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 go 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 Cor. 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
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment