The Bible on the Practice of Tithing

don · 11-08-09 11:24 am

This thread carries forward the tithing discussion on another one. The purpose here is to examine the various texts which speak of the tithe. The question, "How should Christians relate to the Mosaic practice of tithing?" remains. Both this thread and the other one will do so, I presume.

don · 11-08-09 11:32 am

First Corinthians 9:1-14 In 1 Corinthians 9:1-14, Paul cites the Mosaic Temple system as a divine example of support for Gospel workers. For the record, here, again, is a study of that passage. <table border=1><tr><td>...........................First Corinthians 9</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>.....................Sands' Comments </TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>Paul establishes his position as a leader. </TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working?</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>Paul raises the right to preach the Gospel without having to work in some other way for money. </TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>7 Who ever goes to war at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock? </TD><TD>.</TD><TD>Paul presents non-scriptural arguments first: practices of war; farming, shepherding. The practice of benefiting from one's work for others is clear. </TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>8 Do I say these things as a mere man? Or does not the law say the same also?</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>He raises the authority level from nature to Scripture. </TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>9 For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.”[a] Is it oxen God is concerned about? 10 Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>The Ox should be allowed to benefit from the grain as it tread the grain. Also, "He says it altogether for our sakes." The Hebrew Bible is there for our sakes. Malachi is there for our sakes. God's plan to finance the Gospel finds its roots and rational in the Hebrew Bible and the Torah in particular. </TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things? 12 If others are partakers of this right over you, are we not even more?</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>Now he applies it. We have preached the Gospel to you. Don't we have a right to take up an offering? To receive tithe, or whatever? </TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>Nevertheless we have not used this right, but endure all things lest we hinder the gospel of Christ.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>But, Paul refused to take tithes and offerings from the people. He did not want money to get in the way of his work. </TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>13 Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar?</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>Paul refers here to the Levitical system. The Levite who administers the holy things eats of the temple. Those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings. As I consider the temple system, I note that it includes the tithe. The tithe was brought to the temple and given to the Levites there. </TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD>14 Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel.</TD><TD>.</TD><TD>Here is a clear mandate for Gospel finance and it comes out of natural observation and the divinely inspired practices of the Torah. Plus, "The LORD has commanded" it. As the Adventist Church seeks to implement the LORD's command on this, it seemed wise to them and the Holy Spirit, to establish the tithing principle. </TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD>.</TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD></td></tr></table>

don · 11-08-09 11:45 am

Some starting comments:

The tithing system as practiced by Israel is not the same as what the Adventist Church promotes today; except for these components:

1. It is understood to be one tenth;
2. It is considered to be for God's recognized workers.
3. The tithe is considered a necessary part of God's work.

elaine · 11-08-09 1:31 pm

Don, not one of the texts mentions tithing. To confuse tithe with offerings is slightly disengenueous: "tithe" means one-tenth; offering is never specified to the same extent.

Of course, Paul spoke of free-will offerings; tithe was always a specific amount, 10%, that was given to the Israelites. You have failed to give one single NT text that specifically says tithing is to be followed as it was in the Jewish economy. Were I a student in your class, I would have asked why "tithe" is in none of the texts; reading into Scripture what is not said is not following the best hermeneutics.

don · 11-08-09 2:35 pm

elaine wrote:

You have failed to give one single NT text that specifically says tithing is to be followed as it was in the Jewish economy.

I don't believe that tithing as it was managed in the Mosaic system (the Jewish economy) can be implemented in the Christian church. The Jewish tithe was for the Levites, usually. I believe that the idea of returning to God a tenth is a sound Biblical practice. The regulations spelled out don't work.

Adventists practice eating only clean meat. Yet, they don't follow all the Mosaic regulations related to such meats. I see tithing in a similar light. Just as eating only clean meats is for the health of the church; so, practicing tithing, or some sort of systematic giving, is for the financial health of the church.

In summary

1. I believe that 1 Corinthians 9 teaches that God commands that the Gospel workers be supported by the membership.
2. I believe that the tithing principle is a practical tool to reach the goal mentioned in #1.
3. If a person supports the workers in the Gospel in some other way than tithing, it would be incorrect to say that they are robbing God.
4. There exists no condemnation of the tithing practice, such as there is for circumcision. Thus, I conclude that it is OK for a church to adopt a tithing system to accomplish the goal of #1.
5. The church should teach stepping out in faith in the context of caring for one's family. Destitute members are also the responsibility of the whole church.

bob · 11-09-09 1:31 am

Don wrote:

Paul refers here to the Levitical system. The Levite who administers the holy things eats of the temple. Those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings. As I consider the temple system, I note that it includes the tithe. The tithe was brought to the temple and given to the Levites there.

The Temple priests ate of the sin, guilt, burnt, grain, thank and fellowship offerings. You seem to be mixing apples with oranges. Tithes were never part of the Temple service. By the way tithe was also distributed to the needy, something the SDAs don't talk about because of the instructions given by the prophet didn't include them.

All kinds of offerings were brought to the Temple. The tithe was not an offering for use at the Temple.

(Message edited by bob on November 09, 2009)

don · 11-09-09 8:55 am

bob wrote:

All kinds of offerings were brought to the Temple. The tithe was not an offering for use at the Temple.

