by
Keith Hunt
Is there anything in the first chapters of Genesis to state
or indicate that tithing was something practiced from the
beginning. At first glance the answer to that question may seem
to be - no! The word "tithe" or "tenth" cannot be found in those
first chapters. There is no Scripture that says, "And the Lord
commanded all men to tithe to Him." Then again there is no
scripture in those early chapters that says, "thou shalt not
murder" but it is obvious that God was not pleased with Cain for
killing Abel. Cain even expected that he would die over the
matter (Gen.4:6-15).
Not everything is just neatly and plainly laid out for us in
all details in those first chapters of Genesis. The rest of the
Bible must be used to throw some light on our questions. Paul was
inspired to say that DEATH did REIGN from Adam to Moses, and
until the law was given in a specific way to Israel, SIN was in
the world - Romans 5:12- 14. He said that he had not known sin
but by the law - chapter 7:7. And John tells us that sin is the
transgression of the law - 1 John 3:4. The law has points, Paul
mentions one of them and James a few more - Rom.7:7; James
2:10-11.
Putting it all together we can then know that the basic 10
commandment law was in effect from the beginning.
But what about tithing ? Could it have been from the
beginning also? Before you dismiss the answer with a no, or "do
not know" there is a section of scripture we need to meditate
on. In the KJV we shall probably miss it completely.
Before I proceed with this verse, and I will be quoting to
explain it from a book called THE TITHE IN SCRIPTURE by Henry
Lansdell, D.D. I want to tell you a little about Lansdell and
his research into this subject. Apparently his first and original
work was an in-depth two volume publication called THE SACRED
TENTH. From what I can gather those two volumes contain a great
deal of historic facts from ancient nations around the world
about their practice of not just giving offerings to their gods
but a TENTH of their substance. This was true of various nations
from various parts of the earth. The book THE TITHE IN SCRIPTURE
are chapters taken from the two volume set. I wish the original
two volumes called THE SACRED TENTH were still in print and
available, but to my knowledge they are not.
QUOTE from the above book, pages 8-10.
"Concerning Cain and Abel, our present Hebrew text (as
literally as I can translate it) thus: ' He did not look
favourably. And it vexed Cain exceedingly, and his countenance
fell. And Jehovah said to Cain, Wherefore did it vex thee, and
wherefore did thy countenance fall? If thou wilt do well, shall
not thy face be lifted up? but if thou wilt not do well, sin is
couching at the door.'
But passing now to the Septuagint, or Greek, translation of
Genesis, this sixth verse runs as follows: ' And the Lord God
said to Cain, Wherefore didst thou become vexed, and wherefore
did thy countenance fall? If thou didst rightly offer, but didst
NOT RIGHTLY DIVIDE, didst thou not sin? Hold thy peace.'
This Greek version, be it remembered, was made about three
hundred years before the Christian era, from a Hebrew copy that
must have been more than a thousand years older than the oldest
Hebrew manuscript we possess now. This translation, moreover,
was perfectly familiar to the writers of the New Testament. And
if we may reverently picture the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews glancing over his Greek Bible before penning his chapter
of Old Testament worthies, we should remember that he had
before him these very words concerning Cain's NOT DIVIDING
RIGHTLY, when he wrote, ' By faith Abel offered unto God a more
ABUNDANT sacrifice then Cain.'
(The word for "more excellent" in the Greek of Hebrews 11:4
is "pleion" and means "more, greater," the comparative degree of
"polus," - "much." See Vines Dictionary, new edition, page 215.
Keith Hunt).
"Various suggestions, of course, are offered to show in
what consisted the sin of Cain; but, be that as it may, Abel is
said to have offered 'by faith.' Now FAITH has reference to
OBEDIENCE, which implies that a previous COMMAND had been made
known. Where no law has been given there can be no
transgression; and unless directions had been communicated to
these two worshippers as to the AMOUNT or PROPORTION of their
property to bring, and if either was at liberty to offer as much
or as little as he pleased, then it is not easy to see why Cain
should by implication be blamed for bringing less; the occasion
being, I take it, a farmer and a grazier each bringing the
firstfruits of his increase, not so much as a propitiatory
sacrifice (for we are not told they had sinned), but rather as a
present or thankoffering to God in token of His lordship over
them - just as we may read was DONE FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES IN
EGYPT, AND WHICH ILLUSTRATES AN ALMOST UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED
BELIEF IN THE ANCIENT WORLD, WHETHER PAGAN OR OTHERWISE, NAMELY
THAT IT WAS NOT LAWFUL TO EAT OF THE NEW FRUIT UNTIL GOD'S
PORTION HAD BEEN DIVIDED OFF FROM THE REST......."
End of quote, all emphasis mine throughout.
Now I will give you some quotes from following pages of
chapter one and two of Lansdell's book, to do more with the facts
he uncovered as he did his research in history for his original
two volume work called THE SACRED TENTH.
Quotes:
" ......fully establishing, in connection with ABUNDANT
INFORMATION FROM PAGAN LITERATURE, that in ALL AGES IN THE
ANCIENT WORLD, man have thought it their duty to offer a portion
of their substance to the divine Being.......If it was originally
left to every man to give for religious purposes merely according
to his own inclinations - that is, as much or as little as he
pleased - then HOW should SO MANY PEOPLES HAVE HIT UPON A TENTH
FOR GOD'S PORTION, rather than a fifth, or a fifteenth, or any
other? Does not the UNIVERSALITY OF THIS PORTION point to a time
when the ANCESTORS OF THOSE NATIONS LIVED TOGETHER, and so
DERIVED THE CUSTOM FROM A COMMON SOURCE?
No profane author, and no account or tradition known to us
in any country, professes to give than origin, nor does the Bible
do so in express terms. Can we, then, frame any hypothesis that
would account for the facts before us?
Most men, presumably, will allow that SACRIFICE was NOT of
human invention, but a DIVINE INSTITUTION appointed by God. And
if God appointed also that some things were acceptable to Him as
'clean' and others not so, is it REASONABLE to suppose that He
would have omitted directions about the QUANTITY, or PROPORTION
in which such things should be offered?
If, then, we may venture the hypothesis that God from the
BEGINNING taught Adam that it was the duty of man to render a
portion of his increase to his Maker, and that that portion was
to be NOT LESS THAN A TENTH, then we shall see that the facts
recorded in Genesis not only do not contradict such a
supposition, but corroborate and strengthen it.
The Septuagint version, then, would show an instance of
covetousness in the person of Cain........In accord with this
theory, also, Abel's fullest sacrifice was accepted; and so
sacrifice and tithe-paying may be presumed to have continued all
along the centuries to the days of Noah. THEN, when his
descendants built cities in Babylonia and afterwards became
SCATTERED, they would naturally TAKE WITH THEM, among other
primeval customs and traditions, the OFFERING OF SACRIFICE and
TITHE-PAYING. And thus would be accounted for, only a few
centuries later, the existence of these customs as RECORDED IN
THE CUNEIFORM LITERATURE ON THE TABLETS WE POSSES, AS WELL AS THE
INFORMATION GIVEN US ABOUT TITHE-PAYING IN THE LITERATURE OF
EGYPT, GREECE, AND ROME.
It is not pretended that this hypothesis MUST be true, or
that no other can be advanced; but meanwhile I am among those who
think that it meets the facts of the case, but who hold
themselves ready to examine another theory if
forthcoming........."
End quotes.
I also am of the same position as Lansdell in what he says
in the last sentence I quoted above. We know that pagan
scattered nations from all parts of the earth have just about
unanimously offered physical sacrifice in their religion to their
gods. Such a custom surely must come from an original teaching.
And certainly what the Bible tells us about sacrifice and the
peoples of the earth being as one until God scattered them
abroad, leads to a clear answer as to why worldwide sacrificing
is a common practice among most pagan nations.
Henry Lansdell had as I've mentioned, studied the historical
data of the writings of ancient nations around the world, and he
discovered not only a common thread of sacrificing among them,
but also the same practice and teaching that a TENTH was to
be set aside as the portion to be offered to the gods.
Surely this must lead back to a central beginning teaching,
namely, the teaching of the Eternal God to Adam in the garden of
Eden.
To be continued
Written May 1997
Tithing? #2Is the law of tithing for us today?
ABRAHAM and Tithing
by
Keith Hunt
The basic truths of the WAY TO SALVATION by grace through
faith have always been there in the Word from the beginning. In
the process of time when that grace and faith was made manifest
to Israel and the world through God who came as flesh and blood
in the form of Jesus Christ, Paul was used to proclaim that truth
more than any other single man in recorded detail for the New
Testament Scriptures.
The Jews had been raised for centuries on the physical rites
of the Old Covenant. Rites such as the Tabernacle/Temple,
Priesthood, Sacrifices, and physical Circumcision. From childhood
the Jews was exposed to all these rites, and many others. It was
their CULTURE, their way of life. For them it was like breathing
the air, like walking, like talking, it was second nature. It was
the way to live because it was, at least in the basics above
mentioned, FROM God, instituted by the Eternal through Moses.
It was not surprising then that when apostles like Paul came
along and started to preach Jesus as the Messiah, and that
salvation was not through ANY works but by GRACE through FAITH in
Christ Jesus, there would arise a certain OPPOSITION from
certain religious Jews. When Paul preached that "circumcision
was nothing, and uncircumcision was nothing" there would bound to
be opposition from some Jews.
Paul had to DEFEND the truth of his teaching with the truth
FROM the WORD of the Lord. He had to painstakingly proves from
the Scriptures of old that GRACE and FAITH to be saved came
BEFORE the Old Covenant with its Tabernacle, priesthood and
sacrifices. He had to prove also that grace and faith to
salvation came BEFORE circumcision. This he did in large portions
of the letter to the ROMANS and his letter to the GALATIANS.
And one of the most important EXAMPLES he could possibly
give to the Jews especially, as that of THEIR FATHER ABRAHAM!!
To the Jews Moses was very important, but so also was
Abraham. He was just as important a figure. Why was it not the
Bible itself that said their fathers were Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob.
The importance of Abraham can be seen from the controversy
Jesus had with the Jews in John chapter 8 and verses 31-59.
Paul proved in his writing that Abraham was JUSTIFIED by God
through FAITH, and that BEFORE he was introduced to the rite of
circumcision by God for him and his seed. Abraham Paul showed,
found the true way to salvation BEFORE circumcision, BEFORE the
Old Covenant with Israel, BEFORE the tabernacle, priesthood and
sacrificial system was given to Israel through Moses. Paul argued
that what came AFTER could not annual what came BEFORE.
Abraham is held up by Paul and the entire New Covenant as
the FATHER OF THE FAITHFUL, that "if you are Christ's then are
you Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise"
(Gal.3:29).
Jesus told the Jews that if they were really the children of
Abraham then they would do the WORKS of Abraham (John 8:39).
Let's see what one of those works of Abraham was.
DID ABRAHAM TITHE?
Paul, writing about the old and new Priesthoods, introduces
us to Abraham within this subject, and also brings in the topic
of tithing. I refer you to Hebrews the seventh chapter. We pick
it up in verses one: "For this Melchisedec, king of Salem,
priest of the most High God, who met Abraham.......To whom
Abraham gave a TENTH PART of ALL........Now consider how great
this man was, unto whom even Abraham gave a TENTH of the
spoils.........But He.......received TITHES of Abraham.......And
as I may so say, Levi also, who received tithes, PAYED TITHES in
Abraham. For he (Levi) was yet in his loins of his father, when
Melchisedec met him" (Hebrews 7:1-10).
VERY CLEAR AND PLAIN - Abraham did TITHE!!
Oh I guess he did for it is written of this man who is known
as the father of the faithful: "And I will make your seed
multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto your seed all
these countries; and in your seed shall all the nations of the
earth be blessed; Because that Abraham OBEYED My voice, and KEPT
My charge, My COMMANDMENTS, My STATUES, and My LAWS"
(Gen.26:4,5).
The original account of Abraham meeting the great priest
Melchizedek (as spelled in the OT KJV) can be found in Genesis 14.
It is time to again quote from the book THE TITHE IN
SCRIPTURE by Henry Lansdell, D.D. I will be quoting from his
second chapter. Please note some of the HISTORICAL reference
about tithing in nations outside of Abraham and before the time
of Abraham.
Quote:
"We now pass to the example of Abram, of whom we read that
a proportion of his spoils that he devoted, was a tenth.......he
was met near Jerusalem by a kingly priest, Melchizedek.....and to
whom Abram offered a tenth of all.
Here then, we have an instance of tithe-paying.......and
this has ordinarily been regarded as the earliest recorded
instance of the payment of tithe.
Bur RECENT DISCOVERIES (this book was written at the
beginning of the 20th century - KH), transmitted to us by the
students of CUNEIFORM LITERATURE, have thrown a FLOOD OF NEW
LIGHT upon the land of Canaan BEFORE it was peopled by
the Israelites. Professor Sayce, tracing the migration of Abram
from Ur of the Chaldees, says in his Patriarchal Palestine, 1 p
66 '.......Even in Canaan, Abram was not beyond the reach of
Babylonian influences......Babylonian armies had already
penetrated to the shores of the Mediterranean, Palestine had been
included within the bounds of a Babylonian empire, and Babylonian
culture and religion had spread widely among the Canaanitish
tribes. The cuneiform system of writing had made its way to
Syria, and Babylonian literature had followed in its wake.
Centuries had already passed since Sargon of Akkad had made
himself master of the Mediterranean coast, and his son
Naram-Sinhad led his forces to the peninsula of Sinai.'
Now if Babylonian CULTURE and RELIGION had thus spread to
the Canaanites, it suggests a reason why the colony of
Phoenicians from Tyre, who founded Carthage (say about 900 B.C.)
were tithe-payers (see Sacred Tenth, p.15). Melchizedek...priestly
character to expect tithes from Abram as it was for Abram to pay
them. Hence the professor (Sayce) alluding to this incident,
says: 'This offering of tithes was no new thing. In his
Babylonian home Abram MUST HAVE BEEN FAMILIAR WITH THE PRACTICE.
The CUNEIFORM INSCRIPTIONS OF BABYLONIA contain FREQUENT
REFERENCES to it. It went back to the smi- Semitic age of
Chaldaea, and the great temples of Babylonia were largely
supported by the esra OR TITHE which was levied upon prince
and peasant alike. That the god should receive a TENTH of the
good things which, it was believed, he had bestowed upon mankind
was not considered to be asking too much. There are MANY TABLETS
in the BRITISH MUSEUM which are receipts for payment of
the tithe to the great temple of the sun-god at Sippara, in the
time of Nebuchadnezzar and his successors. From one of them we
learn that Belshazzar, even at the very moment when the
Babylonian empire was falling from his father's hands,
nevertheless found an opportunity for paying the tithe due from
his sister.'
A question may here be asked as to the extent of Abram's
tithes: were they a tenth of all his spoils only, and so given
voluntarily and specially on this particular occasion, or
were they a tenth of all his income and something paid as a due?
Neither the Hebrew of Genesis nor the Greek of the Epistle
to the Hebrews LIMITS the word 'all' to the spoils.........Hence
we conclude that the tenth paid by Abram was not merely an
offering, which the patriarch was at liberty to render or to
withhold as he pleased, but a payment of obligation.
This, too, appears the more likely because Abram by right of
conquest might have claimed all that he had captured from
Chedorlaomer. the king of Sodom, recognizing this, invites him
to take the goods to himself. But Abram declines to take
anything for himself, though, as a conqueror, he seems to have
recognized that he had no jurisdiction over God's tenth; and
whilst surrendering his own claim to nine-tenths of the spoils,
he acted as thought he could not surrender God's........
And since Abram often was dwelling within a day's journey of
Salem (this is, Jerusalem) we need not at all conclude that this
was either the first or the last occasion on which Abram paid a
tenth of his increase to Melchizedek. If the patriarch did so
annually, it would be only in keeping with the practice of his
Babylonian ancestors, and what we know was afterwards conceded by
the Carthaginians to be due to their Phoenician priesthood.
This inference or supposition is strengthened to something
like probability by consideration of the subsequent conduct of
Abram's grandson Jacob, who, being about to undertake a journey,
did what we know quite well was common among the Semites,
the Greeks, the Romans, and indeed, is still practiced: he vowed
a vow........Gen.28:20-22.........Now it will be remembered that
Abram lived till the boyhood of Jacob; that Jacob was brought up
in the faith of his grandfather; and that at Bethel God confirmed
to Jacob and his posterity all the promises He made to Abraham.
What then, could be more natural than that Jacob should avow
himself ready to practice Abraham's religious observances?
He promises to take the God of Abraham for his own God, to
dedicate a certain place to His worship as did Abraham, and also
to follow his grandfather's practice in dedicating to God a tenth
of all he should receive........
Or, again, it may be urged that tithes are not even
mentioned until the days of Abram, and so were till then unknown,
it is easy to point to persons and things which we feel sure must
have existed long before they are mentioned in the order of
events recorded in Genesis......Amraphel of Shinar is the first
man called a king (Gen.14:1), and Abraham the first called a
prophet. But.....men had been on the earth for a great many
years; and are we to suppose that mankind had lived century after
century without priests, kings, and prophets?
Again, Noah is the first who is expressly called a
'righteous man' and Abram is the first who is said to have
'believed in God'; yet we know that before these, Abel and
Enoch were both righteous, and also believed in God. Once more:
the human race had been on earth, according to the received
chronology, about a thousand years before we read of musical
instruments; and was a thousand years later still when Abram
weighed shekels of silver as payment. But he would be a bold man
who would affirm that before these dates respectively, mankind
possessed neither music nor money !
The mere omission, therefore of the definite mention of a
law concerning tithe-giving, in the less than a dozen chapters
given to us in Genesis concerning the early history of the world,
is no proof or presumption whatever that such a law did not
exist.
As another objection to our hypothesis, it has been
suggested that the pagan nations of antiquity may have learned
the practice of tithe-paying from the Jews. But can
this suggestion be supported by one tittle of evidence? Can a
single passage by adduced from any Greek or Roman classic to
confirm such an idea? ......it has been all but demonstrated that
tithes were paid in Babylonia BEFORE Abram was born, so that
for the origin of the practice we are sent further back,
seemingly, than 2000 B.C.........."
End Quote.
We did see in part one of this study that the historical
evidence of the nations of the world, show the great probability
that tithe-paying was taught by God to Adam from the beginning,
as was physical animal sacrificing, hence both came through Noah
and the flood to all peoples, who when scattered from the tower
of Babel, took these religious custom and others with them.
Coming back to Abraham and our present study. It is clear
that this great Godly man DID TITHE! It is clear from the
Scriptures he was the first of the THREE fathers of Israel. It
is clear he was a man a FAITH. And faith is coupled with
OBEDIENCE or WORKS. It is plainly stated by God Himself that
Abraham OBEYED the Lord's voice, KEPT His COMMANDMENTS, STATUTES
and LAWS. One of those being TITHING! It is clear from the New
Testament that Abraham is held as an EXAMPLE that ALL true
children of God are to imitate and to DO HID WORKS of
righteousness and faith. Yes, he is held as the father of the
faithful. And yes, it does TAKE FAITH to TITHE, especially
if you are not one of the "rich of this world." Then again,
Jesus said it would be very difficult for the rich to enter the
Kingdom of God.
Abraham DID TITHE! No question about it, for it is so
written. AND THIS WAS ALL BEFORE THE OLD COVENANT ! Whatever
you want to argue about the law of tithing in the OC, tithing was
BEFORE ALL THAT! Just as GRACE and FAITH, the way of salvation,
came BEFORE the OC and all its VARIOUS LAWS pertaining to that
Old Covenant, SO THE LAW OF TITHING WAS WITH ABRAHAM BEFORE
CIRCUMCISION AND THE OLD COVENANT GIVEN TO ISRAEL THROUGH MOSES!
ALL THE ARGUING ABOUT TITHING COULD STOP RIGHT HERE! NO
NEED TO PROCEED ANY FURTHER. TITHING WAS BEFORE MOSES! AS THERE
IS NO STATEMENT IN THE NT TO "ABOLISH" THE LAW OF TITHING, AS
ABRAHAM TITHED TO THE MELCHISEDEC PRIESTHOOD, AND AS THAT
MELCHISEDEC PRIESTHOOD NOW BELONGS TO CHRIST, AS IT CONTINUES
TODAY IN CHRIST (HEB.7), SO TITHING BY THE CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM
(CHRISTIANS) WHO WILL DO THE WORKS OF ABRAHAM, WILL CONTINUE TO
THE MELCHISEDEC CHRIST PRIESTHOOD.
HOW SIMPLE ARE THE WORKS AND THE WAYS OF THE LORD. TRULY
JESUS DID SAY: "I thank you Father that you have hid these things
from the wise and prudent and have revealed them unto babes."
Next time we shall look at the question: Was there THREE
tithes under the Old Covenant given to Israel?
..................
Written May 1997
Tithing? #3Is the law of tithing for us today? ISRAEL'S THREE TITHES?
by
Keith Hunt
In chapter three of THE TITHE IN SCRIPTURE, Henry Lansdell
goes into quite some detail expounding the arguments for and
against the practice of three tithes in ancient Israel.
At the end of his chapter he gives the HISTORICAL sources we
have left us today that support the three tithes of Israel. We
have the book of TOBIT (1. 6-8) found in what is known as the
Apocrypha, which can be seen in some Roman Catholic Bibles. There
is the witness of the Jewish Pharisee Historian,
Josephus (Josephus Antiquities, book 4), who lived in the first
century A.D. There is the testimony of Jerome, who lived in
Palestine. And there is the witness of Chrysostom. And around
the 10th/11th century A.D. there is the witness of the Rabbi Aben
Ezra.
So, from about the 3rd century B.C. to the 11th century A.D.
we have a number of prominent witnesses that three tithes were
paid in Israel.
Yet, the proof of this fact does not lie, nor should it lie,
in various "histories." Can we go to the word of the Lord and
prove there was MORE than ONE tithe given to the people of Israel
to observe?
In the investigation of the Scriptures we are about to
undertake, please remember, I am NOT STATING ANYTHING about
whether the members of the Church of God should TODAY be
observing THREE tithes. That is another matter entirely. The
only purpose for this study is to ascertain as to whether Old
Testament Israel practiced under their economy, and were
instructed by God, under that covenant, to give three tithes as
a duty of their religious worship towards Him.
Let us begin.
GOD'S TITHE IN ISRAEL
The first passage we need to read is Leviticus 27:30-33.
From this passage we learn:
1) That a tenth of the produce of the land, whether of seed
or fruit, was CLAIMED by God, and was to be regarded as holy (or
set apart) for HIM.
2) That if the offerer wished to retain this tenth of seed
or fruit, he might do so by PAYING its value, and adding thereto
one-fifth. So a tithe could be given as MONEY to God and not just
as physical agriculture produce.
3) That every tenth calf and lamb also (that is, increase of
the heard or flock) was to be set apart for God.
4) That this form of animal tithe MIGHT NOT BE redeemed, nor
the animal EXCHANGED: but if an owner, notwithstanding, presumed
to CHANGE a tithe animal, than BOTH the tithe animal and that for
which it was exchanged were to be FORFEITED, and set apart FOR
GOD.
What needs to be NOTED and MARKED is THIS TITHE, "all the
tithe" not just PART OF this tithe was THE LORD'S. This tithe,
ALL OF IT, belonged to God. It did not belong to the person
giving the tithe for him to do with it, or part of it, what he
desired, and to whom he desired to give it, whether to the widow,
the fatherless, the poor, the stranger etc. This tithe is most
CLEARLY said to BELONG TO GOD!
Now with THAT POINT understood, as God had said this tithe
WAS HIS, that it belonged to HIM, then of course the Lord Himself
could DECLARE in specific ways HOW THIS TITHE was to be USED.
THIS He did tell Israel, as we see in Numbers 18:21-24.
Please now read this section of scripture carefully.
Hence this first, or Lord's tithe, is known also as the
Levites' tithe, concerning which it may be convenient here to
notice:
1) From this tithing no produce of land, or increase of herd
or flock is expected.
2) That the offerer had no voice in the disposal.
3) That though it was called a heave offering, the offerer
did not receive any of it back again.
4) That this tithe was not an amount that might be
diminished, or an alms that the owner might render or not as he
pleased, but a divine claim, the withholding of which was
regarded by God as dishonesty (Mal.3:8).
It may further be noted concerning this tithe to God and now
given to the Levite, by God, that the Levites were required by
Him to render a tenth of what they received as a heave offering
to the Lord, and to pay it to Aaron the priest - see numbers
18:26-28.
Those are the basic passages concerning THE tithe, ALL the
tithe. That was to go to God, who in turn said it was to be paid
to the Levites, who also in turn were to give a tenth of that
tithe to Aaron the high priest.
FESTIVAL TITHE?
We now proceed to another passage of scripture that talks
about a tithe. It is found in Deuteronomy 14:22-27. Again, I
ask you to read it carefully.
Concerning this tithe we can learn:
1) That it consisted of the yearly increase of the land.
2) That it was to be EATEN by the OFFERER, his household,
and the Levite, with firstlings of herd, and flock, BUT ONLY at
the APPOINTED place of worship.
3) The object of this was that Israel might always fear the
Lord.
4) This tithe might be converted at home into MONEY, to be
expended at the capital for sacrifices and feasting.
5) It was after converted to money, still tithe. So tithe
could be either agricultural produce or money.
6) The tithe payer was to EAT, DRINK, and rejoice before God
with this tithe.
7) This tithe was to be SHARED among the HOUSEHOLD of the
tithe payer and with the Levite who had no land inheritance in
Israel.
The due payment of this tithe involved a stay of at least a
week each at Passover/Unleavened Bread and Feast of Tabernacles,
as well as a shorter period at the Feast of Weeks or Pentecost.
These three Festival periods in the calendar of Israel became
known as the three PILGRIM festivals. This tithe could be used
for and at all three festival periods.
Here I will quote from THE TITHE IN SCRIPTURE, pages 27-29.
"It will help us better understand this.....festival tithe,
as it is sometimes called, if we consider the end it was to
serve. All the males in Israel (with their families, if they
chose) were to assemble at the sanctuary three times a year for
the worship of God (Deut.12:6-7).........The primary end,
therefore, of the festivals was to foster religious principles
and to furnish a time and place for social observances and the
OFFERING of SACRIFICES, all being done in recognition of God's
bounty, and as acts of fealty and worship to Him.........So if an
Israelite sinned, his appointed way to forgiveness was by
SACRIFICE; and if he had vows to redeem, or thanksgiving to make,
all involved the PRESENTATION OF SACRIFICE. But this and other
sacrifices were not to be offered in just ANY PLACE the
worshipper chose (Deut.12:17-18), but MUST BE TAKEN TO THE
ECCLESIASTICAL CAPITAL, such as was afterwards established at the
resting places of the Ark as in Shiloh, and in Jerusalem.
Speaking generally, the Jewish sacrifice partook more or
less of the nature of EXPIATION (for sin committed), of
dedication (when seeking a favor), or of thanksgiving
(for favor received); and according to the intention of the
offerer was the kind of sacrifice presented.........
Thus the Israelite would have the OPPORTUNITY OF EATING AND
REJOICING BEFORE GOD, AND FEASTING WITH HIS HOUSEHOLD; AND
THE....FESTIVAL TITHE, WAS INTENDED TO FURNISH THE MEANS FOR
DOING THIS......" (emphasis mine).
End quote Ah, did you get the gem of truth present here by
Dr. Lansdell? There was a great DUAL purpose in the observing of
the three Festival periods in the calendar of Israel.
They were to be PILGRIM festivals to be observed ONLY where God
has placed His name, which finally became Jerusalem. Yes, they
were to be times of worshipping God and learning to fear the
Eternal, times of eating, drinking, and rejoicing before God with
the whole family, with the widows, the fatherless, the poor, the
stranger, and the Levite of the land. Yet, they had a VERY
IMPORTANT OTHER function also.
As SACRIFICING for the above mentioned reasons by Lansdell,
were also a VERY SACRED RITE to be performed in Israel by the
people, and as those sacrifices were also to be performed at the
place where God would place His name, the same location as to
where to observe the Festivals, so it was that the three pilgrim
feasts served another role in the yearly worship of the Lord.
The saving of a FESTIVAL TITHE would not only secure the means to
attend the feasts of God in Jerusalem, BUT also guarantee that
the people would come to Jerusalem and offer their SACRIFICES to
the Lord as prescribed by the laws of Moses under the Old
Covenant.
Are you meditating on what we have learned, and from what is
clearly written about these TWO tithes so far mentioned from the
Scriptures of the books of Moses?
As Lansdell has written in his book, pages 29, 30, "......if
the FIRST and SECOND tithes be COMPARED, it will be seen, by way
of DISTINCTION, that whereas the offerer had NO VOICE WHATEVER in
the DISPOSAL of the first tithe, the DISPOSAL of the second tithe
was largely in HIS OWN HANDS; and that whereas the offerer DID
NOT receive again ANY portion for HIMSELF of the first tithe, he
might receive in some cases the GREATER PART of the second tithe
for his OWN USE, or purposes, as well as for the enjoyment of
OTHERS" (emphasis mine).
I think it should be VERY CLEAR to those who have no axe to
grind, or position to uphold, but are wanting to see what the
word really teaches. The tithe to God was to God, ALL of it, it
ALL belonged to the Lord. It was HIS and no part of it BELONGED
TO THE OFFERER! God in turn then said He would give it to the
Levite, all of it, which no part came back to the offerer in any
way, shape or form. The Levite was to also give a tenth of that
tithe to Aaron.
The tithe for the Festival observance was in the hands of
the tither. It was clearly FOR HIM, belonging to him, and for him
to EAT and DRINK. It was for his household, and for the Levite
who had no inheritance in Israel. It was to be used at the three
pilgrim Festival sites where God would place His name.
The clear instructions from the Lord as to the use and
purpose of these two tithes can only lead to the conclusion that
there were at LEAST TWO tithes in Israel of old. Any other
conclusion would be contradictory and illogical, not to say
confusing to the tither.
ANOTHER TITHE?
We must yet look at another passage that speaks about
tithing. It is found in Deuteronomy 14:28-29. Again, I ask the
reader to study it carefully.
This seems to teach that:
1) A tenth of every third year's increase was to be laid up
at home.
2) This tenth was to be shared by the local Levite, the
stranger, the fatherless, and the widow.
3) The object of this tithe was, that God might bless the
work of the tithe-payer's hands.
It should be obvious from what we have seen from our study
of the first tithe and the festival tithe, that this tithe is yet
again DIFFERENT! Nowhere is anything stated within the context
of the tithe to God or the festival tithe, about YEARS,
specifically every THIRD year. It is not the purpose in this
study to argue about whether this was every third year of a seven
year cycle (meaning the third and sixth years within every seven
years, or the third only of every seven years), as that point has
no bearing directly on the subject under our present discussion.
This tithe is connected with a year. We have seen that the
tithe to God was HIS TITHE, ALL OF IT. We have seen that the
Festival tithe was left in the hands of the tither, and it was
for his HOUSEHOLD and the Levite at the feast site.
Here we have a tithe that is not only within a specific
year, but it is to be LAID UP in the gates of the tither, to be
used within the home living of the tither, which the other
two tithes were not. It is specifically stated FOR WHOM this
tithe was to be for, to be given to. You will notice NOTHING is
said that it was for the one giving the tithe, NOR for HIS
immediate HOUSEHOLD, as was the festival tithe.
This third year tithe is specially for the following
persons: The Levite, the Stranger, the Fatherless, the Widow.
They were to come and EAT this tithe. It was similar in many
ways to the USA "food stamps" of today. It was for physical food
stuffs for the needy and for the poor of the land.
I will quote again from the book THE TITHE IN SCRIPTURE to
answer other arguments put forth, pages 30-32.
"Some think this was not a third tithe, but a triennial
substitute for the second tithe, so that in the third, and again
in the sixth, years (as well as the seventh year, when the
land was not to be cultivated), the Israelite would not take the
second, or festival, tithe to the sanctuary, but would dispose of
it among the poor at home........
On the other hand, as opposed to these conjectures, it may
be observed:
That the Hebrew text NOWHERE says explicitly that the third
tithe should be substituted for the second.
The injunction is several times repeated that every male
should go up to the festivals yearly; but neither the third,
sixth, seventh, or any other year is EXCEPTED (Some.....have
supposed that, as the land was not to be sown in the seventh
year, no tithe would be paid........But if so, how were the
Levites during that year to live, unless a double or treble tithe
was to be paid in the sixth year? And this the law had already
provided for. 'If ye shall say, What shall we eat the seventh
year? behold we shall not sow, nor gather in our increase. Then I
will command My blessing upon you in the sixth year, and it shall
bring forth fruit for three years' Lev.25:20-22).
Besides, not going up to the festivals on the third, sixth,
and seventh years would be attended with further and practical
difficulty: for if a man had sinned after returning say, from the
last feast of the fifth year, he would, under normal
circumstances, be deprived of the opportunity of offering a
sacrifice of expiation at the sanctuary until after an interval
of two years........"
End quote
Ah, yes, some sound reasoning and logic on the part of
Dr. Lansdell.
The Feasts of the Lord were to be observed in the place
where God had chosen EVERY YEAR, with no stipulation that just
because the land was at rest that festival observing also took a
rest. The Temple and its Priesthood with daily sacrificing, was
to continue in Israel EVERY DAY of the week, every week of the
year, without resting. The Levite was to be fed from the tithes
brought, as was the High priest from the tithe of those tithes,
every week of every year, without stopping.
And so it was indeed possible, for those God gave
instruction for the LAND to rest every seventh year and in the
Jubilee or 50th year, the animals of the herds and flocks did not
rest. They still produced, so an increase of tithing was still in
force for that production, and the Levite and high priest
obtained their food, for the service that they never ceased to
perform at any time, in any year.
Also, as this was God's nation, under His laws and divine
watchfulness. The tithing law NEVER REALLY ceased at any time,
for even when certain parts of the economy rested (as the land at
times, so no tithing from the land in that particular year) God
would BLESS the LAND in the sixth year, so there would be double
or triple the increase, and so double or triple the tithe, to
carry them over until the land was once again in production.
What a time in history to have lived in. A nation under God,
a nation that could truly, with sincerity have said "In God we
Trust." For that nation of Israel who would truly serve and obey
the Eternal God of heaven, for them they would have seen the
MIGHTY HAND OF THE LORD BLESSING THEM IN EVERY WAY IMAGINABLE,
and their land flowing over, especially in the sixth year, with
ABUNDANCE of agriculture and flocks that would have been the envy
of all other nations around about them.
Truly all this would have brought to pass the verses of
Deut. 4:5-8
"Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as
the Lord my God commanded me, that you should do so in the land
whither you go to posses it. Keep therefore and do them; for this
is your wisdom and understanding in the SIGHT of the nations,
which shall hear of these statutes, and say, Surely this GREAT
NATION is a WISE and UNDERSTANDING people. For what nation is
there so great, who has God SO NIGH unto them......And what
nation is there so great, that has statutes and judgments so
RIGHTEOUS as all this law, which I set before you this day."
From the Scriptures of the Word of the Lord that we have
studied, and from the recorded histories we have preserved, it
should be plain to see that ancient Israel under the Old
Covenant, did have and did practice the observance of THREE
separate TITHES!
This is how it was so ordained in ancient Israel for their
time and their economy.
Does this mean THREE tithes are to be employed and observed for
the Christian TODAY under the New Covenant and our economy.
I have written numerous times over the last 18 years that
the THIRD, or POOR TITHE, was Israel's welfare program. This
tithe today is BEING employed by most nations of the world in the
form of regular TAXATION. All tax paying peoples are supporting
and paying a third tithe (many estimate a lot more) through their
taxes to their government.
This third tithe should NOT BE paid to any church
organization, nor should any church require their members to pay
a third tithe to them.
Yet, in saying this, I must point out that the NT does
clearly teach that we as Christians do have a responsibility to
serve and help in physical ways, our brothers and sisters in the
church, and even in the community, if we are in the physical
position, to so serve and help. This is going the extra mile,
going above and beyond the call of duty, which Jesus plainly
taught we must do, if we are to be His followers.
AS for the SECOND TITHE. This is another area that most
today in the festival observing churches of God, do not fully
understand.
JERUSALEM was no longer the place to worship God in a three feast pilgrim way; as Jesus clearly taught in the Gospel of John to the woman at the well. God's three festival seasons are now observed anywhere in the world. There is no need to move out of where you live to observe the Feast of Tabernacles, or any other Feast of God, The Feast of Tabernacles can be observed like the Feast of the Passover/Unleavened Bread--- right where you are. Most if not all Messianic Jewish congregations observe the fall Feasts just as they observe the Spring Feasts--- where they are in their local town. Now if you like to move to some place with others for the 7/8 days of the Tabernacle and 8th day Feasts, you have the freedom to do so, but it is not required under the New Testament. So there is no need, no obligation, to save a second tithe today.
Our study of the first tithe is still in progress. I must
look at the NT on this subject, and in so doing I will explain to
you WHY there is no direct command from the apostles or the
writers of the NT, about tithing to them or the church of God,
outside the seventh chapter of Hebrews.
But that is for next time.
...........................
Written May 1997
Tithing? #4Is the law of tithing for us today? WHAT DOES THE
NEW TESTAMENT SAY?
by
Keith Hunt
Using Strong's Concordance of the Bible it is relatively
simple to look up how many times the word "tithe" appears in the
New Testament (NT). The word "tithe" appears TWICE, and the word
"tithes" appears SIX times.
In NONE of the passages is there any hint that the law of
tithing is abolished under the NT covenant.
Our present study will only be concerned with the tithe
that, under the Old Covenant was designated as the "Lord's tithe"
- that which He claimed as His and then gave to the Levitical
priesthood.
A reader of the NT will soon see that there is NO verse that
says "tithing to the Lord is now abolished" or "under the New
Covenant tithing is not required" or "the worshipping of God in
Spirit and in Truth abrogates us from tithing to the Lord."
With no such plain clear statements as that in the NT we are
still left with the question: What does the NT say regarding
tithing, if anything?
There are certain basic elements within the NT that do shed
some light on this question. Let's begin to find them.
JESUS' TEACHING CONTAINING A TITHING LAW
Jesus did say many things in either direct language or in
parable form, regarding the topic of a persons wealth. He told
the young rich man that if he wanted to be fully perfect he
needed to give away his riches to the poor and come and follow
the one telling him to do this - Jesus (Mat.19). He did not stop
the woman giving to the Temple all that she had, though it was a
very small amount in a literal sense. He even said she had given
more than what the rich were giving (Luke 21:1-4). He gave a
parable to teach that covetousness and storing wealth when not
being rich towards God was foolishness (Luke 12:13-21). He taught
that part of ascertaining if someone had the right heart that God
could look at, would be found by observing where their physical
treasures would be put to use (Luke 12:33-34). Yet with all this
the word "tithe" is not used anywhere. Did Jesus say anything
that could TAKE IN within its context, the tithe on increase to
the Eternal God?
I believe He did in TWO sections of Scripture. They are:
1) Matthew 4:4. In speaking to Satan, Jesus said: ".....It
is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD
THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD."
Now, I submit to you those words of Christ - taken from the
Old Testament - are pretty plain to understand. They say what
they mean and mean what they say. Man is to read ALL of the word
of the Lord, from Genesis to Revelation, and learn from the
WHOLE Bible HOW he/she is to live in this physical life.
Now there are some basic guidelines a person should know in
determining HOW to LIVE BY EVERY WORD OF GOD. I have written a
full, in-depth article covering those guidelines. It is not the
purpose of this study to restate or examine them. The reader can
find my article called "LIVING BY EVERY WORD OF GOD - HOW?"
on my website.
Reading through the Bible to learn how to live by every
word, we shall discover, as we did in a previous study on this
topic, that tithing was performed by two of God's greatest
servants - Abraham, and Jacob. These two men tithed to God, and
this was WAY BEFORE the Eternal gave the Old Covenant to a people
known as Israel. So one thing for sure, tithing did not BEGIN
with the OC given to the Israelites at the time of Moses.
As we continue reading through the OT, even into the
prophetic books (that foretell any number of things), we find not
one word that teaches tithing to God from your increase would
come to an end at SOMETIME or ANY TIME!
As we proceed on into the NT and we search in vain for any
verse that clearly tells us that tithing is now abolished, we can
then only come to one conclusion (that is if we are being honest,
and hungering for truth and righteousness) - tithing from our
increase to the Father in heaven is STILL TODAY, a part of
living by every word from our Father in heaven.
It is really just that simple when all is said and done.
Tithing was done BEFORE the OC came into being with the nation of
Israel. Tithing to the Lord of your increase was done under the
OC. The New Covenant and the NT gives no instruction that
tithing to God is not to be practiced by Christians. So the
simple logic would be that to live by every word of God, one
would still tithe on their increase to God.
2) Matthew 5:19,20. "Whosoever therefore shall BREAK one
of these LEAST commandments, and shall TEACH MEN SO, he shall be
called least in the Kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall DO and
TEACH them, shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven. For I
say unto you, That except your righteousness shall EXCEED the
righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case
enter into the Kingdom of heaven."
This tells you what Jesus thought about even the
commandments of the Lord that some humans would consider were the
LEAST. It tells you about not only this attitude Christ had
towards them, but it also tell you His attitude towards those who
would BREAK them, and TEACH others to also do the same. Yes,
this verse must be put within the context of Matthew 4:4 and the
guidelines of knowing HOW to live by every word of God. Some laws
the NT does change, such as no more "swearing" - no more "vowing"
(Mat.5:33-37), and some are today "nothing" such as physical
circumcision (1 Cor.7:18,19). But the OVERALL principle is what
Jesus wanted to convey to His true follower. Where God's word
should be obeyed, then obey it and teach others to obey it also.
In verse 20, Jesus states something that in many ways would
have been quite DRAMATIC for many of His listeners. A Christian
must in life, word, conduct, and thoughts, be doing a better job
than what the scribes and Pharisees were doing in their religion
towards God. We find in other parts of the Gospels that the
Pharisees were STRICT - TO THE SMALLEST AMOUNT - TITHE PAYERS TO
GOD!
I submit to you that in the words Jesus here states, He was
far from teaching that tithing to God was then or in the future,
ABOLISHED and no longer a law and commandment to be observed by
God's children. As the NT nowhere "does away" with the OT
commandment of tithing on your increase to God, I submit to you
that here within these words of Christ, is contained the
continual commandment that the people of God should tithe as part
of their righteousness which as a whole must be greater than that
of the scribes and Pharisees, if they are to enter the Kingdom of
heaven.
To many this sounds like a salvation by works, and a
contradiction to what Paul stated in Eph.2:8 that we are saved by
grace through faith in Christ Jesus. Many get very confused over
such passages of Scripture spoken by Christ. What far too many
do not realize - because they are not taught correctly, from all
the verses on the subject of being saved - is that God does lay
down some CONDITIONS to being shown His grace through faith. For
the in-depth study on Salvation, the reader can find on my website---
article called "SAVED BY GRACE" which puts all the Scriptures
together making the truth very plain, and showing there is no
contradiction anywhere in God's word on being saved by grace, yet
having to have a righteousness greater than that of the scribes
and Pharisees, in order to enter the Kingdom of heaven.
3) Matthew 23:23. "Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites! for you pay TITHE of mint and anise and cummin, and
have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy,
and faith. These ought you to have done, AND NOT to have left the
OTHER UNDONE."
Very clearly Jesus taught that tithing should be done!
"Oh," someone will immediately say,"but Jesus was talking to
the scribes and Pharisees, NOT to His disciples or Christians of
today."
Yet, in the light of Matthew 4:4 and 5:19-20, can we really
use that argument effectively? I think not! But if we are
looking for a way out of not having to tithe to God, then of
course nothing that Jesus said will bear any weight in support of
tithing, for those who are looking for an escape from a law of
the Lord.
