This morning's sermon on tithing

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Repent of lying to the people of God.

1.No superstition here "And as for the perfume which thou shalt make, ye shall not make to yourselves according to the q composition thereof: it shall be unto thee holy for the Lord. [38] Whosoever shall make like unto that, to smell thereto, shall even be cut off from his people." That's a curse.

2. On the second one totally relevant cuz we can see from scripture that it was before the law and Jew and Gentile both obeserved it. We have only one account that it was observed spelled out plainly, but that is still 1 more then you have against it. There is a first reference, that was before the law by a Gentile. And God never said only of the land of Israel they were in the wilderness when the law was given.

3. We can say that about the apothecary by first reference not the tithe, you have created a straw man out of that one. It is not even comparable due to the circumstances.

4. I'll give you a guess I have as much scripture of God telling them to do it before the law, as you have of Him telling them it was abolished after the law.

And I'm not teaching anything, I'm only showing you the flaws that are in the doctrine you are swearing to be the way, that can't be refuted. There is Hermeneutical holes in the whole argument. You have no biblical refutation on those grounds neither.

[1ofthechosen]

And you keep talking about hermeneutics I think this was a good thread you may have missed out on. Start there at the 2nd post:




http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=52557

Not that they maybe a good rule of thumb, but nowhere in the Bible are they taught as the Gospel. The were created by Theologians and historians overtime who were heaped in Philosophy. Many didn't even believe in God and were pagan. We can use them as a suggestion, but not as a absolute. If Jesus or even the Apostle Paul taught about them or even the principles of them it would be different. But when you do some research on who and where the laws of heremeneutics come from, they came from the same philosophical minds that brought you the Trinity and I don't ascribe to that either.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Repent of lying to the people of God.

Was this that Baptist church that your grandparents were associated with that you are attending? The Baptist pastor preached about tithing being OT law, and that you are all no longer to do it. Or they never tithed in that church? Do they have a community purse? Where everyone gives once a year, and a deacon board. Does the pastor draw a salary? Is the church a 501c3, or a 508 corp sole? I know these are a lot of questions many you might not be able to answer, but with this whole movement of no tithing and the other no giving (not implying that your church is leaning that way. Just wondering

[Tithesmeister]

Well, how bout that!

A tithing thread?

Count me in.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

And you keep talking about hermeneutics I think this was a good thread you may have missed out on. Start there at the 2nd post:




http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=52557

Not that they maybe a good rule of thumb, but nowhere in the Bible are they taught as the Gospel. The were created by Theologians and historians overtime who were heaped in Philosophy. Many didn't even believe in God and were pagan. We can use them as a suggestion, but not as a absolute. If Jesus or even the Apostle Paul taught about them or even the principles of them it would be different. But when you do some research on who and where the laws of heremeneutics come from, they came from the same philosophical minds that brought you the Trinity and I don't ascribe to that either.

Hermeneutics are simply the laws of interpretation. There is no hermeneutical law that states something mentioned prior to Leviticus is a universal, eternal command. If it is, then you had better start preaching circumcision as God actually commanded Abraham to perform it. In fact, you should also offer your firstborn as a blood sacrifice.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Was this that Baptist church that your grandparents were associated with that you are attending? The Baptist pastor preached about tithing being OT law, and that you are all no longer to do it. Or they never tithed in that church? Do they have a community purse? Where everyone gives once a year, and a deacon board. Does the pastor draw a salary? Is the church a 501c3, or a 508 corp sole? I know these are a lot of questions many you might not be able to answer, but with this whole movement of no tithing and the other no giving (not implying that your church is leaning that way. Just wondering

The entire sermon is attached to the OP. It will explain everything. My sojourn there is temporary and of necessity. But I also believe it is ordained of God. I rejoice every time I see that huge banner in the north wall of the sanctuary of Acts 2:38. We'll see what happens.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

1.No superstition here "And as for the perfume which thou shalt make, ye shall not make to yourselves according to the q composition thereof: it shall be unto thee holy for the Lord. [38] Whosoever shall make like unto that, to smell thereto, shall even be cut off from his people." That's a curse.

He was speaking specifically of an oil made BACK THEN for a specific purpose. If anyone misused THAT oil, they would be cursed. Again, this is simple hermeneutics.

2. On the second one totally relevant cuz we can see from scripture that it was before the law and Jew and Gentile both obeserved it. We have only one account that it was observed spelled out plainly, but that is still 1 more then you have against it. There is a first reference, that was before the law by a Gentile. And God never said only of the land of Israel they were in the wilderness when the law was given.

The fact that something was observed prior to the Law does not mean it was instituted by God. Again, simple hermeneutics.

3. We can say that about the apothecary by first reference not the tithe, you have created a straw man out of that one. It is not even comparable due to the circumstances.

"First reference" is a myth. God himself violated.

4. I'll give you a guess I have as much scripture of God telling them to do it before the law, as you have of Him telling them it was abolished after the law.

And I'm not teaching anything, I'm only showing you the flaws that are in the doctrine you are swearing to be the way, that can't be refuted. There is Hermeneutical holes in the whole argument. You have no biblical refutation on those grounds neither.

The refutation comes by way of the Law of which the tithe was a part being abolished. Furthermore, and as previously stated, this "before the Law" babble is a dumb argument.

You do not know how to rightly divide the word of truth.

[aegsm76]

The NT teaches that we owe all of our allegiance/money/life to Jesus.

You should be grateful if your pastor only teaches that you owe 10%!

Lol!

[Esaias]

Genesis 14:18-24 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. (19) And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: (20) And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all. (21) And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself. (22) And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, (23) That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich: (24) Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.

The tithe story usually begins here with Abraham giving tithes to Melchizedek. This is further elaborated upon by the apostle in his epistle to the Hebrews:

Hebrews 7:4-10 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. (5) And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham: (6) But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises. (7) And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. (8) And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. (9) And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. (10) For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

It is clear that Abraham gave tithes (tenths) to Melchizedek, the priest of God. The tithes were apparently taken from the spoils rather than from the goods that were recovered. The spoils would have been the "extras" that Abraham acquired in defeating the kings of the east, above and beyond the goods that were recovered. Those recovered goods were given back to their original owners, leaving the excess (the "spoils") from which a tenth was given to Melchizedek. Since the word tithes is plural, it seems that the spoils were divided into categories, and a tenth from each category was given. Whether the spoils included gold and other non-agricultural products we do not know.

Much ado is made of this story, but I think there is something that people miss. We may ask "Why does Moses include this particular anecdote concerning Abraham in his history of the Patriarchs?" It may be that Moses was intending to demonstrate that tithes were appropriately given to the priest of God, thus lending Patriarchal precedent for the Sinaitic regulations concerning tithing to the Levites and to the priests. But there is something that is brought forward by the apostle in his exposition of the Genesis account that many seem to overlook. Let's look a bit closer:

Hebrews 7:9-10 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. (10) For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

The apostle is saying that since Levi is descended from Abraham, and Abraham paid tithes, then Levi also (in a sense) paid tithes to Melchizedek. Now, Paul's purpose here of course is to show the superiority of the Melchizedek priesthood over that of the Levitical priesthood, and thus to show that Christ is a superior High Priest. But in doing so he reveals an idea, the idea that what a person does, his descendants do as well. It is the idea that there is a continuity between a person and their descendants, or between a person and his or her ancestors. This same concept is on display in Romans ch 5 where Paul speaks of Adam's relationship to mankind, and of Christ's relationship to mankind. "In Adam all die", expressing the idea that Adam's descendants somehow participated in Adam's disobedience. And "in Christ all shall be made alive", because by His act of obedience many are made righteous. In other words, what one does, the others do.

This of course does not mean that a person is "guilty" of some ancestor's sins, because Paul also says "for all have sinned". But this shows that by a person's act of sinning that person identifies with Adam and his sin, and participates in a sense with Adam. And thus, by having faith in Christ, we participate in a sense with Christ's act of obedience and thereby participate in the results of that obedience. This is also seen in Christ's condemnation of the scribes an Pharisees:

Matthew 23:29-32 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, (30) And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. (31) Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. (32) Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

Here, the Lord affirms that by their unbelief, the scribes and Pharisees participate in the unbelief and sin of their ancestors who killed the prophets. The point is, there is a definite connection between a person and their ancestor, ratified by that person's adoption or rejection of the ancestor's character, values, deeds, etc. This is important for understanding where tithing comes from as a "law" for Israel.

(con't in next post)

[Esaias]

(con't)

A lot of folks look at Jacob and his promise to tithe as a sort of template or example for us to follow today. However, I think most people really have no idea what is actually going on in the text. So let's look at it:

Genesis 28:10-22 And Jacob went out from Beersheba, and went toward Haran. (11) And he lighted upon a certain place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was set; and he took of the stones of that place, and put them for his pillows, and lay down in that place to sleep. (12) And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it. (13) And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; (14) And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. (15) And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of. (16) And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely the LORD is in this place; and I knew it not. (17) And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful is this place! this is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven. (18) And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it. (19) And he called the name of that place Bethel: but the name of that city was called Luz at the first. (20) And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, (21) So that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the LORD be my God: (22) And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee.

So what actually happened here? God first promises to Jacob to give him and his descendants the land of Canaan. He also promises to increase his descendants, and to keep him safe on his journeys, and to bring him back to the Promised Land. Most importantly, ask yourself What did God promise to give Jacob? The land of Canaan. And then in response, Jacob vows to give the tenth to God "of all that thou givest me". In other words, Jacob promised to give a tenth back to God of all that God gives him, which as we have seen was the land of Canaan. To make this clearer, Jacob is vowing to give a tenth of the produce of the promised land back to God.

Now, the record of Jacob's journeys and return to the land of Canaan is well known. What is not so well known is the fact there is no record of Jacob ever fulfilling his vow. In fact, there is evidence in Scripture that Jacob never did actually fulfill this vow, at least not upon his return. Remember, Jacob got rather rich working for Laban. He increased greatly in goods and cattle. Yet, there is no record of him offering tithes upon his return. After his run-in with the men of Shechem, he embarks on a pilgrimage back to Bethel (where he had made his vow), and there he sets up an altar and pours a drink offering and an oil offering. But no tithe! (see Genesis 35)

Now, we earlier asked "Why did Moses include the anecdote about Abraham and Melchizedek?" Let us ask the same question about Jacob and his vow of tithing. Remember, Jacob vowed to give a tithe of all that the Lord would give him. And what did the Lord promise to give him? the land of Canaan. So it is obvious why he did not tithe of anything that he got in Syria, while in Laban's employ. Because that cattle and wealth was not the product of the land which God promised to give Jacob. The vow concerned the land (and its produce) which God promised to give Jacob.

So why did Moses include this account? Along with no account whatsoever of Jacob ever paying his tithes and making good on his vow? Let's look at something Moses said about the tithe:

Leviticus 27:30 And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD'S: it is holy unto the LORD.

Leviticus 27:32 And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the LORD.

A lot of people think that God just sort of came up with the idea for a ten percent tax on agricultural products, as a nifty means of supplying the Levites and priests with their sustenance. But closer inspection reveals something else going on. God says the tithe is His, it is holy unto the Lord. Something that is holy to the Lord is holy because it has been dedicated to the Lord. Which is exactly what Jacob vowed.

God promised to give the land of Canaan to Jacob. And Jacob vowed to give back a tenth of that land's produce (crops and herds grown on that land). This means that the tithe or tenth of all agricultural produce (crops and herds) was already sacred, devoted to God, it already belonged to God. why? by a vow concerning those things made by Jacob.

Now, Jacob himself never actually inherited full ownership of the Promised Land. but his descendants did. The promise made to him was fulfilled by his descendants taking possession of the land from the Canaanites several centuries later. Here we see that God counts what Jacob's descendants would do as if Jacob did it (inheriting the land of Canaan). In other words, there is that continuity again, between a man and his descendants. A promise made to Jacob, God fulfills to his kids. And a vow made by Jacob, God requires the fulfillment of it from them.

Now we see why Moses included the story about Jacob's vow. It was in order to show the legal basis for God's claim on the tithe of the produce of the land of Israel. The tithe was required because Jacob, their ancestor had made a vow, and that vow was still binding on his descendants.

And now we understand why Malachi asked "Shall a man rob God of His tithes?" The tithes belonged to God because Jacob vowed them to God.

(con't in next post)