found in 2nd Corinthians 8 and 9 which are primarily freewill and sacrificial.

“Partners with God” by Bobby Eklund is 142 pages and only devotes 17 pages to tithing (63-79). “Making Change” by Ken Hemphill is 192 pages and only devotes 17 pages to tithing (97-113). In this book they have used 39 pages (20-44, 84-88, 126-130, 166-169) which is double the output of the other two books combined. (34 plus)

Reply: As Preissler will say in his excursis, Bible schools do not teach tithing. If they did they would be inundated with conclusions such as mine and Dr. David Croteau’s that tithing cannot be supported for the new Covenant church.

“If Abram tithed as a spontaneous response to the goodness of God, then the later codification of the tithe in the Mosaic law would reflect Abram’s response to the gracious activity of God …” (27)

Reply: No, the text must prove that Abram’s spontaneous and immediate response was either freewill or in obedience to a command from God. Neither can be demonstrated from Scripture. The Bible does say WHY Abram tithed. And his “unholy” tithe was not codified in the law as sustenance for Levites and priests. The statute of spoils of war in Numbers 31 lowered the spoils’ tithe from ten per cent to one per cent of the total.

“Abram’s response was both spontaneous and immediate.” (28)

Reply: This proves nothing. Hemphill and Eklund set up false parameters to ensure that Abram met their own parameters. Such is ignoring literal hermeneutics.

“The story seems straightforward. Abram tithed to God as an act of gratitude and worship, acknowledging God alone as the possessor of heaven and earth.” (28)

Reply: A literal hermeneutic does not yield the conclusion that “Abram tithed to God as an act of gratitude and worship.” He could have just as easily tithed to Melchizedek as an act of obedience to the law of the land. While El Elyon was a very common title for God/god “most high,” it was Melchizedek, not Abram, who made the first declaration. Abram later told the King of Sodom that Yahweh was El Elyon whom he served.

“If it can be established that Abram offered a tithe to the one true God prior to the Mosaic law, it would certainly blunt the argument that tithing is a legalism that has no significance under grace.” … “Tithing was commonly practiced long before Moses was born.” (29).

Reply: The fact that “Tithing was commonly practiced long before Moses was born” does not prove that “Abram offered a tithe to the one true God.” It only proves that pagans tithed along with their idolatry, child sacrifices and temple prostitution. The fact that something is very old and very widespread does not make such fact an eternal moral principle.

“Abram was affirming that the God who established a covenant with him is the one true God, the possessor of heaven and earth.” (30)

Reply: In Gen 14:22 Abram told the king of Sodom that the God Melchizedek only knew as El Elyon was Yahweh El Elyon.

“It would be exceedingly strange to think that Moses … would include a story which suggests that Abram offered a sacrifice to a pagan deity.”

Reply: Yes, it would, but the story says absolutely nothing about worship or a sacrifice. The inspiring Holy Spirit omitted those non-existent details conveniently added by Hemphill and Eklund.

“If one can demonstrate that Abram’s tithe to Melchizedek was a voluntary act prior to the Mosaic Law, it does establish that tithing was not simply an issue of legalistic obedience. (30)

Reply: They follow by saying “Rather it was a spontaneous act of celebration and gratitude.” They meet their own conditions by an unvalidated declaration. What kind of hermeneutic is that?

“If Abram tithed to Melchizedek, would it not follow that the Christian would offer tithes to the great high priest who is greater than Melchizedek?” (32)

Reply: As they previously said, it was not “the intention of the author of Hebrews” to teach tithing. Since Melchizedek (one outside the law) replaced Aaron (one inside the law) 7:12 says “it was necessary to change the law” which governed the Aaronic priesthood and allowed it to receive tithes. Were the tithes changed from Aaron to Melchizedek? No. 7:18 says that “the commandment going before” (to take tithes of the people according to the law; 7:5) was “disannulled, abolished) –not shifted to gospel workers.

“The entire context (of Jacob) describes a subdued man who was overwhelmed with the promises of God… In response … Jacob responded with a promise to give God a tenth …” (33)

Reply: While Hemphill and Eklund did not bother researching, Croteau did and proved that Jacob’s demeanor was that of fear in 28:17 and not gratitude. Compare 28:17 with the same Hebrew word in 31:31 and 32:7, 11. Jacob the supplanter and schemer responded out of fear with his famous conditional “if” telling God what to do.

“We have not dealt extensively with the tithe in the Old Testament since there is little disagreement that the principle of tithing is taught there.” (33)

Reply: The truth is precisely the opposite. All tithe discussions eventually end up back with Abram and Genesis 14. the “principle” of “giving ten per cent” was manifested in pagan worship and giving tithes to pagan idols; it was not a holy tithe at all. The “principle” was later greatly enhanced through special revelation when God limited the “holy” tithe to food from inside Israel which He had miraculously increased. This is always the final battleground and Hemphill and Eklund very well know it.

“(Tithing) is a loving and worshipful response to the Creator who owns and provides everything we need and have.” (34)

Reply: Sounds good but it is not biblical. Wile God owned everything in the OT (Ps 24:1), He only accepted “holy” tithes from inside His holy land.

“We found it perplexing that someone who had experienced grace made available through the cross would desire to do less than someone under the Mosaic law. Such, to us, was a disgrace to grace.” (34) (20)

Reply: This is their strongest argument and is inserted and repeated often. Again, it is based on the false assumption that every Hebrew was required to tithe and that every Hebrew began giving at ten per cent. In reality only Hebrews who lived inside Israel and were food producers could qualify as tithers.

“[Quotes Mt 5:17-19] “The law and the prophets is a shorthand way of referring to the entire Old Testament.” (34-35)

Reply: At last something correct to agree upon. The “law” was an unbreakable whole. Either one must keep all of it or reject and replace all of it.

“The teachings of the prophets were fulfilled when what they predicted actually happened. Thus the entire Old Testament (Law and Prophets) pointed forward to what Jesus has now brought into being through his life and teaching.” (quoted Blomberg) (35)

Reply: This logic confuses me because many of the Prophets’ predictions are yet future. I tend to interpret this as the “righteousness of the law” as indicated in Mt 5:20 although much is still open to speculation and this seems to be the direction of Hemphill and Eklund on page 36.

“In each instance cites (Mt 5:20-48) Jesus’ ethical teaching was more demanding than the Old Testament law.” (36)(20)(34)

Reply: Behind this discussion is another effort to prove their main point that NT giving standards are higher than OT giving standards. While this is true, once again tithing was not a beginning standard for Hebrews who were not food producers and who lived outside Israel. Their many efforts fail because they will not address the basic definition of the holy tithe.

“Let your mind’s eye picture one of the haughty Pharisees on his knees counting out his herbs.” Mt 23:23 (39)

Reply: When Jesus said “Ye ought not to have left the other undone,” He was commanding His followers to do the same thing because the scribes and Pharisees “sit in Moses seat” as the legitimate interpreters of the law (23:2-3). Yet I know of no church today which obeys Jesus’ direct command. This is “pick and choose” hermeneutics at its best.

“They had been guilty of picking and choosing and thus ignoring these greater issues of inner truth.” (39)

Reply: Hemphill and Eklund do the same thing when they use Matthew 23:23 as a hammer to teach Christian tithing. They do not obey Jesus’ direct command.

“We must however be careful to note that Jesus did not condemn them for the ‘legalism’ of tithing. On the contrary He indicated that ‘These things should have been done without neglecting the others.’ Jesus did not suggest that the Old Testament principle of the tithe should be neglected but rater that it should issue from the heart from whence also should flow justice, mercy and faith.” (39)

Reply: As a Jew Himself living under the full jurisdiction of the Law, Jesus must teach tithing or else be a sinner for opposing the law. While Hemphill and Eklund completely ignore this fact they also disobey Jesus’ direct command by not teaching tithes of garden herbs.

“We can’t ignore the obvious implication Jesus believed that they should have understood and practiced tithing.” (39)

Reply: I can’t understand how Hemphill and Eklund cannot understand that Jesus’ Jewish disciples did not need instruction in tithes because they had heard this since Moses’ time. He was not speaking to the Church. He was yielding to the scribes and Pharisees as the present occupants of Moses’ seat and telling His disciples to tithe garden herbs (23:2-3).

“While tithing is a good place for us to begin the teaching of stewardship, it is inadequate in light of the gift of God’s grace in His son … Why would anyone think that living under grace should grant us permission to do less than man was required to do under the law.” (40)(20)(34)(36)

Reply: Another repetition and the same reply again. (1) Tithing was only the minimum good place to start under the law for food producers who lived inside Israel and (2) if you are going to teach this, then teach 20-23% tithing as the law required for food producers.

“Having been nurtured in Judaism, Paul would have practiced tithing according to Old Testament prescription.” (41)

Reply: Yes. He would have taught that true holy biblical tithes were always only food from inside God’s holy land of Israel. He would have taught Gentiles that tithes could not come from Gentiles or from outside Israel. And he would have reminded the Gentiles of the letter from the Jerusalem church in Acts 15 which did not impose the law on Gentiles.

“[Note that Hemphill and Eklund did not mention 1st Corinthians 9.]”

“Let’s embrace the idea that the tithe is a good biblical place for beginning …” (44)(20, 34, 36, 40)

Reply: One final repetition of their main point with no supporting texts.

“David Croteau’s chapter … reveals a great reluctance to accept tithing as a biblical mandate despite Jesus’ affirmation of the practice in Mt 23:23.” (84)

Reply: Croteau used consistent literal interpretation while you reflect no consistent hermeneutic other than your own opinion and church Position Paper. Jesus’ discussion in Mt 23:23 was that of “matters of the law.” He could not have opposed tithing while under the law without sinning.

“These [NT] convicting principles are left to the reader’s imagination.” (84)

Reply: The “reader’s imagination” is found on pages 81-83 which even include 2 plain charts to imagine are in the book.

“As a whole this view fails to take into account God’s approach in teaching mankind, not just the Israelites …” (84)

Reply: “Holy” biblical tithes were never for all mankind. They could only come from inside God’s holy land of Israel and only from His holy covenant people.

“The Garden of Eden is the beginning place.” (84)

Reply: Of giving? Yes. Of tithing? No. Reserving one tree out of possibly thousands does not constitute tithing –plus they did not offer it to God.

“Failure to see this connection [Eden] results, in our opinion, to the excessive attention to mechanics (some might say legalism) of giving rather than the reasons behind giving in general and the tithe in particular.” (84-85)

Reply: I credit Croteau’s conclusions to his tendency to literally interpret God’s Word. I call your attempts to impose Old Covenant giving principles on the Church “legalism.”

“There is no basis at all to the suppositions and conclusions that Abram tithed only from spoils and not his possessions or that his giving originated in surrounding cultures.” (86)

Reply: Hebrews 7:4 is very strong reason for the first statement and common sense is good reason for the second. Being born and raised in a culture should mean that you often reflect that culture.

“The fact that other cultures practiced some form of tithing, and we certainly do not dispute this, does not dictate the reasons behind Abraham’s voluntary spontaneous tithe.” (86)

Reply: (1) The culture one is born and raised in most definitely should be strongly considered. And (2) God’s Word does not say that Abram’s tithe was “voluntary.”

“As to the unsupported position that “storehouse” in Mal 3:10 refers specifically (and only to) a special room in the temple designated to hold tithes and offerings, the principle is the same.” (87)

Reply: Compare Neh 13:5 with 1 Kings 6:6 for that room. What principle? What texts prove your argument? How can you condemn a literal interpretation when the church had no physical buildings for over 200 years after Calvary?

“In our opinion the intent (of Lev 27) was to describe Judaism as significantly different from other cultures.” (87)

Reply: O.K. but the text gives a “significantly different” dominion of “holy” tithes which you never discuss and which destroys most of your arguments.

“(Concerning Matthew 23:23, Croteau said that) Jesus does not prohibit tithing but he condemns the wrong attitude and motive of those who were tithing under the old covenant. Precisely. … but when Croteau states … the command to tithe was for the scribes and Pharisees who were still under the old covenant,” this statement begs the question ‘When is the requirement under grace ever less than the requirement under the Mosaiclaw?’” (87)(20, 34, 36, 40, 44)

Reply: Croteau was pointing out that Jesus had to teach tithing while still under the law and that he was not teaching His disciples to tithe to Himself. Again we can reply to the oft-repeated favorite line: (1) it is based on the false assumption that everybody in the law began at ten per cent when it only applied to food producers living inside Israel and (2) the minimum should be taught as 20-23 per cent.

“Croteau does his best work in providing a proper motivation for giving.” (88)

Reply: You said on page 84 “These [NT] convicting principles are left to the reader’s imagination.”

“While we must agree to disagree on the ongoing requirement of a tithe (ten per cent) as the beginning point for obedient giving … The natural consequence of loving God is not “to be free from a ten per cent model” but to be free to give generously under the leadership of His Spirit.” (88)
(20, 34, 36, 40, 44, 87)

Reply: This final jab was expected. Now we have heard it so often that it has been ingrained in our minds as truth. Not!

The paradigm of tithing has been around for over 100 years and has failed miserably. It is time for post-Calvary Spirit-blessed New Covenant giving principles: freewill, generous, sacrificial, joyful, not by commandment (or percentage) and motivated by love for God and others. That means more sermons on evangelism and soul-winning and less on tithing. Watch the churches grow – again.

Grace Giving is Now the MajorityViewpoint

Survey: Majority of evangelical leaders say tithing not required
By Electa Draper

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_17784132

The Denver Post
Posted: 04/06/2011 11:40:06 AM MDTUpdated: 04/06/2011 11:48:30 AM MDT

Most evangelical leaders encourage their church members to tithe, yet most don't believe the Bible requires it of Christians, according to survey results released today.

Tithing, giving at least 10 percent of one's income to church, was the subject of the monthly poll of directors of the National Association of Evangelicals, which includes leaders of churches, denominations, missions, universities and publishing houses.

The Evangelical Leaders Survey found 58 percent believe the Bible doesn't require tithing, which means giving at least 10 percent of one's income to their church. And 42 percent do think tithing is required.

However, 95 percent of those included in the February poll indicated they give at least 10 percent.

"The Old Testament called for multiple tithes, sort of combining government taxes with religious stewardship. Many churches later adopted 10 percent as the standard," said NAE President Leith Anderson.

"Since there is such a strong evangelical tradition of tithing, I was a little surprised that a majority of our evangelical leaders say the tithe system of the Old Testament does not carry over to the New Testament or to us."

It could be that the people in the pews agree. Empty Tomb Inc. recently reported that evangelicals give churches about 4 percent of their income and Christians overall donate only 2.43 percent.

The NAE leaders stressed that their views on the Bible don't release Christians from giving.

"Anything less than 10 percent seems like an ungenerous response to God," said David Neff, editor-in-chief of the magazine "Christianity Today."

While tithing isn't required, said Alan Robinson of the Brethren in Christ Church, the Old Testament model should lead New Testament Christians to "live lives of sacrificial generosity."

Electa Draper: 303-954-1276 or edraper@denverpost.com

Reply to Pastor J D Greear on Tithing

http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=34861

Greear: Over the years I have gotten (and had myself) questions about whether or not the tithe (giving the first 10 percent of our income back to God as prescribed by the law) was biblical.