Then on the other hand the argument is also put forth that
Jesus was speaking to people who were under the Old Covenant, and
Christ was preaching Old Covenant theology.
Did Jesus preach OC theology? Did He preach things from an
OC perspective that when the NC came into effect at His death,
and the giving of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, all He
preached was "nailed to the cross" and "done away with"? If that
be the case then His teaching and preaching was only for three
and one half years, and the four Gospels really belong to the Old
Testament books of the Bible, and the NT books begin with the
book of Acts.
A little silly when you put it in that light I maintain.
Let's let Jesus tell us what covenant He taught and preached, if
it was the Old or the New.
".....You are they which justify yourselves before men; but
God knows your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among
men is an abomination in the sight of God. The LAW and the
PROPHETS (the OT) were UNTIL JOHN (the baptist) SINCE THAT TIME
the KINGDOM OF GOD IS PREACHED......." (Luke 16:15,16).
Jesus then went on to give two examples of the teaching of
the Kingdom covenant of the NT, and the restoring of one law back
to near as to when it was in the beginning. We have seen in our
previous studies that the law of tithing, because of the nations
of the earth practicing it towards their gods, way before
Abraham, it was also very probably a law of God from the
beginning.
When Jesus instructed the scribes and the Pharisees in
Matthew 23:23 about judgment, mercy, faith, and tithing, He was
instructing them concerning the things of the Kingdom, concerning
the things of the New Covenant Kingdom age, and what should be
practiced and followed now that that age of the Kingdom covenant
had arrived.
Tithing to God was STILL very much a part of that Kingdom
covenant!
Did Jesus receive tithes from people? Well we do know He
and His disciples had a money bag, that Judas was treasurer. We
know they were given money, received money from somewhere and
some persons. Was it tithe money? We are not told, but there is
no reason to suppose it was not at times tithe money or tithe
goods, in full or in part. If some would say this would have
been in violation of Old Covenant tithing laws, we must once more
remember that Jesus was preaching the New Covenant and that He
Himself said He was GREATER than the the Temple. As the God of
the OT who instituted the very Temple service, it certainly would
not have been wrong to have tithed directly to the God of that
Temple.
THE TEACHING OF PAUL
All Christians who have read the writings of the apostle
Paul will readily admit he did teach that the poor should be
cared for by the Church (Gal.2:9,10). That he taught Christians
should GIVE of their substance to the Lord, to the church of God
(2 Cor.9:6-9). That he taught that the workers in the Gospel
could live off the Gospel, live off those who were being served
by their work in the teaching and preaching of the Gospel (1
Cor.9:14. Please read the whole chapter in a modern translation
such as the Amplified Bible).
There will be little argument from anyone about what I have
stated above, for the NT Scriptures are so very clear and plain,
the writings of Paul on the matter cannot be misunderstood. So
nobody has any way out from believing that the NT does teach a
physical giving by the members of the church of God to the poor
and needy, and to the support of the work of God and those who
may be employed full or part time in doing that work towards
others. I know few who have any argument with that theology
stance. But they say that is fine, because Paul taught GIVING,
he did not say anything outside of the book of Hebrews (which we
shall look at later) about a New Covenant law of tithing, and
that the members of the NT church of God should tithe.
Well, it may be true that we cannot find in the writings of
Paul, and I give emphasis to the WRITINGS of Paul, any specific
statement such as "we know we are all to tithe to the church of
God" BUT does that by itself mean Paul DID NOT teach that tithing
to God was not necessary? Some would immediately answer with,
YES! Those that do so, will be making a grave error my friends.
They will be overlooking a few very revealing parts of NT
Scripture, one part in particular.
Please turn to Acts chapter 25. As you do so, I want you to
remember that Paul had by this time spent MANY YEARS here and
there, near and far, among the Jews and Gentiles, in and out of
the synagogues, teaching and debating, preaching and proclaiming
the word of the Lord, the truths of the New Covenant and all
things that pertained to the Kingdom of God and Jesus Christ as
the Messiah and Savior.
By this time he had managed to build up quite a sizable
movement among the leaders of the religious Jews, that wanted to
nail Paul's hide to the wall. That wanted to DISCREDIT him,
especially within the religious world of the Jews. They would
have done anything to have been able to show he taught against
Moses and the word of the Lord as contained in the Scriptures
(which we today call the Old Testament).
These religious leaders of the Jews finally get Paul before
Festus and believed they would now show to everyone what a law
breaker he was. Do you see what is written in verse seven of Acts
25? The religious Jews from Jerusalem, ".....laid MANY and
GRIEVOUS COMPLAINTS against Paul......." they had had many years
to listen to the teaching, and the preaching, and the debating,
of Paul about the word of the Lord in all forms of living and
practice. They would, you can be sure of it, have had their
secret spies, their under cover agents, out watching and
listening and recording the things Paul was teaching and
preaching to all who would listen. They had been given much time
to collect their evidence that Paul was a law of Moses breaker, a law of
God BREAKER and a teacher of others to so break those laws,
including the law of TITHING TO GOD, which for the Jew was part
and parcel of life as much as all that was connected to the
Priesthood and the Temple service.
Yet, with all the time and effort they had, notice what is
written when they brought forth these many and grievous
complaints. It is written, "....WHICH THEY COULD NOT PROVE."
And Paul, for himself answered: ".....Neither against the
LAW OF THE JEWS, neither against the TEMPLE, nor yet against
CAESAR, have I OFFENDED ANY THING AT ALL" (verse 8).
Festus asks Paul if he is willing to stand before him at
Jerusalem(verse 9). Paul says he will appeal to Caesar, and
notice part of his words in that appeal, verse 10.
"....to the Jews have I DONE NO WRONG....."
We find in chapter 26 and verse 26 that Paul affirmed before
Festus and King Agrippa that "this thing WAS NOT DONE IN A
CORNER." Paul did not hide himself in some corner of the land in
his teaching and preaching of the word of God and the gospel of
Christ.
As the saying goes "you can bet your bottom dollar" that if
the Jews COULD HAVE found any concrete evidence that Paul taught
the NONE OBSERVANCE of TITHING to God, THEY WOULD HAVE BROUGHT IT
FORTH. BUT THE PLAIN TRUTH IS THAT THEY COULD FIND NO PROOF OF
ANY KIND THAT PAUL PREACHED AGAINST THE LAW OF TITHING OR HAD
DONE ANY WRONG TO THE JEWS.
Festus had supposed the Jews would have brought certain
things against Paul, but as he himself stated before King
Agrippa, "...when the accusers stood up, they brought none
accusation of such things as I supposed: But had certain
questions against him of their own superstition, and of one
Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive" (Acts
26:18,19).
The Jews were able to QUESTION Paul (and you can bet they
questioned him about many of the OC laws) but they could not
accuse or prove he taught any law breaking, such as not tithing
to God or paying taxes to Caesar.
It should be evident for the honest reader of the life of
Paul, that he was a law abiding citizen of both the Roman and
Jewish world. The Jewish religious leaders from the seat of
Judaism in Jerusalem, could PROVE NOTHING against Paul in their
complaints of him before Festus.
Paul then did teach throughout his ministry that the people
of God SHOULD TITHE TO GOD!
But we are still left with the question: Why is it that we
cannot find any word from Paul or any other writer of the books
of the NT, that tell or instruct the members of the NT church of
God to tithe to God via the Christian Church of God. The answer
is very simple but most have missed it.
WHY NO INSTRUCTION TO SPECIFICALLY TITHE
TO THE NT CHRISTIAN CHURCH?
Stop and think now for a minute. We have seen that the law
and the prophets were until John the baptist, and then the
Kingdom of God is preached. We know Christ preached the New
Covenant. We know His death, resurrection, coming of the Holy
Spirit on the day of Pentecost, brought in fully as a begettal,
the New Covenant within Christ's disciples. Yet was the Old
Covenant with all of its rites, priesthood, animal sacrifices,
Temple worship, immediately none existent? Did the Old Covenant
priesthood just evaporate after the day of Pentecost? Why of
course not! Did the Temple in Jerusalem just disappear when the
Holy Spirit came to fill the disciples on Pentecost? Why of
course not! It would be 40 years later before those two
institutions would come to an end in a literal way.
Now ask yourself: Was the Old Covenant instituted by God or
did man just dream it up? The answer is found in Exodus chapters
20 through to 23 and other parts of the books of Moses. The Old
Covenant WAS FROM GOD, IT WAS INSTITUTED BY GOD, IT BELONGED TO
GOD!
Was the Priesthood of Israel instituted by God or was it the
invention of men? Read the last chapters of Exodus and the first
chapters of Leviticus. It was FROM GOD, INSTITUTED BY GOD, IT
BELONGED TO GOD!
Were the laws governing HOW those Old Covenant Levites and
Priests were to physically live off the physical goods brought to
them through tithes and offerings from the people, of God, or
just the ideas of men? We have studied this in the previous
articles on our present topic. Those laws governing how the
priests were to live off the tithes and offerings brought by the
people, WERE FROM GOD, INSTITUTED BY THE LORD, THEY BELONGED TO
GOD!
Was the physical Temple in Jerusalem an institution and
building first thought up in the mind of men, or was it that God
told Moses to build a Tabernacle patterned after the one in
heaven? The books of Moses and the book of Hebrews say quite
dogmatically that the basic idea of the Temple was FROM GOD,
INSTITUTED BY THE ETERNAL, THAT IT BELONGED TO HIM! Jesus said
the Temple was the Father's house, and He turned out many from
making the Father's house into a den of robbers.
Are you beginning to see where all this is leading? The OLD
COVENANT with its priesthood, sacrifices, temple, tithes going to
support the physical living of the priesthood of that temple and
old covenant service, WAS FROM GOD, IT BELONGED TO HIM, AND
FOR 40 YEARS AFTER THE COMING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT ON PENTECOST,
ALL THOSE SERVICES OF THE OLD COVENANT STILL STOOD IN PLACE. THEY
DID NOT COME TO A LITERAL END UNTIL 70 A.D. WHEN THE TEMPLE WAS
DESTROYED AND THE OLD PRIESTHOOD STOPPED FUNCTIONING IN THOSE
PHYSICAL SERVICES.
What this means is: FOR 40 YEARS THE OLD COVENANT CONTINUED
AND OVERLAPPED THE NEW COVENANT. FOR 40 YEARS GOD HAD BOTH THE
OLD AND THE NEW COVENANT RUNNING SIDE BY SIDE IN CERTAIN ASPECTS
OF FUNCTIONS. FOR 40 YEARS THERE WERE TWO PRIESTHOODS - THE OLD
PRIESTHOOD FROM GOD ESTABLISHED THROUGH MOSES, AND THE NEW
PRIESTHOOD FROM GOD, ESTABLISHED THROUGH CHRIST. AS LONG AS THE
LITERAL PRIESTHOOD OF OLD WAS FUNCTIONING, IT BELONGED TO GOD,
FOR IT WAS FROM GOD. THOSE LEVITES AND PRIESTS FUNCTIONING UNDER
THAT PRIESTHOOD WERE STILL ENTITLED TO LIVE OFF THE TITHES AND
OFFERINGS OF THE PEOPLE!
Do you see what this is all amounting to? It is just this:
BOTH THE OLD AND NEW PRIESTHOOD WERE FROM GOD, BELONGED TO GOD.
BOTH UNDER THE LAW OF GOD COULD LIVE OFF THE TITHES AND OFFERINGS
OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD! THE APOSTLES AND WRITERS OF THE NT HAD NO
HESITATION IN CLAIMING THEY WERE MINISTERS OF THE LORD, SERVING
IN THE WORK OF THE LORD. YET THE MINISTERS OF THE OLD COVENANT
WERE ALSO STILL WORKING IN A WORK THAT WAS FROM GOD, AND HAD NOT
YET BEEN LITERALLY SET ASIDE. SO WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE, THE PEOPLE
OF GOD, THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH OF GOD, HAD THE FREEDOM AND THE
LIBERTY UNDER THE LAW OF GOD, TO TITHE AND GIVE OFFERINGS TO
EITHER THE OLD OR THE NEW PRIESTHOOD AND THE WORK BOTH WERE
PERFORMING!!
Now with this FACT in hand, with this fact established,
until God had literally removed the OLD to leave ONLY the NEW,
there were TWO ministries that could receive the tithes of the
people, and live off the tithes and offerings of the people. As
the Old was from God, instituted by God, and as it still stood in
function, it would have been wrong for any of the apostles,
including Paul, to have taught that TITHES to God was ONLY to be
given to the NT church of God. Hence the subject NEVER CAME UP,
it was not mentioned until near to the time when the physical
Temple in Jerusalem was about to be destroyed, and the rituals,
sacrifices, and priesthood of the old was to terminate its
practices and functions. This will lead us to the book of
Hebrews (in our next study).
So Paul and the others knew that Christians had the LIBERTY
in Christ, as long as the Old Covenant with its priesthood was
still functioning, to give TITHES and OFFERINGS not just to the
church of God and its ministry, but to the Old Covenant church of
God ministry also. The choice was entirely up to the individual.
They could give part or all of their tithes and offerings to
either ministry, yet Paul certainly did not hold back in teaching
that the New Covenant ministry had also a right from God to live
off those they served, and that the NT church should serve and
help the poor and needy among its midst.
In our next study we shall see that as the day and time was
coming for the Old Covenant functions of the Priesthood,
Sacrifices, and Temple, to no longer function in its literal
practices, certain questions and concerns were being raised. Two
ministry systems had been in existence side by side for nearly 40
years, without very much controversy (except for that of physical
circumcision for which the Jerusalem synod was called - Acts 15)
taking place within the church of God. But now it was time to
analyze in depth, the importance of the two ministries, and which
of the two was ULTIMATELY the more important and the greatest.
That study and its relation to tithing, next time.
...........................
Written May 1997
Tithing? #5Is the law of tithing for us today? BOOK OF HEBREWS
by
Keith Hunt
The book of Hebrews is recognized by nearly all Bible scholars
as the most so-called "Jewish" book of the entire New Testament,
written mainly for Jewish Christians, or Jews in general who
would become Christians.
Internal evidence would indicate that it was written shortly
before 70 A.D. and the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple and
the end of the Old Covenant priesthood. The very wording of
chapter 8:13 clearly indicates the author (who I believe was
Paul) knew the time was at hand for the Old Covenant to "vanish
away" through the destruction of the physical Temple of God in
Jerusalem.
It would have been important for Paul to have addressed some
"Jewish" questions,to make it clear to Jewish readers or converts
the truth concerning some theological issues that would have been
considered very Jewish, such issues as the Priesthood under
Moses, which was ordained of God, the physical temple which was
also allowed to be build under Solomon originally, hence also
coming from God, the function of animal sacrifices which was also
ordained from the Eternal God, and the practice of tithing to
that priesthood, also ordained as a law to Israel from the Lord
God, being a law that gave physical support to a physical full
time ministry, and the observance of the 7th day Sabbath. Paul
would feel it necessary to answer in what way these institutions,
so long held dear by all religious Jews, would continue when the
old covenant had finally "vanished away."
From the book of Acts, chapter 20, we see that many Jews were
still very zealous for the laws of Moses. They may have come to
see some of them in a new and different light under the New
Covenant, but the fact remained many still observed Temple and
Priesthood laws, that were still in function in Jerusalem. It was
NOT a sin to observe these Temple laws, they were ordained of
God, and until they "vanished away" completely, many Jewish
Christians especially, did continue to practice and observe them,
even Paul was not against so doing them himself, as Acts 20
proves.
As my NKJV Study Bible points out in its introduction to
Hebrews: "Almost all of Hebrews is exposition of Old Testament
passages. The author uses Jewish methods of interpretation common
in the synagogue of his day.....he sees Christ as the fulfilment
of the Old Testament....God's final Word who makes sense out of
God's previous revelation...."
So, a large portion of the book of Hebrews is devoted to
explaining some of the Old Covenant laws, the most important ones
to the mind of a Jew, and how they fit into the scheme of things
in the full and greater plan of God, now that His Christ had
come, and the New Covenant had been introduced.
A Jewish mind would certainly have wanted to know if there was
going to be an END to a Priesthood, and to tithing which was such
a daily part of their lives, as they counted (so to speak, see
Mat. 23:23) their tithes throughout their lives, to give their 10
per cent to the priesthood God had established for those priests
to live on.
Paul very early on in this book, calls Christ the APOSTLE and
HIGH PRIEST of the Christian confession (chap.3:1). He had
already, from the beginning of the book, shown the GREATNESS of
Christ ABOVE everyone, even the angels.
He comes back to the subject of High Priest once more in
chapter 4 and verse 14, going on into chapter 5. Though
expounding on some other things as he goes into chapter 6, he
comes back to Christ as High Priest once more at the end of that
chapter, where he then starts to introduce and answer more
questions the Jewish mind would be asking.
He has said that Jesus Christ has now become High Priest AFTER
the order of Melchizedek, king of Salem, mentioned in Genesis 14.
He moves on to prove to the Jewish mind, that their great father
Abraham paid a tithe or tenth to this great king and priest of
the Most High God. Proving the practice of tithing did not start
with Moses and the Leviticus priesthood. Then with good logic
concerning the genes of the body, he proceeds to show that Levi
actually tithed through the person of Abraham, as being in
Abraham's genes (verses 1-10).
Paul goes on to show perfection in salvation (the plan and way of
salvation as intended by God from the beginning) was not to be
found in the Levitical priesthood, but through the one that would
take the Melchizedek priesthood, and not after the Aaronic
priesthood (verse 11).
Paul does not say the Priesthood has or will come to an end, or
"vanish away." He has proved that there has come about through
Christ, and the plan of God from the Old Testament Scriptures
themselves, a new Priesthood, that was already spoken about
beforehand. There was to be a CHANGE in the "priesthood" of God,
and so a change in the law. The Old said the priesthood of
persons was to be only from Levi. Now that law of old was to
CHANGE. A new law concerning a priesthood was to take effect. A
CHANGE was to come.
He has really already proved WHAT that change was in the
preceding verses and other sections of his letter so far written,
the Christ of God was to be the High Priest of that new
priesthood. But to drive the truth home he goes on to again say
what he has already said. Jesus the Lord came from the tribe of
Judah not Levi. But it was God's intention that His Christ would
be High Priest after the order of the great priest Melchizedek,
who lived before Levi, and whom even Abraham, and Levi in the
genes of Abraham, gave a tithe to, as found in Genesis 14.
The Father was in a sense re-establishing the great Priesthood
of Melchizedek (verse 17), and the commandment of the priesthood
established under Moses, that the Jews were very familiar with,
the priesthood persons having to come from the tribe of Levi, was
now DISANNULLED....cancelled....changed, just as he had already
stated in verse 12.
The disannulling of the commandment was not regarding the issue
of tithing, but the issue of the PRIESTHOOD! The law or
commandment that stated under Moses that only men from Levi could
be priests was now CHANGED or disannulled, for the Christ was
evidently not from Levi but from Judah, and it was the Lord
Christ, who was now the great High Priest, not after the law or
commandment of Levi under Moses, but the law BEFORE Moses and
Levi, the law of the Melchizedek priesthood.
Paul further establishes this law change of the priesthood by
showing that God never gave an OATH when establishing the
Levitical priesthood under Moses, but God did SWEAR BY AN OATH,
BY HIMSELF, to Him that would be the Christ, that He would be
High Priest FOREVER, with endless life, in the priesthood order
of Melchizedek (verses 20-25).
Tithing in this section is a side issue, yet part of BOTH
Priesthood laws as far as Paul was concerned. Nothing in this
expounding by Paul of the MOVING, the CHANGING, of the one law of
priesthood under Moses and Levi, the disannulling of that law of
priesthood, to establish the law of priesthood as given by OATH,
in the order of Melchizedek, given to Christ, disannuls the
tithing aspect of that order of Melchizedek. Paul has never
mentioned the vanishing away or disannulling of the tithing law
in any of these verses, and it would have been quite easy for him
to have said something like: "the tithing law has now been
abolished" or "since the coming of the new Melchizedek
priesthood, there is no more law of tithing."
As we saw in the previous study (part 4) on this topic, the
persecuting Jewish leaders when they had the chance before the
authorities of the land, could find NOTHING to accuse Paul in his
life or teaching concerning the word of God (read again the last
number of chapters of the book of Acts) or what they considered
their Jewish religion, except he taught Jesus was the Christ. If
Paul believed and taught that tithing was "done away with" you
can bet those religious Jews would have discovered such a
teaching in his theology, and used it against him. Oh, it is
written they laid many and grievous complains against Paul,
"which they could not prove" (Acts 25:7). All of this, while he
answered for himself: "Neither against the law of the Jews,
neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I
offended any thing at all" (verse 8).
Paul said he was personally taught by Christ (Gal.1:12). If
Christ had taught Paul that the law of tithing was, under the New
Covenant, now abolished, he never said one word about it in any
of his 14 epistles. Neither did any other writer of any books of
the New Testament.
We have seen in the past WHY Paul and other apostles could not
demand that tithes only come to them. And reading 1 Corinthians
9 in a modern translation such as the Amplified Bible, will show
you other reasons as to why Paul did not use the authority he
had in God, to stop secular working to support himself, and live
off the physical assets of the people in the church at Corinth.
The bottom line is that Christianity is a religion of Christ.
A Christian is so called because he/she is supposed to be a
follower of one called Jesus Christ. In this particular
case, we do have recorded specific words from the lips of Christ
regarding the practice of tithing.
Jesus not only said He came to DO the Father's will and not His
own, but He also said he came not to speak His own WORDS. Read
it for yourself in John 12:47-50.
Read all of those early chapters of the gospel of John. Those
are very sobering words over and over again that Jesus spoke
about His life and His words of teaching.
Now, once more read Matthew 23:23. Not His own words, but
words the Father taught Him to say.
Jesus clearly taught that people should TITHE!
As a servant of the most high God, I have tried to show you in
these five studies that the doctrine of tithing to the Eternal
WAS and STILL IS a law that God says His true children are to
practice. Now the ball is in your court as to what you will do
with one of the laws the Father gave to Christ to speak, to
teach, and to uphold.
...................................
Written July 1999
Tithing? #6Is the law of tithing for us today? PAUL HAD A SECULAR JOB, SO NO
NEED TO TITHE?
by
Keith Hunt
There is an argument today that goes like this: Paul, as a
minister of God, had a secular job, so we do not need to tithe."
Now, upon further questioning, the people who use this argument
are meaning to say that as Paul had a secular job, ministers
today should all have one, and so no one would have to tithe to
support those ministers, no one would have to give anything to
those ministers, as they would be supporting themselves, like
Paul did.
Somewhat of a strange argument I would say, for it does not
address the issue of how then do you proclaim the Gospel near and
far, out into all nations to make disciples for Christ Jesus, and
to proclaim the good news of the Age to come, the Kingdom of God
on earth.
I suppose they may say that people just give what they can,
when they can, and as much as they can, all put into a fund for
spreading the Gospel. To them it would still mean there was no
tithing law to obey, and certainly not to support the ministry,
as Paul had a secular job, and so hence supported himself. So we
have come full circle and are back to where we started.....Paul
having a secular job, so no need to tithe.
Those who use this argument, usually STOP right there, say no
more than "Paul had a secular job." They do NOT want you to
study it in detail, they do not want you to ask the question
"Why, did Paul have a secular job at times." They do not want
you to read the whole CONTEXT in the New Testament, as to the
reason WHY Paul had to have a secular job at times to support
himself. No, they do not want you to do that, for in doing
so, you would come to clearly see the answer to WHY Paul had to
work to support himself at times.
Paul was a minister of the Gospel who had enemies, Jews and
even other ministers (well they claimed they were minister in the
Church of God) who were after his hide, so to speak. Paul had
people who were suspicious of him, his work, his motives, his
teaching and preaching (many times be accused of this or that
teaching, when it simply was not true, people not having the
facts correct), and so many times, even among those he had worked
with in a spiritual manner, many church members, kept Paul at
arms length, moved away from him, had doubts about him, and just
put him to one side, all the while favoring and even supporting
with physical goods and money, OTHERS who were claiming to also
be apostles of the Lord (many of which were actually false
apostles, and false ministers, who had come within the Church of
God to devour the sheep spiritually and also in whatever physical
way they could).
All this we can plainly see in what Paul wrote to the church
at Corinth, IF we are willing to read it and meditate on what
Paul was actually saying to them about this very situation, in
which he also included the main reasons he and Barnabas had to
work at secular jobs while living among them. We shall, as we
read, see the truth of the matter as to whether Paul thought he
had the right and the authority, to do the work of the Gospel,
while LIVING OFF the physical goods of the brethren, as he moved
and lived among them.
The writers and compilers of the AMPLIFIED BIBLE found the
true sense of what Paul was saying to the Corinthians in this
regard, and have given it to us in their amplified translation of
the Bible.
I will now quote these important passages for our
understanding of this specific subject we are studying under the
topic of tithing. Please read carefully, and in so doing
you will see the plain truth as to why Paul and Barnabas held
secular jobs at times, especially while living within the area of
Corinth.
1 Corinthians 9:1-18 (Amplified Bible). All capitalization of
words by myself.
"Am I not an apostle (a special messenger)? Am I not free
(unrestrained and exempt from any obligation)? Have I not seen
Jesus our Lord? Are you (yourselves) not (the product and proof
of) my workmanship in the Lord? Even if I am not considered an
apostle (a special messenger) by others, at least I am one to
you; for YOU are the SEAL (the certificate, the living evidence)
of my apostleship in the Lord (confirming and authenticating it).
This is my (real ground of) DEFENCE (my vindication of myself) TO
THOSE WHO WOULD PUT ME ON TRIAL AND CROSS-EXAMINE ME.
HAVE WE NOT THE RIGHT TO OUR FOOD AND DRINK (at the expense of
the churches)? HAVE WE NOT THE RIGHT ALSO to take along with us
a Christian sister as wife, AS DO OTHER APOSTLES and the Lord's
brothers and Cephas (Peter)?
OR IS IT ONLY BARNABAS AND I WHO HAVE NO RIGHT TO REFRAIN FROM
DOING MANUAL LABOR FOR A LIVELIHOOD (IN ORDER TO GO ABOUT THE
WORK OF THE MINISTRY)?
(Consider this:) What soldier at any time SERVES AT HIS OWN
EXPENSE? Who PLANTS a vineyard and does NOT EAT ANY OF THE FRUIT
OF IT? Who TENDS a flock and does NOT PARTAKE OF THE MILK of the
flock?
Do I say this only on human authority and as a man reasons?
DOES NOT THE LAW ENDORSE THE SAME PRINCIPLE?
FOR IN THE LAW OF MOSES it is written, You shall not muzzle an
ox when it is treading out the corn. IS IT (only) FOR OXEN THAT
GOD CARES? (Deut.25:4). Or does He speak certainly and entirely
FOR OUR SAKES? (Assuredly) IT IS WRITTEN FOR OUR SAKES, because
the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher ought to
thresh in EXPECTATION OF PARTAKING OF THE HARVEST.
IF WE HAVE SOWN (the seed of) SPIRITUAL GOOD AMONG YOU, (is it
too) MUCH IF WE REAP FROM YOUR MATERIAL BENEFITS?
If others share in this RIGHTFUL CLAIM upon you (the
Corinthians were supporting others in a physical way, the support
rightly claimed by those others from the very law of God, as Paul
had just related to them - Keith Hunt), do not we (have a still
better and greater claim)? (It was Paul and Barnabas who founded
the church at Corinth - Keith Hunt). However, WE HAVE NEVER
EXERCISED THIS RIGHT, but we endure everything rather than put a
hindrance in the way (of the spread) of the good news (the
Gospel) of Christ."
Let me stop and comment.
Can you see what Paul is so far saying to these church
members at Corinth? He tells them he has seen Jesus Christ. That
he is an apostle, and that they are part proof of his
apostleship, for they knew exactly what he was getting at.
It was Paul and Barnabas who started and founded and raised up
the church at Corinth. They were the two men God used to bring
them the truth of the Gospel, bring them to repentance and into
the light of the good news of salvation through Christ Jesus.
Some were putting Paul on trial, so to speak, cross-examining
him, questioning him, his teachings, his motives, even to the
point of questioning his claim that he and Barnabas had the right
to live off their physical means, as in effect, full time, paid,
ministers of the Lord.
He shows them that most of them were not really against such a
practice as this, for they and others supported other apostles,
the brothers of Jesus, and Peter, as they were married and worked
in the ministry, living off the physical goods and money of
church members. He then asks them if, for whatever reason, was
there some "theological" proof somewhere in the Scriptures, that
it was ONLY Barnabas and he that should have manual secular jobs,
while the other apostles did not and could rightly partake of
their physical substances while working full time in the
ministry.
After that he leads them into using first good old simple
human logic. He uses the examples of a soldier working for a
government to serve and help the people at large living within
that community protected by that government and its army. They
get paid. Then he goes on to the examples of those who work in
the agricultural trade and skill. Those who work and tend and
care for and protect the growth of the fruits in a vineyard
or the lambs, goats, cows, of a flock, also partake in the
physical side of things as they work in those professions.
Next, and even more important, he nails down the truth that he
and Barnabas had as much right to live off the brethren in the
church, as much as any other apostle and minister so actually
doing, by going directly to what God in His word has to say on
the matter.
He leads off by taking a principle from God's word. The
teaching of the Lord concerning the ox and how it is to live off
the work it is helping to do and bring forth. Under inspiration
of the Holy Spirit, Paul tells them this law of the ox within
Israel's farming profession, was not actually written JUST for
the ox or the farmers of Israel. It was also written to teach a
basic principle, directly from God, that as Jesus once said,
"The laborer is worthy of his hire."
The same principle Paul explains to them is found in the law
of the plowman and the thresher. They both have hope that in
doing their work they will partake of the physical things within
their work, so they can continue to work in their work full time,
not have to as we today call it, "moon light" at some other work
on the side, to make ends meet, in the work they are really
called to do.
After all that he hits the nail squarely on the head in verse
11. He gets pretty clear and plain as to what all this means.
From what he has revealed to them so far, from human logic, the
way humans run things for the most part, and what God's principle
laws have to say to us, he tells them with no uncertain words,
yet still in a kind and reasoning way, that if they, Barnabas and
he, have sown (worked like a plowman or planter, or reaper and
thresher) of their spiritual lives, is it really too much to ask
that he and Barnabas should also reap from them their material
goods and benefits. He puts it that way, hoping they have come
to see, from what he has already told them, that it should
indeed be so.
He finishes this thought in verse 12 by once more bringing to
their attention that they do support others in this rightful
claim over their physical materials, that they really were
not against such a teaching or such a practice. But because of
various reasonings going on in many of their minds concerning
himself and Barnabas (some put there by others that he talks
about in his second letter to them, we call 2 Corinthians, which
we shall look at later) they thought it best, under that
situation, to NOT claim this RIGHT, of physical support. So they
endured all the wrong mental attitudes floating around in too
many of their minds, and so as to not cause more hindrance to the
spread of the Gospel among them, they chose to support themselves
by holding down secular jobs.
Now, starting in verse 13, Paul wants them to really
understand the law of God on all this. He thinks they maybe still
will not "get it" so now he goes to the very law of those who
work in the Temple. The Priesthood and the Temple being such an
important aspect of Jewish life for centuries, having full time
workers therein, and coming under very direct laws laid down by
the Eternal God for the people of Israel to follow and adhere to.
Paul believes that if they have not got the point yet, then
surely this will drive the nail home, and make it crystal clear
to them.
Back to the Amplified Bible, starting with verse 13.
"Do you not know that those men who are EMPLOYED IN THE
SERVICE OF THE TEMPLE GET THEIR FOOD FROM THE TEMPLE? And that
those who TEND THE ALTAR SHARE WITH THE ALTAR (in the offerings
brought)? (Deut.18:1).
(On the same principle) the Lord DIRECTED that those who
PUBLISH THE GOOD NEWS (the Gospel) should LIVE (get their
maintenance) BY the Gospel.
But I have not made use of any of these privileges, nor am I
writing this (to suggest) that any such provision be made for me
(now). For it would be better for me to die than to have anyone
make void and deprive me of my (ground for) glorifying (in this
matter). For if I (merely) preach the Gospel, that gives me no
reason to boast, for I feel compelled of necessity to do it. Woe
is me if I do not preach the glad tidings (the Gospel)!
For if I do this work of my own free will, then I have my pay (my
reward); but if it is not of my own will, but is done reluctantly
and under compulsion, I am (still) entrusted with a (sacred)
trusteeship and commission.
What then is the (actual) reward that I get? Just this: that
in my preaching the good news (the Gospel), I may offer it
(absolutely) FREE OF EXPENSE (to anybody), NOT TAKING ADVANTAGE
OF MY RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES (as a preacher) of the Gospel."
End of quote from the Amplified Bible.
In verse 13 Paul goes to the direct law of the Temple or
Tabernacle under Moses. His reader either new all this being Jews
conversant in the OT or if Gentiles not that familiar with the
Scriptures they could easily look it all up and read it for
themselves. Paul had led them to the laws given by God to Israel
concerning the men who were employed in the service of the
Tabernacle. Those laws clearly concerned TITHES and FREE WILL
OFFERINGS that the people brought to the Temple in worshipping
God, and those laws clearly state that those tithes and offerings
belonging to the Lord were given by God to the tribe of Levi, to
those employed in the service of the Temple. They PARTOOK in the
main, of all those physical things. Some of the physical goods
brought by the people to God in tithes and offerings were the
rightful "bread and butter" of daily living for the ministry of
those serving in the temple worship of the Eternal God. All this
is plainly laid down, enumerated, and given as laws, in a number
of passages in the books of Moses.
Paul then in verse 14, uses this principle law, or in fact by
direct inspired revelation (and really either way is now the
direct inspired will and revelation of God) from God,says: "The
Lord DIRECTED that those who publish the Gospel should LIVE BY
the Gospel." It is the Lord's will and hence His law that people
can serve in the publishing of the Gospel FULL TIME and be
supported in their daily living for the physical needs of life,
from the physical material goods of the people in the household
and "church" of God (remember, Israel was the "church in the
wilderness" - Acts 7:38).
Now, Paul does not directly use the words "tithes" and "free
will offerings" BUT what he leads them to look at under the law
he mentions concerning those working in the Temple service, is
the law concerning TITHES and OFFERINGS! It is the law that
INCLUDES "tithes" - just no way around it, for the honest reader
of the Bible. God's WORK on a large community basis, from the
time of Moses, was carried on by not only "offerings" but by
"tithes" also.
Paul is here putting to rest the argument about there being or
not being a NT ministry and "priesthood" of Jesus Christ, that is
doing the service and work of the "good news" or Gospel of God in
the New Covenant age, as the Levite priesthood did the service
and work of God "the good news" (see Hebrews 4) under the Temple
or Tabernacle period. There is no question in Paul's mind that
God has some today employed in publishing the "good news" of the
Gospel of God (which he says is about Christ, verse 12, hence a
New Covenant "good news" or Gospel of Christ). And those so
employed in the spread and publication of that Gospel of Christ,
can, according to the direct will of God, live OFF, get their
maintenance (as the writings of the Amplified Bible put it) by
that Gospel, or as he has already shown from the law of Moses (in
verse 13) that is by the means of sharing and partaking of the
tithes and offerings, brought by the people to God, in the
worship of the Lord, as He leads in promoting the good news or
the Gospel.
I have before in these studies answered the question as to WHY
Paul, and for that matter no other writer of the NT, NEVER once
in any way used the word "tithe" towards God's New Covenant
people, as telling them they should now, from the start of the NT
church on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), so give all tithes to
the NT Church of God and its Elders and ministers.
I have answered this before, but I will once more give it
again in a nut shell, as we often say, or in a condensed form.
The Old Covenant, with its Tabernacle or Temple, and
Priesthood, was established by the Eternal. All of its
functioning was from God. Part of that function was the people
tithing and giving free will offerings to God through the Temple
service and those who worked there could collect those tithes and
offerings and partly live off of them. Up to 70 A.D. that Temple
and Priesthood was STILL IN FUNCTION. Hence it was still a part
of the laws of God. It had not come to an end, and those priests
still had the God given right to accept the tithes and offerings
from God's people and so live off them.
It would have been quite WITHIN the law of God during those
years of the first century, up to 70 A.D. for God's people within
the New Covenant Church of God, to give their tithes to the
Temple and its priesthood IF they so chose to do so. Paul nor ANY
minister of the New Covenant Gospel of Jesus Christ, up to 70
A.D. was in a position to teach and demand that tithes and
offerings should ONLY COME TO THEM AND THE NT CHURCH!!
In effect God had TWO, yet one, set of people serving in His
Priesthood. There was the OLD priesthood STILL looking after the
functioning of the Temple service, that was ordained and
instituted by the Eternal under Moses, and there was the NEW
priesthood of Christ, as instituted by God through Christ, for
the function of the New Covenant Church of God, that Jesus said
He would build, and which the gates of hell or death would never
destroy.
Paul here in 1 Corinthians 9 makes it very clear that this new
ministry of Christ, for the Gospel of Christ, and those called to
serve in it, could serve FULL TIME, as did the ministry in the
Temple service, living off the physical goods and materials of
those they were serving.
There was no need for any kind of competition between the two
priesthoods (old and new) for the tithes and offerings of the
people. There was enough for all to be functioning. Certainly
enough faithful Jews to give to the Temple priesthood, who were
still blinded to the light of the Gospel (Romans 9-11), and
enough called by God to His grace and light of the Gospel of
Christ, to support the full time ministry in the NT Church
of God.
It would all work out if all knew that their tithes and
offerings could go where God led the heart of the person giving.
Paul (nor any other minister of Christ) could demand that all
tithes and offering should go only to the Church of God, while
the old priesthood and Temple service was still functioning, but
he could tell them that they, the ministers of Christ under the
New Covenant could also live off tithes and offerings, as full
time workers, also.
All this being the case, Paul goes on to tell them in verse 15
that he and Barnabas, DID NOT make "use of any of these
privileges" nor was he now writing to them to suggest that it
should NOW be so.
He further goes on to actually feel good about not living off
the Corinthian people. He is kind of proud about it in a correct
manner under the situation with the Corinthians (which comes out
a little more in certain things he says to them in the letter to
them that we call 2 Corinthians). He mentions that he is
compelled, as one chosen by God, to preach the Gospel, no matter
what, under any circumstance, whether he likes it or not, but it
is better to have a happy positive mind-set, in so being called
to preach the Gospel.
In verse 18 he does tell them that the situation while living
among them, does give him a kind of "kick" and a special "reward"
within himself, for he was able to serve them, teach them, guide
them, lead them, in the good news of salvation in God through
Christ Jesus, WITHOUT having to take anything physical from them.
He was able to do all this while he supported himself by working
at a secular job. And all of that circumstance did give him some
added satisfaction, for he could truly say that to them he gave
the Gospel FREELY and without charge.
REVEALING INSIGHT IN 2 CORINTHIANS
Once more I quote from the AMPLIFIED BIBLE as they seem to
catch the very essence of what Paul was really saying to the
Corinthians. This many sided apostle you will notice could be
very blunt and sarcastic at times, when he felt it necessary.
Remember he was inspired in all he wrote by the Holy Spirit. All
capitals are mine.
" I wish you would bear with me while I indulge in a little
(so-called) foolishness. Do bear with me!........But (now) I am
fearful........For (you seem readily to endure it) if a man
comes and preaches another Jesus than the One we preached, or if
you receive a different spirit.......or a different
gospel.......you TOLERATE (all that) well enough! Yet I
consider myself as in no way inferior to these (precious)
EXTRA-SUPER (FALSE) apostles.......But did I perhaps make a
mistake and do you a wrong in debasing and cheapening myself so
that you might be exalted and enriched in dignity and honor and
happiness by preaching God's Gospel WITHOUT EXPENSE to you?
OTHER CHURCHES I HAVE ROBBED BY ACCEPTING (more than their
share of) SUPPORT FOR MY MINISTRY (from them in order) TO SERVE
YOU.
And when I was WITH YOU and ran SHORT FINANCIALLY, I DID NOT
BURDEN ANY (of you), for what I LACKED was abundantly made up BY
THE BRETHREN who came from Macedonia.
SO I KEPT MYSELF FROM BEING BURDENSOME TO YOU IN ANT WAY, and
will continue to keep (myself from being so).
As the truth of Christ is in me, this boast (of independence)
shall not be debarred (silenced or checked) in the regions of
Achaia (most of Greece)........But what I do, I will continue to
do, (for I am determined to maintain this independence) in order
to cut off the claim of those who would like (to find an occasion
and incentive) to claim that in their boasted (mission) they work
on the same terms that we do. For such men are FALSE apostles
(spurious, counterfeits), deceitful workers, masquerading as
apostles.......(For) since many boast of worldly things and
according to the flesh, I will glory (boast) also. For you
READILY and GLADLY BEAR WITH the foolish, since you are so smart
and wise yourselves. For you ENDURE IT if a man assumes CONTROL
of your souls and makes slaves of you, or DEVOURS (YOUR
SUBSTANCE, SPENDS YOUR MONEY) and preys upon you, or deceives and
takes advantage of you, or is arrogant and puts on airs, or
strikes you in the face.
To my discredit, I must say, we have shown ourselves too weak
(for you to show such tolerance of us and for us to do strong,
courageous things like that to you)!........." ( 2 Cor.11:1-21,
pertinent verses to our topic).
Paul uses some "foolish" talk as he says, but asks them to
bear with it. The digging sarcasm and tongue in cheek speech he
uses towards them at times, comes through loud and clear.
He tells them that they seem eager to listen to, and even
embrace the preaching and teaching of, what to Paul are clearly
false ministers and false apostles. He tells them that perhaps he
made a mistake in teaching and preaching the Gospel to them at
HIS expense, and costing them nothing at all. He was able to do
this because not only did he and Barnabas work at secular jobs
(this he told them in the letter we call 1 Corinthians),
but when low in physical funds, he accepted physical help from
those who came from Macedonia, even when for them it was over and
above what they could give, hence much like robbing them. All
this so he could keep himself from being a burden (you can see
the tongue in cheek here, as he knew they were willing to give
physical materials to false apostles)to them.
Paul tells them he will continue to so live towards them, to
maintain his independence from them as he still gives the Gospel
and the Word of the Lord to them. In so doing this it will also
have another benefit Paul goes on to inform them. It will cut
off the claim of those false minsters who would claim that they
also work on the same basis of preaching the Gospel to them
(free) as he and Barnabas did.
In the last verses we looked at, Paul really lays the sarcasm
on thick and heavy. Read verses 19 and 20 again. You can just see
the sarcasm dripping from Paul's mouth, as he tells them they are
so smart and so wise that they bear well with the foolish false
apostles. They are so wise, Paul says, they allow these fellows
to make slaves of them, and to devour and spend their material
goods and money, even with such control that they can stand up
with arrogance and strike them in the face.
Paul keeps up the sarcasm by telling them that he and Barnabas
showed themselves too weak in this regard. He is with tongue in
cheek telling them that perhaps Barnabas and he should have acted
like those false apostles towards them, and then they would not
have had to hold down a secular job to support themselves, and
taken from the brethren in Macedonia, but could have abusingly
lived off their material goods and money, like the precious
extra-super false apostles were doing.
I hope you can now see that Paul only held down a secular job
WHEN he felt it was necessary under the situation he was in at
any one particular time during his ministry of teaching and
preaching the Gospel of Christ.
Paul was not above receiving material and financial help from
those who with a loving and kind and generous heart, would give
it to him.
I hope you can now see that MOST of the apostles, brothers of
Christ, and Peter, are shown by Paul to have had wives that went
with them in their work of preaching the Gospel, and that such
did not have secular jobs, but LIVED OFF the children of God they
were teaching and serving as they went about their ministry in
the Word of the Lord.
I hope you can now see that it was quite within the rights of
those serving in the priesthood of Christ to do so full time, as
the people of God chose and decided to give all of their tithes
and offerings to that priesthood, or part of those tithes and
offerings, if they also so chose to give part to God's priesthood
that was still functioning in the Temple at Jerusalem. Either
way, it was within the law of God that the ministers of the New
Covenant Church of God should not have to work at a secular job,
but if possible be supported in a physical way by the people of
God.
Paul and Barnabas only worked at a secular job while serving
in preaching the Gospel to others, when those they were teaching
would not give to them of their physical material goods, so they
could teach them full time.
....................................
Written October 1999
Tithing? #7Is the law of tithing for us today? 1 Corinthians 9:13,14
by
Keith Hunt
Some say that these verses in 1 Corinthians chapter nine have
nothing to do with tithing nor would any of Paul's readers have
thought he possibly was referring to tithing. I disagree with
such a view. I believe and I submit to you that many of Paul's
readers would have taken these verses by Paul as believing he was
indeed referring to the tithing law, and giving support in so
doing that those preaching the gospel under the New Covenant age
of the Church of God, could indeed live off the tithes and
offerings of those receiving that preaching and instruction of
the NT Gospel.
We have seen in part six of this study that Paul is here in
chapter nine, proving to the Corinthians that Barnabas and he had
the right and the authority to NOT work at a secular job, but to
be full time in the work of the Gospel ministry as was many
others. In the preceding verses leading up to verses 13 and 14 he
had shown from different examples that it was quite right and
proper for workers in the Gospel ministry to be paid for their
work, hence to live off the material goods of those receiving the
Gospel.
When he gives the example of the OT Temple and those working
in its function, and serving at the altar, in verse 13, his
readers could easily look back in the books of Moses and read all
the words of the Lord regarding all the laws concerning that work
of the Temple and altar. His readers would plainly see that those
doing the full time work in the Temple lived off what the people
brought to the Temple. They would read the people brought their
TITHES AND OFFERINGS to the Temple.
They would plainly see that in this example Paul was referring
to people living off the tithes and offerings of those coming to
the Temple to worship God.
Paul gives no qualifying statement. He does not go on to say
anything like: "But that law does not apply to the NT Gospel
workers, as no tithing is to be done to the NT Church of God."
Paul does NOT qualify in any way, what he has just told them. He
has led them to see the laws of the Temple under Moses, laws of
tithing and offering, and those living off that law. He has
drawn their minds to the law of tithing and offering, and just
leaves them with it, never comes close to qualifying it in any
way. He then immediately goes on to tell them what the Lord has
ordained in verse 14. He tells them that it is the will of the
Lord that those who preach the Gospel should live off the Gospel.
Paul, in taking them back to the verses in the OT concerning
the Temple and altar, which revolved around the people bringing
their tithes and offerings there, had a wonderful opportunity to
state to the NT church something like: "But I want you to
remember that I'm not saying NT Christians should tithe, because
the law of tithing is done away" or "This does not mean we in the
Church of God should tithe because that is only for those under
the Old Covenant and still supporting the Temple in Jerusalem,
but we can give whatever and whenever to the work of the Lord
Jesus Christ."
I submit to you that MANY reading what Paul said, without any
qualifying words whatsoever, would have taken those words of Paul
as that he was meaning and teaching that tithes and offerings
should still be done by the people of God in the New Covenant
age, and ministers of the Gospel could be full time, being
supported by those tithes and offerings so being given to the
Church of God, as well as to the Temple priesthood.
As Paul gave no qualifying remarks, I submit that many,
especially the new Gentile converts, would have thought this way:
If they had not been too conversant with the Scriptures of the
Lord (what today we call the Old Testament), many of these
Gentiles would have gone searching for those passages in
connection with what Paul was relating them to. They would have
found the passages on what and how those Temple and altar workers
partook of. They would have found the laws regarding tithes and
offerings that the people were to bring to the Temple as worship
towards God.
Is it not logic that many of those Gentiles would have said to
themselves: "Paul has led us to the laws of tithes and offerings,
and those who could live off such as came into the Temple, and
then he tells us its the will of God for today that those
preaching and teaching the Gospel, should also live off those
receiving the Gospel. We then should be doing the same as the
example he gave us. We should give tithes and offerings to the
Gospel ministry of Christ, so some can work full time in that
Gospel service, and live off the tithes and offerings being
given."
I submit that MANY, especially the Gentiles, would have so
reasoned in their minds when reading those two verses as given by
Paul, without him adding any qualifying remarks. I submit it
would have been plain logic that many would have so thought and
understood and reasoned.
I submit that many would have believed Paul was saying it was
correct and right to give tithes and offerings to the work and
the Gospel of Christ, so some could be employed full time in the
work of that Gospel, just as it was correct and right that tithes
and offerings were given to the OT Temple and priesthood, so some
could be full time in the service of the Temple function.
I submit that many individual people would have so understood
Paul as teaching this in those two verses, and would then have
set their mind so. Would have set their mind to tithe and give
offerings to the Church of God. And in many cases this would have
been a personal practice without anyone knowing.
Whatever money and physical goods were coming into any local
church, would very unlikely have be turned down or refused. It
would be very unlikely that anyone asked if it was a tithe, part
of a tithe, or an offering. I'm sure if Paul was given money or
goods from someone he received it with thankfulness, and never
asked if it was a tithe, part of a tithe, or a free will
offering.
Surely Paul knew that by stating what he did in verses 13 and
14, without qualifying it in any way, he would have some
believing the laws of tithing and offerings were still in
effect. And surely he must have also realized that his example
would have led many to now tithe and give offerings to the Church
of God if they so desired and not to the Temple, in order that
"they which preach the gospel should live off the gospel."
We never find any minister of the Gospel ever asking anyone if
what they were giving to the Church was a tithe, or part of, so
they could tell them not to tithe because it was "done away with"
or because tithes still had to go to the Temple and the Temple
only.
Paul may not have directly in these verses been telling people
to tithe to the Church of God, but with no qualifying words to
the contrary, I'll bet many were indeed led to continue tithing,
and to the Church of God, just as many in Judaism continued to
tithe to the Temple.
.....................................
Written November 1999
Tithing? #8Is the law of tithing for us today? WHERE DO WE KEEP THE FEASTS
TODAY and what about a Feast
TITHE?
by
Keith Hunt
A question has been posed, and an answer desired. The question:
"Another reason for keeping the Feast is to know where is 'the
place which He shall choose to place His name,' Deuteronomy
14:23. In Samuel's day it was Shiloh, 1 Samuel 1:3; Judges 18:31.
God later chose Jerusalem, Deut.12:5; Ps.78:68; 2 Chron.7:12; but
Christ prophesied of a time when Jerusalem would not be the place
of worship, John 4:20-21. In the future, Jerusalem will again be
chosen, Zech.2:12...... So where is God's place today for keeping
the Feast?....."
It has also been wondered what the implication of this statement
is: "The Feast forces us to prove.....which group is the true
Church......for only they will be keeping the Feast at
'the place which He shall choose to place His name there.' "
Then it has also been posed: "If a woman at a well this year
would ask Jesus where God had 'placed His name,' I wonder what He
would tell her."
Ah, GOOD QUESTIONS, many may have wondered, many may still be
wondering. These questions need to be answered, and they can be
answered.
We shall first notice from what is given above, God can and has
decided to CHANGE locations as to where to place His name from
time to time. Under the OLD Covenant we see the Lord chose TWO
locations - Shiloh and Jerusalem after Israel entered the land
of promise. Before that, and as Israel moved around in the desert
for 40 years, God placed His name in many different places as the
tabernacle tent moved and was pitched along the 40 year journey.
We need to keep in mind the Old Testament (OT) is the Old
Testament or Covenant, not the New Testament (NT). Now that
should be simple enough, but many get into sticky mud because
they carry questions from the OT over into the NT, believing they
should still apply, without asking the question "does the NT show
the question does not apply?"
Take the example of physical circumcision. If we apply the law of
the OT without noting the teaching of the NT on the matter, we
could believe circumcision is "a must" as it was
under the OT. So it is with the question of "where today has God
placed His name for keeping the Feast."
We need to remember also that under the OT it was not just ONE
feast that God placed His name in a certain location, but ALL
THREE FESTIVAL SEASONS! Remember Deut.16 and note verse 16. See
also Exodus 23:14-17.
The questions above want to zero in on the Feast, namely, feast
of Tabernacles, but God had THREE pilgrim festival seasons under
the OT, not just one. God placed His name at a certain location
for the people of Israel to come and worship Him during THREE
feast seasons, not just Tabernacles.
Our question is a little off centre to begin with if we are
trying to use a law under the OT to apply under the NT. Does the
majority of the Leviticus 23 festival observing Churches
of God today, observe the Passover and Pentecost feasts (even
Trumpets and Atonement) in specially called feast sites, like
they practice with Tabernacles? NO THEY DO NOT!
It is rather poor theology to try and claim the festival
observing Churches of God are obeying the Old Covenant law
regarding "where God has placed His name" for in truth
they are not, or they are only obeying it by ONE THIRD. And how
can you obey only one third of a law and still be within the law?
How do I obey only a third of the law "thou shalt not commit
adultery."
So when it comes right down to it, most Churches of God who
observe the festivals of the Lord, have never practiced and
believed the law we are discussing from the OT is meant to be
carried over into and under the NT, for most have never
established special centres for THREE pilgrim festival seasons,
where at least the males are to attend.
UNDER THE NEW TESTAMENT
The NT shows quite clearly that from the time of the start of the
Spirit begotten Church of God on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2),
this law of the OT was CHANGED! It was not a law to be observed
as dogma and doctrine under the New Covenant.
Paul wrote his first letter to the church at Corinth to correct
them in many areas. In chapter 11 beginning with verse 17 he
corrects them on HOW to observe the Passover or Lord's death. You
will notice he says NOTHING about getting to Jerusalem, or any
words such as: Do you not know this is a pilgrim festival and you
should have all been in Jerusalem the only place at present where
God has placed His name.
No such words are found anywhere in the NT concerning the keeping
of God's feasts because all knew it was correct under the New
Covenant to observe the festivals of the Lord ANYWHERE God's
people were living.
Notice 1 Cor.16 and verse 8. Paul and company were going to stay
at Ephesus, not Jerusalem, for the celebration of the feast of
Pentecost. They knew the law of three pilgrim festivals to only
one place where God had placed His name, a law under the Old
Covenant was NOT in effect under the New Covenant - they knew it
had been CHANGED!
Turn to Acts 20 and read verse 6. Again Paul, Luke (who wrote
Acts) and company stayed at Philippi to observe the feast of
Unleavened Bread. Paul was personally taught by Christ Himself
(Gal.1:11-12) and obviously just from the examples so far seen,
Paul knew the law of three pilgrim festivals to Jerusalem was not
a law under the New Covenant, but that law had been changed to
allowing the feasts to be observed ANYWHERE God's people were
living. I guess so, the Gospel was to go to the world, how would
it be possible for those in the British Isles, to travel three
times a year to observe the festivals at Jerusalem? Remember they
only had horse and buggy as their fastest means of
transportation.
Certain CHANGES to old covenant laws regarding the observance of
the festivals was necessary under a worldwide era of the calling
of God's children from all nations of the earth.
Do we teach today that it is still the law of God to be observed
by everyone worldwide, that each should keep the feast of
Tabernacles LIVING IN BOOTHS OR TENTS made from the branches of
trees or the like? No we do not! If we did I think we would all
end up observing the feast in Florida, South Texas, or southern
California. I would sure pity those up in Alaska if we did. The
kids and old people would end up in the main not looking forward
to the fall festivals if we could only live in tents in Alaska,
and other northern lands.
Galatians is revealing. Notice chapter one and verses 15 through
24. When Paul was called and converted he did not go to Jerusalem
FOR THREE YEARS! He was in Arabia and Damascus (verse 17). When
he did go to Jerusalem he only stayed a short time, a very short
time, then went to the regions of Syria and Cilicia.
Did Paul observe the festivals of God during those three years?
Oh, you bet he did, but obviously NOT in Jerusalem. The law of
"the place where God has placed His name" had been changed.
Then look at Gal.2:1. It would seem from this that Paul did not
go to Jerusalem again until 14 YEARS LATER! Did he observe the
festivals of the Lord during all those years? Yes indeed, but not
in Jerusalem. He observed them wherever he was with God's people
wherever they were.
Sure there were times when he wanted to be in Jerusalem to
observe a feast of God (Acts 18:21; 20:16), but the contexts show
there were also others reasons he wanted to be in Jerusalem. It
was a case of killing two birds with one stone. We have clearly
seen he felt he was under no "law obligation" to observe a law of
the OT that had been changed under the NT.
We need also to remember that the Jews themselves were scattered
far and wide in the "dispersion." Most of them only got to
Jerusalem to observe a festival of God a few times in their life,
sure did not make the journey three times a year, or it would
have been a full time job for them to have tried.
Did those Jews in the far reaches of the Roman Empire observe the
feasts of God WHERE THEY WERE LIVING? History proclaims loud and
clear - YES THEY DID!
Did God rain fire and brimstone down upon their heads for not
getting to Jerusalem three times a year, or even once a year at
the time of the fall festivals? No, He did not! The truth is the
old law under the Old Covenant HAD ALREADY BEEN CHANGED WHEN
GOD'S PEOPLE WERE LIVING BEYOND THE LAND OF PALESTINE.
And that is why Jesus answered the woman at the well the way He
did. Many have missed it. Notice, in the context of whether God
was to be worshipped in this mountain or that mountain, this city
or that city, Jesus answered the woman with these words: "But
the hour comes (sure did in 70 A.D.), AND NOW IS," yes right at
the time Jesus was speaking, then at that time, "when the true
worshippers shall worship the father in spirit and in truth; for
the father seeks such to worship Him"(John 4:23).
Aaaahhhh, indeed as someone has already said, God has placed His
name to worship Him in His festivals "WHERE TWO OR THREE ARE
GATHERED TOGETHER IN MY NAME, THERE I AM IN THE MIDST OF THEM"
(Mat.18:19,20).
The life and examples of the great apostle Paul (a man directly
taught by Christ) prove beyond any doubt that God's Festivals can
be observed under the New Covenant ANYWHERE on this good green
earth, ANYWHERE God's people are gathered together to worship Him
in Spirit and in Truth, for that is the really important matter
today, not the physical location.
If a woman at a well this year would ask Jesus where God had
"placed His name" NOW WHAT DO YOU THINK HE WOULD TELL HER?
FEAST TITHE ?
We have clearly seen that under the New Covenant the Feasts of
God were kept LOCALLY. There is not one word about the NT Church
of God coming together as in Acts 15 and making plans for certain
towns or resort areas to be where the people of the Church would
congregate for the three festival seasons, or for the Feast of
Tabernacles as the years end harvest was completed.
It is quite obvious that the city of Jerusalem was no longer
considered THE MUST place to be for any of God's three festival
seasons. The life of Paul as a minister in the NT Church of God
proves this point without question, as we have seen above. Also
the Church's teaching that offering animal sacrifices by
individuals at the Temple in Jerusalem was not required, as a
must way of life, as under the Old Covenant, would have added
yet more reason not to be in any hurry to be in Jerusalem for the
Festivals. But, we shall remember that many Christians (from Jews
and Gentiles) did attend at Jerusalem at the Feast times, though
not because they were called to be there and no where else, but
because Jerusalem had such an historic connection with Judah and
with it being for centuries "the only place" where God had placed
His name, until that is, the New Covenant had arrived with John
the Baptist and Jesus Christ.
Under the Old Covenant the saving of a second or Festival tithe
was for the reason of going to the place where God had placed His
name, three times a year, to observe the Feasts of the Lord and
to sacrifice at the Temple. Under the New Covenant BOTH of
these physical laws were changed, one to worshipping God in
"spirit and in truth" anywhere, and the other to "spiritual"
sacrifices.
With these changes the saving of a second or feast tithe became
redundant. It became unnecessary.
This does not mean you cannot go to somewhere other than your
local town or area to observe a Feast of God. Of course not, for
under the New Covenant and the liberty that is in Christ Jesus,
you may save as little or as much money to go as near or as far
as you so desire, to observe any Feast of the Lord. It just
means you have liberty and freedom as they never had under the
Old Covenant, as it is written, "For where the Spirit
of the Lord is there is liberty" (2 Cor.3:17).
.............................................
Written November 1999
The Greatest "Turnoff" in Religion!But IMPORTANT in God's eyesby George H. Kemnitz
Do you dare read this penetrating article? This subject could
offend you, as it has millions! yet it is one of the most
important topics for today's Christian.
People talk about it all the time. Housewives talk about it.
Husbands talk about it. Our children talk about it. Employers
talk about it. Employees talk about it. It's constantly being
talked about on television, on radio, and in magazines and
newspapers. Schools talk about it. Government talks about it.
Business talks about it. But as soon as Religion talks about
money - everyone, it seems, gets turned off!
When Religion brings up the subject of money, people get
edgy. They feel uncomfortable. They squirm in their seats.
People even get upset, and sometimes hostile. And, usually
always, suspicious. When a minister of the Gospel talks
about needs, money, stewardship, or giving, immediately people
react negatively. "Ah-hal He's after my money!"
Why the negative attitude? Why the "turn off"? Why the
inordinate suspicion?
People will spend literal hours in front of their TV sets,
watching and listening to multiple billions of dollars of
advertisements - and subjecting themselves to every conceivable
sales gimmick and psychology. And do they become upset, edgy,
angry? Do they squirm in their chairs? Do they become suspicious
and hostile because these commercials are "after their money"?
No! They accept these frontal attacks on their personal
pocketbooks as a normal and natural part of life. They actually
enjoy many of the ads (though some can be awfully demeaning and
insulting to our intelligence). They sing the snappy jingles as
they reach into their pockets and purses to spend their
hard-earned dollars on everything from soaps and cereals to
expensive automobiles.
You know, when you think about it, you can hardly avoid
contact with people who are "after your money" - even in the
privacy of your own home. Whether from the TV tube, or the radio,
or the daily newspaper, the magazines you read, or the
advertisements that come direct to your door in the daily mail -
you just can't escape. You can't leave your home to get away from
it either. Billboards, gas prices, food stores, appliance stores,
furniture stores, car dealers, restaurants, quick-food chains -
on every side, from every angle, you are being bombarded with
every imaginable notice, sign, request, plea, or demand - for
your money.
Let's face it. The whole world is after your money.
And you do have money to spend! The question is where, and on
what, do you spend yours? And where does God fit in the picture?
I'm not sure why the subject of money in the context of religion
is the greatest turn-off topic. Maybe it's because people have
heard about, or personally experienced, religious hucksters. (As
though there are no hucksters on the TV tube, no deception in
advertising, business, government....).
Almost two thousand years ago, Jesus did warn us that there
would be many false prophets in this world, many wolves in
sheep's clothing, many religious deceivers misleading many. But
do many false Christs eliminate the existence of the one real
Messiah? Does the existence of a hundred false churches mean
there is no true religion on earth? Do the 450 priests of Baal
nullify the presence and work of God's true servants (see 1 Kings
18)? Absurd reasoning.
Maybe people resent the mention of money with religion
because they feel intimidated when God's name is used in the
money appeal. Strange how people resent the thought that God
might want to reach His finger into their pockets to further His
righteous purposes when they wouldn't blink an eye to spend all
their money for personal entertainment, personal needs, wants,
whims, desires, and luxuries. To use the name of God in a money
appeal is unforgiveable - to use sex, lust, power, and deception
is "smart advertising." Why do people think nothing of spending
their dollars in direct response to today's misleading,
deceitful, half-statement commercial propaganda - why do they
consider it normal to be easily led by the profit-motivated ploys
and appeals of advertisers who claim no association with God,
truth, honesty, morality, ethics, or service - yet pinch their
pennies when it comes to giving to God for His holy, righteous,
just causes?
Maybe because churches are somehow supposed to be connected
with God and all, they shouldn't have any need of money - or at
least they shouldn't talk about it. (Ask God for it, some say -
as though God doesn't live in and work through human beings in
fulfilling His purposes here on this earth.)
I don't know why for sure, but it is obvious that people are
highly sensitive about the subject of money - in the field of
religion. People would rather you just not talk about it.
But Jesus Christ talked about money quite often - openly and
in public - and without apology. (Should it have been any other
way?) And His statements were quite bold. They were direct. And
plain! "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth ... but
lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor
rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor
steal" - "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also"
- "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one,
and love the other: or else he will hold to the one, and despise
the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon" - "Take no thought for
your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink ... O ye of
little faith" - "After all these things do the Gentiles seek" -
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and
all these things shall be added unto you" (Matthew 6:19-34).
And the Apostle Paul talked about money, and about giving to
the work of the ministry - even to those suspicious Christians
who questioned his sincerity and withheld their support from his
evangelistic and pastoral work. "This is my defense to those who
would examine me. Do we not have the right to our food and drink?
Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife ... ? Or is
it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working
for a living? Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who
plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Who tends a
flock without getting some of the milk? Do I say this on human
authority! Does not the law say the same? For it is written in
the law of Moses, 'You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading
out the grain.' Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not
speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because
the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope
of a share in the crop. If we have sown spiritual good among you,
is a too much if we reap your material benefits? If others share
this rightful claim upon you, do not we still more?" (1 Cor.
9:3-12, RSV). In verse 14, Paul stated quite emphatically, "The
Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get
their living by the gospel."
Despite the many clear Scriptural teachings on the Christian
responsibility to generously support God's ministry on earth, the
subject of money remains the number ONE "Turn Off Topic" in
Religion to this very day.
In Matthew 6, Jesus taught an importent principle: our
giving should be "to God." Doing your giving "to God" (to where
you honestly feel God is working) is an important key in
Christian stewardship. Many think of their giving as "to men" or
"to organizations" - then later, if some of these humans turn out
to be less than what they thought them to be, or even insincere
and dishonest in some cases, these people often stop giving
entirely. But a true Christian should never stop giving to God.
His understanding of God or God's will may change. His
understanding of where God is more perfectly working may grow -
or change completely. After all, all of us have imperfect
knowledge. We can never "check out" everything perfectly, or be
absolutely certain of every man or organization.
But the important thing is that you are honest and sincere
with God. That you continue faithfully serving His will and
supporting His purposes - as best you see where they are being
done at the time. Your understanding may change. Humans and
organizations may change. But God is unchanging and true forever.
If a Christian truly were giving "to God" in his heart and mind,
he would not stop giving entirely because he discovered he had
been supporting a false work, church, or ministry. He would not
take out his disappointment, anger, or bitterness on God. God is
not to blame. Instead, the true Christian would diligently seek
where God is working, and redirect his giving there. For it was
Jesus who taught us to give "to God" and lay up "treasures in
heaven," not on earth.
It is the responsibility of every person on earth to
recognize that our Creator is a living God who is not dead or far
off someplace, but actively carrying out His Divine Purposes
through His servants on earth. It is the duty of every Christian
to serve God with his substance, by giving to those who are
actively engaged in fulfilling God's spiritual purposes in these
troublesome times.
Where on earth is God working? Through whom is He
accomplishing His will? .... But these are questions each one of
us must answer and decide.
Is it possible for us to put aside the emotional
sensitivities and personal biases on this subject and approach it
as we would any other petition for money - whether on a TV
commercial or in a store? Can we side-step the
emotionally-charged negativism, step back into the cool, calm,
clear logic of reason, and consider the subject of money for
religion in unemotional, objective terms? I hope so. Because if
you give to God, what you give, how you give, and in what
attitude, are all very important.
Remember, it is to God that your devotion, service, time,
talent, and substance must be directed. We do not give of
ourselves to please men - but to serve them and to please God.
The following questions are ones that every person must
eventually face and answer - first, hopefully, to himself; later,
assuredly, to his Maker. You need not answer any of these
questions for me. For it is God, after all, who is your Judge
(Rom.14:10-12; James 4:11-12). I am not your judge - nor is your
brother. So don't worry about what others may think. But it is
important for each one of us to face these questions personally,
honestly, and conscientiously - so we all can boldly stand before
the judgment seat of Christ and give account for our every answer
and action.
The following sequence of questions is given here to help
you clearly and logically approach this delicate subject in the
hope that you will strengthen your commitment and your personal
relationship with God. I hope you will think each one of these
questions through carefully, with meditation, prayer, and study -
so that you will not only have a clear answer to each question,
but also specific, objective reasons for every answer.
1. SOMETHING OR NOTHING?
The first question to be considered by anyone is whether or not
he intends to give anything to God at all? Will he give something
or nothing? And why?
2. CONSISTENT OR INCONSISTENT?
If he recognizes the responsibility of giving financially, the
next questions he faces are: how much and how often? Will he give
just once in his lifetime, once a year, sporadically, whenever he
feels like it, whenever he's "forced" into it, whenever he's
asked, whenever he's trying to "impress God" (or men), whenever
he needs God? Or, will he give consistently and regularly? Are
you dependable? Can God count on you? How does God give to you to
provide your physical and spiritual needs?
3. OFF THE TOP OR THE BOTTOM?
The best way to give consistently, according to how God has
blessed us, is to return to God a portion of everything He gives
to us.
The next, natural question is: how much? But before someone can
even answer that, he must decide whether he is going to put God
first by giving the first to Him, or whether he will give God
what is convenient or left over after covering other obligations
and interests. Will he give God the first or the last - will he
give "off the top" or "off the bottom" according to what is left
over, if anything is left over.
Proverbs 3:9 tells us, "Honour the Lord with thy substance, and
with the fist-fruits of all thine increase." God deserves the
first and the best we have to offer. Please read Haggai 1.4-9 and
Malachi 1:6-8, 12-14 to see what God thinks when we offer Him the
"leftovers." Putting God first is the message of Matthew 6:19-33
and of the first, Great Commandment of Matthew 22:37-38.
4. A VARYING AMOUNT OR A FIXED AMOUNT?
Next logical step: will he give to God a different amount each
week or month, according to his fluctuating needs, bills, and
desires? Or, will he commit a portion of his income to serving
God first, setting a specific figure that belongs to God and His
purposes before the physical and personal expenses of life and
pleasure? (If a special need arises in God's work, one can always
give beyond what he determined to give to God regularly.
Conversely, if an unusual need arises in his personal life, he
can temporarily give less than the amount he fixed. But one's
regular, normal giving should be consistent).
5. WHAT PERCENTAGE?
If a Christian determines to (1) give to God, (2) consistently,
(3) putting Him first in his life, and (4) committing a regular,
dependable amount according to his personal income, then (6) what
amount should he set in his budget for God? The Bible teaches
many principles on giving that should guide us in this decision
...
But whatever the amount is - and whatever the criteria,
circumstances, Scriptural teachings and examples used to make
that decision - it is important to recognize that that amount is,
in fact, a certain percentage of your income. You are giving
either 2 per cent, 6 per cent, 10 per cent, 12 per cent -
whatever the ratio is between what you receive of God and what
you return to God. God does notice how and how much you give
(Mark 12:41-44; Acts 10:4). And we all will give account to God
for our actions, explaining to Him the Scriptural principles and
personal factors on which we based our decisions.
We cannot fool God. For He knows that "where your treasure
is, there will your heart be also" (Matt.6:21) and that
"whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that
soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he
that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life
everlasting" (Gal 6:7-8). "Be not deceived; God is not mocked."
If you have read this article, Congratulations! After all,
this is the "Greatest Turn Off Topic in Religion."
But this is more than something to just read or think about.
Why not make some decisions? Take some action now. God will
reward you. And you'll never again squirm in your chair when a
minister talks about money.
If you have in any way seriously considered some of the
principles and points discussed in this article, you owe it to
yourself (and your God) to read more about what the Bible says on
this subject.
...............
Entered on my website April 2008
NOTE:
This article was taken from "IMPACT For Today's World" magazine
way back in the 1980s. It's been in my file cabinet ever since
In your decision to give of your money to serve God in serving
people of this world, I do also want you to note from the
Gospels, the account of the rich young man who came to Jesus
asking what he needed to do to have eternal life (Mat.19:16-22).
The bottom line was that this rich man needed to sell his riches
and GIVE IT TO THE POOR!!
First. This was a unique situation here. Jesus knew the heart of
this man. He knew that for HIM this was the correct way to go,
for his wealth had become his "god." This example does NOT mean
every person has to sell and give away all material things they
have and serve Jesus as a missionary. Of course it does not mean
that, as the rest of the Bible would clearly teach. Few are
called to be a wandering missionary of the Gospel.
Second. You will note the rich man was to give his wealth to the
POOR ... not the "church" in this case. Again, this does not mean
the "Church of God" is to recieve NOTHING, for the rest of the
Bible proves it is right and good for people to give to the work
of God. But this example does teach it is RIGHT and it is GOOD to
give to the POOR!!
So I challenge you, that in your giving you REMEMBER the POOR of
this world. There are MANY good and worthwhile "charities" out
there who serve the needs of the NEEDY and the POOR. Yes, you
need to be wise in your charity giving, to the best of your
ability you need to make sure the charity is doing good, using
the money it gets to really serve people, and not be using an
over-amount of its money on administration etc.
But I can tell you there are MANY charity works that ARE doing a
fine job of serving the poor and needy, you just have to be
willing to find them, watch for them as they, yes, as they also
advertize at times on the TV, Radio, and in Magazines, just like
Toothpaste companies do, or your local Real-estate company does.
DO NOT FORGET THE POOR! It is a teaching from one end of the
Bible to the other. Your SAVIOR taught it!!
Keith Hunt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment