BY THIS STANDARD-Greg L. Bahnsen

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I would hope so, the OT certainly condemned it, I was reading Nehemiah this morning and it was talking about that very issue and how Nehemiah made the people stop charging their brothers interest.

I think that the laws of the OT are the laws of love right? the commandment is fulfilled by the law of love.

I know you were.

That's why I'm bringing it up.

Isn't this contrary to current worldly "free market" philosophy regarding profit and lending?

[Aquila]

In addition, if the Reconstructionist didn't relegate the tithe to being an OT agrarian land tax that isn't applicable in the church and society today, they'd have to embrace the fullness of tithe teaching. Thus, they'd have to support the Levitical tithe, the Festival tithe, and... the Poor tithe. Would they not?

And if they argued for embracing the "principle" of the tithe... would they not have to embrace the "principle" behind the Poor tithe, which was to ensure that the poorest of the people were not left in utter destitution?

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Aquila

In addition, if the Reconstructionist didn't relegate the tithe to being an OT agrarian land tax that isn't applicable in the church and society today, they'd have to embrace the fullness of tithe teaching. Thus, they'd have to support the Levitical tithe, the Festival tithe, and... the Poor tithe. Would they not?

And if they argued for embracing the "principle" of the tithe... would they not have to embrace the "principle" behind the Poor tithe, which was to ensure that the poorest of the people were not left in utter destitution?

we would all have to become farmers so the fields could be gleaned. or, churches could all have food pantries and soup kitchens.

[Aquila]

My concern is that the Reconstructionist is picking and choosing what to apply in God's Law as it relates to the political philosophy of modern "conservatism"... while ignoring laws and principles that clearly challenge the modern notions of political conservatism and so called "free market" capitalism.

The Bible is older than both conservative and liberal constructs. And... if one is honest... the Bible takes a hard right on many issues... only to abruptly take a hard left. It is almost as if God's Law cannot be coopted by either side in it's entirety. It is a comprehensive Law in and of itself.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

we would all have to become farmers so the fields could be gleaned. or, churches could all have food pantries and soup kitchens.

True. Those are two ways of doing so. But in principle, God is saying that the entire nation has a moral responsibility, especially those with abundance (land owners and farmers), to ensure that none lack and perish in abject poverty. God's vision was that there be no poor in the land. It was Israel's greed and disregard for the Law that often brought destitution. Consider the rebuke of the nation from the prophet Amos. The entire book is essentially a social justice cry against the wealthy and the elders at the gate who colluded to deny the poor their rights and protections, and sell those in debt the price of a pair of shoes.

Ever notice the book of Amos is often never preached or spoken of in it's context or entirety? It would be a rather unpopular message today. It would challenge the injustices we see in our society, and confront both the right and the left with their foolishness and oppressive policies.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Amanah

we would all have to become farmers so the fields could be gleaned. or, churches could all have food pantries and soup kitchens.

Amanah, this is simply not true. It is an excuse for people who want to perpetuate the tithe upon the church of the NT. The OT had plenty of people who did not farm, raise herds and flocks. They did not tithe. There were plenty of occupations that were not commanded to tithe. One in particular is the occupation from which Jesus drew more apostles than any other. Fishermen. HMMM. Jesus selected non-tithers to be His apostles. Maybe there is some significance there?

[Aquila]

Unless we divorce the Law of God from being strictly favoring our notion of the "right" or the "left"... the fullness of it's message is muted.

It's a comprehensive law covering all aspects of society, including social justice for the poor, needy, widows, and orphans, etc.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Aquila

My concern is that the Reconstructionist is picking and choosing what to apply in God's Law as it relates to the political philosophy of modern "conservatism"... while ignoring laws and principles that clearly challenge the modern notions of political conservatism and so called "free market" capitalism.

The Bible is older than both conservative and liberal constructs. And... if one is honest... the Bible takes a hard right on many issues... only to abruptly take a hard left. It is almost as if God's Law cannot be coopted by either side in it's entirety. It is a comprehensive Law in and of itself.

yes, it takes the land into consideration with a Sabbath rest, it takes care for the poor and the animals, it give a chance for restitution, cities of refuge for manslaughter, makes negligence a crime, sets the death penalty for the most grievous of sins. God's law are just.

Even the tithes were awesome because the people came together to eat them in a festival/celebration. and the animal sacrifices covered sins, and also were eaten by the community.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Amanah, this is simply not true. It is an excuse for people who want to perpetuate the tithe upon the church of the NT. The OT had plenty of people who did not farm, raise herds and flocks. They did not tithe. There were plenty of occupations that were not commanded to tithe. One in particular is the occupation from which Jesus drew more apostles than any other. Fishermen. HMMM. Jesus selected non-tithers to be His apostles. Maybe there is some significance there?

That is absolutely correct. Many occupations were exempt from tithing because they had no connection with the land. Not to mention, the poor and needy were exempt from the tithe also. In fact, the tithe (every third years tithe) was to serve them.

[Aquila]

I also find it rather interesting that God forbade the Levites from having an inheritance in the land, leaving them vulnerable like the poor and needy. This was intended to keep them from being blinded by greed, and keep them sensitive to the needs of the most vulnerable of their society.

They received the tithe, like the poor and needy, because they were communal servants within their regions who didn't own land as did the other individual Israelites.

To own land, amass an inheritance, and draw a tithe from the people would be reprehensible. It would be fleecing the people, and only open the door for unchecked greed among the Levites.