Kelly: Immediately you make the greatest error of your article. True biblical holy tithes were always only FOOD from inside God’s holy land of Israel which God had miraculously increased. While money is very common in Genesis, money is never a tithe-able item. Sixteen (16) texts validate this. Tithes could not come from what man increased, from Gentiles or from outside Israel. Jesus, Peter and Paul did not tithe and nobody can tithe today.

Greear: Tithing is a part of the law, and Jesus has definitely fulfilled it all in our place so that we are free from its bondage.

Kelly: If you stopped here you would be fine. But you then back-pedal and contradict yourself.

Greear: However, the purposes of the law were (generally speaking) 3-fold:
-- to show us what God was like.
-- to reveal how far short we fall of God's character.
-- to show us how to thrive in the creation God has placed us in.

Kelly: This is really a deceptive answer by what you omit. The Law was given as a covenant only to Israel. It was to show Old Covenant Israel that it could not achieve righteousness by obeying God’s commands. It was an object-lesson to teach ignorant slaves about God. The Law was never commanded to “us” non-Hebrews. The Law was temporary (Gal 3:19-26).

Greear: None of those 3 purposes faded with the death of Jesus.

Kelly: As you just wrote “Jesus fulfilled it all in our place so that we are free from its bondage.” It all “faded with the death of Jesus” per Hebrews 7:18; 8:13 and Romans 3:21.

Greear: If anything, Jesus' coming intensified them.

Kelly: You have changed your focus away from God’s Law and to your invented “3 purposes.” This is sneaky. God’s Law was an indivisible whole of Ten Commandments, ceremonial statutes and civil judgments. From the texts quoted in Matthew 5:19-48 all the whole law was fulfilled at Calvary. You word-shuffle is trying to both end all of the law and keep all of the law at the same time.

Greear: We saw more of what God was like, what holiness was like, and what a man acting in perfect harmony with creation was like.

Kelly: And what do we do with the hundreds of laws which were not specifically repealed in the New Covenant after Calvary? Are our women to leave the camp one week per month? Are we to travel to Jerusalem three times a year? Are we not to harvest crops every seventh year? You are playing with words and ignoring the mountain called the law.

Greear: As it relates to the tithe, the law reveals the unchanging character of God and how He expects us to view the money HE has provided for us.

Kelly: That part of the Law which is eternal and moral is also written in our hearts by conscience and revealed in nature. It is repeated to the Church in terms of the New Covenant after Calvary. We all know to give generously and sacrificially but tithing was a special revelation given only to Israel to support its sacrificial system. And you have provided no texts whatsoever to validate your statements.

Greear: A minimum of 10 percent that He has given to us, whether we are rich or poor, is to go back into His work.

Kelly: Pardon me, but you have no idea what you are talking about. Show me from God’s Word where tithing was a “minimum” for everybody. It was only a “minimum” for Hebrew food producers who lived inside Israel. The poor who were not food-producers were never required to tithe and actually ate much of the festival tithe and all of the third-year tithe. Why don’t you provide texts?

Greear: This is how He set up the world order. This is why the "tithe" principle (the first 10 percent of income going into God's work) is taught pre-law (Abraham)

Kelly: You may follow Abram’s pre circumcision tithe all you wish: (1) only spoils of war, (2) keep nothing, (3) give the remaining 90% to the modern equivalent to the king of Sodom (a gay community leader?). Who are you kidding?

Greear: law (Moses), post-exile (Malachi)

Kelly: This tithe of the Law was clearly only food from inside Israel as 16 texts in the law describe it. Be honest.

Greear: and even affirmed under Jesus (Matthew 23:23).

Kelly: Does your Bible not say that Jesus was discussing “matters of the law”? Was not Jesus living under the jurisdiction of the law per Gal 4:4-5? It was illegal for Jesus to command anybody to tithe to himself. Where did you learn these hermeneutics?

Greear: God's purposes for creation haven't changed.

Kelly: Creation? You are playing games with God’s Word. Shame on you. God did not command all “creation” to tithe. The church is commanded to give freely, generously, sacrificially, joyfully, not by command and motivated by love for God and others. If you cannot make that work, then you need to get out of the ministry.

Greear: We are no longer under the theocratic nation state of Israel

Kelly: “We” Gentiles never were “under the law.” You need to spend 13 years like Paul did in re-learning what the law was all about.

Greear: but how God has set up His economy for His people has not changed.

Kelly: A lot of fancy words, but no texts to validate them from God’s Word. The key is “his people.” His “people” under the Old Covenant was Israel. His “people” in this dispensation is the “assembly of believers.” God does not change his character but he certainly does change from ruling Israel under the Old Covenant and ruling the Church under the New Covenant per Hebrews 7:18 and 8:13.

Greear: God doesn't lay the financial weight of the entire world on any of our shoulders, but He has given His people a plan whereby they do their part.

Kelly: News flash: the wealthy have plenty of money for yachts and booze after tithing but the poor cannot even buy essential medicine, food and shelter after tithing. You are blatantly violating Paul’s instruction in First Timothy 5:8. News flash: tithing and firstfruits were never the same thing in God’s Word per Deu 26:1-4 and Neh 10:35-38.

Greear: The law was given to help people live in the shalom of God. That's what gives the law (principles like taking a Sabbath and the tithe) an enduring effect.

Kelly: Wrong. Do you think it is moral to own slaves? The Sabbath commandment approves it. And, if you receive tithes, you must agree not to own and inherit land per Numbers 18:21-28.

Greear: Thus, the idea that 10 percent of all that God gives to you is given for you to give back to Him remains, I believe, as a good guide to our giving.

Kelly: News flash: God owned everything in the OT also but only accepted tithes from inside His holy land of Israel. You do not and cannot give a biblical tithe today.

Greear: Now, let me be clear -- Jesus left us under NO PART of the law, not the tithe or anything else.

Kelly: Your two “no law” statements at the beginning and end of this article sandwich a whole lot of junk theology in between. Shame on you. You give something away (no law) and then grab it back again.

Greear: But the law, in that it reflects God's character and His ordering of creation, is still good, and still functions as a guide to how we are to live under God in this world.

Kelly: No, the Law is not our guide. No texts validate this. Jesus is the new standard of righteousness per John 16:8-9; 2 Cor 3:10-18; Romans 3:21 and Hebrews 1:1-2. You need to go back to school.

Like a Seventh-day Adventist, you have no idea how to consistently use the word “law.” It is not the Ten Commandments. It is usually everything from Exodus 16 to Deuteronomy. Paul used it in Romans 3 to include the Psalms and Prophets. How do you use it consistently?

Greear: Men and women of God throughout the Bible, including Abraham and Jesus, seemed to recognize that. If anything, the Gospel raises the level of our response to God's laws.

Kelly: Which laws? There are over 600 commands in the law. Am I to show myself to a priest after being healed? Am I to kill my children when they strike or curse me? Tithes could not be used to send out missionaries. Am I to follow that example? Those who received Levitical tithes were to kill anybody attempting to enter the sanctuary. Do you obey that law?

Greear: True obedience, Jesus says, goes much deeper than the behavior standards the law required. For example, the law said "don't murder," yet Jesus said the Gospel demanded we love our brother always and not hate him, not even our enemies. The law said "don't commit adultery," yet Jesus said that the Gospel demanded people not even "look on another woman with lust in our heart."

Kelly: You are deliberately dishonest here because you picked out the 2 reference to the Ten Commandments in Matthew 5:20-48 and conveniently ignored the 2 references to the ceremonial statutes and the 2 references to the civil judgments. That shows you are still confused about the law.

Greear: So, if the law says "give 10 percent," what kind of generosity does the Gospel call for? Would it not be greater generosity than 10 percent, just as the other commands were also intensified in Christ?

Kelly: You are creating a lie using two false assumptions. You falsely assume that the law commanded everybody to tithe and you falsely assume that everybody began their level of giving at 10%. Shame on you.

Greear: In other words, if the people who saw God's generosity in the Exodus responded with giving 10 percent …

Kelly: The cold hard Law commanded tithes whether or not one was in agreement or joyful. Again you are arguing from your own false presupposition.

Greear: … how much more should people who have seen the cross? This is why you see the early church giving far beyond 10 percent. So overwhelmed by the generosity of Christ, they wanted to pour out their possessions for those in need (2 Corinthians 8:9).

Kelly: Now you are teaching contrary to the Southern Baptist Press you are writing in. They teach “tithes PLUS freewill offerings” and quote 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 as instruction concerning freewill offerings –not tithes. You cannot have it both ways. What you said is true but it is not true that the early church was tithing. It was giving SACRIFICIALLY.

Greear: For Gospel-touched people, tithing should never be the ceiling of their giving, but it should be the floor.

Kelly: “It should be the floor”!!! This is an outright deliberate high-handed presumptuous willful LIE without a single Bible text for validation. And it is damming the Southern Baptist Convention to teach it.

Greear: Tithing, in and of itself, is not an iron-clad rule for Christians as it was for Israelites under the law.

Kelly: Then WHY did you just tell that tremendous lie? “For Gospel-touched people, tithing should never be the ceiling of their giving, but it should be the floor. For Gospel-touched people, tithing should never be the ceiling of their giving, but it should be the floor.”

Greear: That said, "giving our firstfruits to God" most definitely is a biblical principle, true of God's people in all places and at all times.

Kelly: News flash: tithes are “tenth-fruits” and not “first-fruits.” First-fruits were extremely small token offerings. Read some good Bible dictionaries.

Greear: And 10 percent is a great place to start with that.

Kelly: This un-validated Southern Baptist lie is repeated so much that its people think it is biblical. Some people are so poor that they cannot “start with a tithe” and still buy medicine, food and essential shelter. Thank God that you are not terribly disabled and on welfare yourself; you might change you mind otherwise.

Greear: Should I give the tithe "pre-tax" or "post-tax"?

Kelly: Neither. Nobody can tithe biblically.

Greear: In the Old Testament, God called the tithe a "firstfruit" (cf. 1 Corinthians 16:2). This meant their giving to God came first before anything else. That teaches pretty clearly that our giving to God comes before Uncle Sam takes his share. God gets the firstfruits, not the second ones.

Kelly: This “firstfruit” lie has already been exposed.

Greear: When during the month should I give? The principle of "firstfruits" also shows you, in my opinion, that the tithe check should be written first, and not at the end of the month when you see how much left over you have. If you do the latter, you will inevitably never have enough to give God 10 percent.

Kelly: This is greedy selfish theology which turns God into a monster and gives the church a bad name. Again no texts.

Greear: You're giving Him your scraps. But if you do the former, you will inevitably adjust your lifestyle around what you have left.

Kelly: You can always move into a cardboard box under the expressway after tithing when your house is re-possessed.

Greear: And, God also will find a way to multiply His blessings to you. I've seen that happen in my own life multiple times. It's pretty exciting.

Kelly: Those who tithe all their lives and remain in poverty are never asked to testify.

Greear: Should we give to the church, or other things?
In the Old Testament system, the tithe went to the work of God's institution, the temple. Caring for the poor beyond what the temple did, or funding an itinerant rabbi, etc, all came out beyond the tithe.

Kelly: Yes, there were three tithes of 23%. Why don’t you teach that?

Greear: I believe the implication is that tithing should go to God's new institution, the local church.

Kelly: Again no texts. Hebrews 7:18 says that the system which supported the Aaronic priesthood (7:5) was annulled in fulfillment of 7:12. Explain that please.

Greear: Hopefully you have a church that you feel good about how they spend their money (not all on buildings, entitlement perks for members and pastors, etc.) and you see them working in the streets and unreached parts of the world.

Kelly: Sounds good but not biblical. Tithes never paid for missions in the OT. There is no precedent to follow.

Greear. I'd say if you trust your pastor, however, you honor God by giving to the institution He ordained.

Kelly: Give as the Holy Spirit instructed the Church after Calvary.

Greear: Then, give like a Gospel-touched fool beyond that to all the things God has put in your heart.

Kelly: Give sacrificially as the Spirit convicts and even beyond your ability at times. That is not tithing.

Greear: When my wife Veronica and I first got married, we had to stretch ourselves unbelievably thin to tithe. As God has increased our income over the years, we have yearly increased the percentage of what we give. We now give way above the tithe to our church, and then beyond that to ministries blessing the poor, carrying the Gospel to the world, and some to our church's expansion project.

Kelly: The point is that you are not commanded to begin at 10%. That is not a New Covenant giving principle.

Greear: It really is more blessed to give than to receive.

Kelly: That reference is from Acts 20:35 where Paul told church elders to work to help the needy in their congregations – not the other way around.

Greear: God really has multiplied what we have given to him and given it back to us "in every way" -- financially, in joy, in perspective, etc. (2 Corinthians 8-9). We love it.

Kelly: Yes, but 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 are freewill giving principles which propelled the first century church.

Greear: J.D. Greear is lead pastor at the Summit Church in Durham, N.C. This column first appeared on his blog, JDGreear.com.

Kelly: I invite you to enter an in-depth dialog with me on tithing and share the dialog with your congregation. If you are correct, I will be exposed as in error. If you are in error, you can change and teach truth.

THREE MAIN ERRORS:
Defined tithe wrong.
Defined firstfruits wrong.
Uses the word “law” inconsistently.

Russell Earl Kelly, PHD

Rebuttal of Pastor Dean Shriver

Pastor Dean Shriver, D. Min.
Can We Preach the Tithe?
Intermountain Baptist Church
March 10, 2011

http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/preaching-teaching/138394-can-we-preach-the-tithe.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily-Update

Church Leaders.com

Shriver: Tithing—I believe every Christian should do it. But can I preach that? Like you, I’m committed to preaching only what the Bible clearly teaches.

Kelly: You should stick to this approach.

Shriver: Unfortunately, I’ve always found the Bible’s teaching about a believer’s responsibility to tithe to be fuzzy around the edges. Off the top before taxes? Off the bottom after taxes? All to the church (ours in particular!)? Off of income or off of possessions? Of course the problem isn’t with Scripture. The problem is me.

Kelly: The problem is with your misunderstanding of Scripture.

Shriver: When it comes to giving, my own preferences, opinions, and training make it hard for me to approach relevant texts with a clear and teachable mind.

Kelly: And proper hermeneutics.

Shriver: On the one hand, I know that the tithe is “law” and that, in Christ, we’re no longer under the Law.

Kelly: You make the same mistake I made for decades. In fact, we Gentiles and the Church never were “under the law.” We were always excluded from the law. God commanded Old Covenant Israel NOT to share its covenant (law) with us.

Shriver: Still, it’s hard for me to fathom how anyone can honestly taste the sweetness of God’s grace only to turn around and “Scrooge” God by giving Him less than 10%.

Kelly: You are coming from a false definition of tithe and are falsely assuming that everybody in the OT was required to begin a level of giving at 10%.

Though money was common, the true holy biblical tithe of the Old Covenant Law was always only food from inside God’s holy land which He had miraculously increased. Tithes never could come from what man increased, from Gentiles or from outside of Israel. Not even Jesus, Peter or Paul qualified as tithe-payers. Tithing was only a minimum for food producers living inside Israel. Sixteen texts validate this biblical fact.

Shriver: The very idea makes me want to raise my voice, pound my pulpit and thump my Bible! Which is exactly why I’m not yet ready to preach that sermon on tithing. But I’m getting closer.

Kelly: Perhaps you will allow me to help you clarify the issues.

Shriver: On a recent jog, I began to think again about the issue of tithing. It occurred to me that there’s more than one way to tithe. In fact, three distinct forms of tithing are practiced in the Bible. Only one is legitimate for the believer.

Kelly: There were three distinctly different tithes for 3 different purposes for 3 different locations. See http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/id29.html

Shriver: The form of tithing most often addressed in Scripture is “tithing as covenant.” This practice of tithing was specific to Israel as the covenant people of God. It was part of the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 27:30-33; Numbers 18:21-32; Deuteronomy 14:22-29). Under the Covenant, God promised to materially bless Israel for obedience [to the whole law] and, conversely, to judge them (strip them of their prosperity) for disobedience [to any of the law; Gal 3:10] (Deuteronomy 28 and Malachi 3:8-12). This model for tithing has no direct relevance to us as New Testament believers.

Kelly: Very true. Tithing was to support the Levites who were only servants to the priests. And the Levites tithed a tithe (1%) to the priests who gave freewill sacrificial offerings (Mal 1:13-14). Those Levites and priests who received the first tithe were not allowed to own holy land inside Israel. This is not obeyed.

Shriver: In Christ, we live under a new covenant. Our lives are not governed by the written code but by the indwelling Holy Spirit who writes His “law” on our hearts (Galatians 5:18; Hebrews 8:7-13).

Kelly: The New Covenant replaced both the old Temple and priesthood with the priesthood of all believers. Tithes are never commanded to the Church or Gentiles after Calvary. They are replaced with freewill, generous, sacrificial, joyful offerings motivated by love for God and lost souls. For many this means MORE than 10% but others are already giving sacrificially even though less than 10% per 2 Cor 8:12-14.

Shriver: The Bible also describes a second kind of tithing that is both condemnable and, I fear, far too common—“tithing as legalism.” In Jesus’ day, it was the religious leaders who practiced this perversion of Israel’s covenant tithe. Christ’s condemnation of legalistic tithing was absolute,
“Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel” (Matthew 23:23-24)!

Kelly: True. The context was “matters of the law” and was addressed to “you, scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites.”

Shriver: In His relationship with Israel, God intended the tithe to be an avenue to blessing. The religious manipulators of Jesus’ day turned the blessing into burden. Instead of expressing faithfulness to God—and oneness of heart with God for ministry and the poor—the tithe became little more than a means to satisfy “religious obligations.” Such satisfaction leads to pride (Luke 18:9-12) and, in the end, restricts giving. After all, once our “obligation” is satisfied, what more could God want? It’s no wonder Jesus so strongly denounces legalistic tithing.
Yet, how easily the sin of the Pharisees can become our sin too!

Kelly: Very good.

Shriver: Effective ministry requires money—money that comes from God’s people. Believers need to give—both for their own sake and the sake of the Kingdom. Since they need to give, we need to preach about giving. When we do, however, we must be careful not to turn blessing into burden.

Kelly: Very good.

Shriver: We must refuse to preach “tithing as legalism.” So what’s the alternative?

Kelly: The alternative is the truth as taught by the Holy Spirit to the Church after Calvary. And that does not include tithing.

Shriver: Tithing as worship!

Kelly: Text please.

Shriver: In Scripture, “tithing as worship” was practiced prior to both the establishment of “tithing as covenant” and the perversion of “tithing as legalism.” The principle of “tithing as worship” is “pre-Law.” It’s established in Genesis 14:17-24 where Abram gives a tenth of his plunder to Melchizedek, King of Salem.

Kelly: Texts please. Genesis 14:17-24 does NOT tell us that (uncircumcised) Abram tithed “as worship.” In fact it does not tell us WHY Abram tithed. Since he was born and raised in Babylon where tithing existed, it is possible that he tithed for a different reason. Many commentaries suggest that an Arab tradition or law of the land controlled the 90% of 14:21. You simply cannot add to God’s Word and conclude that Abram either gave freely or in obedience to God.

Shriver: Melchizedek, in turn, blesses Abram.

Kelly: Any king-priest of Abram’s day would have done the same thing after receiving tithes from spoils of war.

Shriver: Hebrews 7:1-10 defines the significance of these acts declaring that it is the superior who blesses the inferior and the inferior who pays tithes to the superior.

Kelly: The purpose of Hebrews is not to teach the Church to tithe. It uses tithing as a vehicle to prove that Jesus has replaced the Aaronic priesthood. The tithing “commandment in the law” from 7:5 was “of necessity changed” in 7:12 and that “change” was its “annulment of the commandment going before” in 7:18. While 7:18 refers to all statutes relating to the Aaronic priesthood, it must also include the statute of tithing found in Numbers 18.

Shriver: “Tithing as worship,” then, is first an act by which we acknowledge that God is both our superior (the Sovereign Lord) and the source of all blessing.

