Originally Posted by Tithesmeister
I'd like to address this issue first. I am calling this the Paul doctrine. I don't believe Paul is referring to tithes here. You asked for my opinion, so let me have at it. Just to tie this in with Brother Riggan, he says that Paul taught tithing and uses these scriptures. He says this at the one hour mark.
Is Paul talking about tithes here? I think not.
We know that Paul was well versed in the law. We also know that Paul was a Benjamite. Paul knew very well that he was not eligible to receive the tithe, because he was not a Levite. Paul also knew and contended that the Gentiles were not required to follow the law, this was established and confirmed both verbally and in writing as a result of the Council of Jerusalem. It is well established that there were four laws that were relevant to the Gentiles. These were prohibitions against fornication, eating blood, eating animals that had been strangled, and eating food offered to idols.
So Paul, knowing the law as he did, when he wanted to teach doctrine for supporting the ministry, talks about the ox?!
Why didn't he just quote the tithe law?
Why didn't he just talk about the Levites being supported by the tithe?
Why didn't he preach a sermon like Brother Riggan did?
Remember, he studied under Gamaliel. He was well-versed in the law. Yet he didn't just talk about the ox, he also talked about other professions . . .
7 Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?
He talked about the soldier, the husbandman of the vineyard, and the shepherd. What do the ox, Paul and these professions all have in common?
Anybody know?
None of them were eligible to receive tithes under the law. So why was Paul comparing the ox and these other professions with the ministry? I believe he was saying that he was to be supported by the church, it was only right, ministers have to survive somehow right? We often hear these arguments. Paul was pleading the case based on logic, not on law.
Except for the ox. The ox was law. So the ox is special. So let's talk about the ox. The law against muzzling the ox served a fairly obvious cause. The ox was able to eat as much as he wanted. In this wise the ox was like the Levites, and the widow, and the strangers, and the fatherless.
Deut.26
[12] When thou hast made an end of tithing all the tithes of thine increase the third year, which is the year of tithing, and hast given it unto the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, that they may eat within thy gates, and be filled;
Now these people and the ox, were all allowed to eat until they were satisfied. Let me ask a couple of questions about the ox.
Was the ox allowed to take all the wheat or barley back to the barn with him?
Was the ox allowed the tithe of the wheat or barley?
Was the ox allowed to sell the wheat or barley?
Paul wasn't known for being timid in his teaching. He was known for being well educated in the law. His education by Gamaliel was evidently a thing to be sought after. Yet the best he can do is talk about the ox and the soldier, and the shepherd, and the man over the vineyard?
Why was this the best he could do?
I believe it is because the tithing law could not be applied. Think about it.
|
Threaded Mode