Kelly: You are twisting God’s Word to make it say what you want it to say. The “we” of Genesis 14 was not the church.

Shriver: But “tithing as worship” does more than acknowledge God. It expresses our personal allegiance to Him. We see this in Genesis 28:10-22. Here, God reveals himself to Jacob in a dream. In response, the patriarch vows, “the Lord shall be my God…and of all that you give me I will give a full tenth to you.” For Jacob, the “tithe as worship” became a natural expression of his decision to follow the God of His Fathers.

Kelly: Shame on you. You again twist and pervert God’s Word by conveniently omitting the key “if” of verse 20. The schemer Jacob was telling God what to do! This tactic is unchristian. Far from “worship,” Jacob was black-mailing God and you are joining in his deception by twisting this Scripture!

Shriver: In the same way, the “tithe as worship” becomes an almost instinctive way for us to express our allegiance to the God of our Salvation.

Kelly: Texts please.

Shriver: A third, and critical, element of “tithing as worship” is thanksgiving. “Tithing as worship” expresses overflowing gratitude towards God.

Kelly: Texts please. The first Levitical tithe was cold hard Law and was commanded whether one was grateful or not. A second festival tithe was for rejoicing but you do you teach that tithe and you do not eat it in the streets of Jerusalem.

Shriver: It breaks free from guilt as the motivation for giving.

Kelly: Texts please.

Shriver: Its ultimate focus is the condition of one’s heart—not the percentage of one’s income.

Kelly: Texts please.

Shriver: On the topic of percentages, I find the words of John H. Walton and Andrew E. Hill to be practical. They write, “How are we to show our gratitude to God other than by giving back a portion?

Kelly: O.K. so far.

Shriver: If 10 percent was considered an acceptable portion by God as an expression of gratitude then, why should we view it any differently today?

Kelly: Texts please. The first Levitical tithe was cold hard law – not gratitude – like taxes today. The government does not care for gratitude.

Shriver: We might consider 10 percent as a benchmark just as we consider 15 percent a benchmark for tipping. The extent of the customer’s gratitude and appreciation is demonstrated in the size of the tip.

Kelly: You cannot compare a cold hard law with a freewill choice.

Shriver: It would be considered the ultimate rudeness or the consummate insult to leave no tip at all.

Kelly: The merchants and tradesmen such as carpenters, fishermen and tentmakers gave no tithe at all; they gave freewill offerings. Why not follow this example?

Shriver: So it is to God if we return no portion to him. In addition, there are occasions when the situation calls for a contribution exceeding the benchmark” (Old Testament Today; Zondervan: 2004, 270-271).

Kelly: You are mixing Law and Grace and reintroducing the thought of Malachi after rejecting it earlier.

Shriver: Again it must be said—ultimately, “tithing as worship” isn’t about percentage of income.

Kelly: It has no biblical support.

Shriver: It’s about the overflow of one’s heart. 2 Corinthians 8:5 is clear. When we first give ourselves to the Lord, any act of giving pleases him—whether above or below the “benchmark.” “For if the readiness is there, it is acceptable according to what a person has, not according to what he does not have” (2 Corinthians 8:12).

Kelly: You are playing games with God’s Word again. Second Corinthians is NOT discussing tithing. It is discussing freewill generous sacrificial giving – the kind of giving which propelled the early church. Paul and Jewish Christians knew very well that tithes could not come from Gentiles or from pagan lands and did not teach tithing.

Shriver: How then, can we preach the tithe? First, we recognize that “tithing as covenant” has no direct relevance to New Testament believers. Second, we acknowledge that “tithing as legalism” is just plain sin—both for those who practice it and those who preach it.

Kelly: Correct. Stick to the simple truth. Merely saying “tithes PLUS offerings” reaches into the realm you just rejected.

Shriver: Only the principle of “tithing as worship” remains. That’s the tithing we can preach!

Kelly: No, it does not remain; it never existed except in the Old Covenant festival tithe which was EATEN. You have no texts to preach this.

Shriver: “Tithing as worship” is our opportunity to acknowledge that God is God. He is ruler over our lives. He is the source of every blessing we enjoy.

Kelly: You can do that without teaching error.

Shriver: More than that, “tithing as worship” expresses our allegiance to God in a very personal and concrete way. And finally, “tithing as worship” manifests a heart overflowing with thanksgiving towards God.

Kelly: Sounds good, but it is still unbiblical. The SDAs make the same kind of argument to prove Saturday Sabbath observance to worship and honor God.

Shriver: With this in mind, perhaps we should be less concerned with whether people tithe and more concerned with why they tithe.

Kelly: This totally ignores the true biblical definition and purpose of the tithe.

Shriver: Ultimately, tithing isn’t about percentage of income or money in the plate. It’s about worship!
Tithing as worship—I think that will preach!

Kelly: Preach it as your theory. Be sure to tell your congregation there are no texts to validate it. I would appreciate an extended in-depth dialog.

There are now at least 7 SBC theologians who are writing against tithing and for grace giving. In May 2011 the SBC will publish Perspectives on Tithing, Four Views. The false doctrine is being exposed.

Russell Earl Kelly, PHD
www.tithing-russkelly.com