You are right; the tithe is not a sacrificial offering. It was an important part of the Jewish economy. The levites and the priests lived from the tithe. I am still learning about the tithe, thanks to our present discussion. Consider this declaration from Nehemiah 10:

34 "We—the priests, the Levites and the people—have cast lots to determine when each of our families is to bring to the house of our God at set times each year a contribution of wood to burn on the altar of the LORD our God, as it is written in the Law.
35 "We also assume responsibility for bringing to the house of the LORD each year the firstfruits of our crops and of every fruit tree.
36 "As it is also written in the Law, we will bring the firstborn of our sons and of our cattle, of our herds and of our flocks to the house of our God, to the priests ministering there.
37 "Moreover, we will bring to the storerooms of the house of our God, to the priests, the first of our ground meal, of our grain offerings, of the fruit of all our trees and of our new wine and oil. And we will bring a tithe of our crops to the Levites, for it is the Levites who collect the tithes in all the towns where we work. 38 A priest descended from Aaron is to accompany the Levites when they receive the tithes, and the Levites are to bring a tenth of the tithes up to the house of our God, to the storerooms of the treasury. 39 The people of Israel, including the Levites, are to bring their contributions of grain, new wine and oil to the storerooms where the articles for the sanctuary are kept and where the ministering priests, the gatekeepers and the singers stay.
"We will not neglect the house of our God."

The story of the tithe is complex. Some have identified several different functions of the tithe.

1. There was a local application.
2. There was a festive application, apparently applied every three years.
3. There was a forwarding of a tenth of the tithe to those who served at the temple
4. The land rested every seventh year; there would be no tithes of the crops that year, it seems.

When Paul refers to the priests living off the avails of the temple, he refers to, among other things, the tenth of the tithes. The story of Nehemiah describes how important that tenth of the tithes was to those at the temple.

Some have made fun of the Gospel order of finance. "Maybe they can go out and get a real job." This is an affront to Paul's message. Yes, Paul had a real job but he also said that God commanded that those who preach the Gospel should live from the Gospel. Accordingly, for the Christian, preaching the Gospel is a "real" job.

Nehemiah 9 shows that a tenth of the tithes was stored in the temple storehouse. Paul said that just as those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple so the Gospel Worker should be benefited. This included, at least, a tenth of the tithes.

Just as the Jewish economy supported the Levites and the Priests with their tithes and offerings, so the Gospel economy is to do the same. This is the message I get from Paul in First Corinthians Nine.

As Adventists, we say, with the people in Nehemiah's day, and in accordance with the Apostle Paul, "We will not neglect the house of our God."

bob · 11-09-09 10:55 am

Good summery Don. It is my understanding that the Levites were required to tithe their income That tenth must have been the one that was used for those levites who were on duty at the Temple.

You still have not accounted for all of the Israelites who were not farmers nor raised crops. Did they tithe? If Paul was suggesting the tithing system, as you are asserting, what is to be the part of those who lets say are tent makers or shoe makers?

don · 11-09-09 11:42 am

bob wrote:

If Paul was suggesting the tithing system, as you are asserting, what is to be the part of those who lets say are tent makers or shoe makers?

Paul was presenting the principle that those who for the Gospel should live by the Gospel. Of course, this means that the Church supports them, so they can preach, etc.

I am not sure that the Church had developed giving protocols like we have today. The Church obviously severed itself from the Priestly and Levitical organizations which received the tithe. So, the tithe could not be implemented as the Jewish economy did.

The community of believers have a God-commanded mandate to make sure that the Gospel Workers are properly supported.

If they choose to identify "tithing" as part of the plan, there is no sin in that. It is fulfilling the NT command reported by Paul in 1 Cor. 9. The principles found in Malachi 3, Nehemiah, Haggai, etc. can be applied to the Gospel economy.

Everyone has a duty to support the "House of God" even as the widow with her mites. But, how can you have duty and cheerfulness, both. The heart must be right, then duty is a joy.

(Regarding EGW, I find myself often agreeing with her basic assertions but I don't always agree with how she drives her point home.)

bob · 11-09-09 12:39 pm

I have a problem with a lot of her basic assertions because they distort the Gospel and are used in place of good hermeneutics.

I would like to go on record again that I am not against people choosing to use 10% as a guide to giving. Certainly the more we give the healthier the church can become.

I am concerned when the church uses the Bible out of context and as a whip to fool the flock into doing things contrary to New Covenant beliefs. This not only is a problem with the giving system but also in choosing a day to worship.

I know from what you have written that you personally do not subscribe to strong arm tactics, but your church does and the church is where I have me beef. I know the church demands certain things of the workers. One is to strong arm the flock into believing in such things as robbing God if a faithful tithe is not payed. You are walking a tight rope.

don · 11-09-09 1:38 pm

bob wrote:

You are walking a tight rope.

I am the middle child of seven; walking a tight rope is second nature to me. :-)

Recall that Martin Luther did not leave the RC Church. He was removed. Also, you may have heard the story of Ford advising ministers to stay with the church.

...Spangler: What happened next?
Weber: I searched everywhere for answers. About this time there was a ministerial conference in Takoma Park. Some of the ministers invited me to a secret meeting with Desmond Ford. He had an apartment on Carroll Avenue, right around the corner from the General Conference, where he was preparing his Glacier View manuscript. About a dozen crowded into Ford's living room, there in his basement apartment.
Spangler: What did he tell you?
Weber: Dr. Ford declined to discuss our questions on the sanctuary. He said he had promised the brethren to keep quiet on the subject until after Glacier View. He wanted to honor his word. He did agree to talk about anything else on our minds.
We asked him for advice about resign- ing from the ministry. He encouraged us to stay in our work unless we were made to leave. He said that at the same time we should keep studying until these matters were clear to us.
Spangler: Did you take Ford's advice?
Weber: Not entirely. I thought it made sense to stay in the ministry as long as I was searching for answers. But if I became convinced that the church was wrong, I would leave without being forced out. I didn't think I deserved to be supported by Adventist tithe dollars unless I believed Adventist doctrine. ...
Ministry Magazine, April, 1987, page 8
Some call it heresy
From belief to doubt and back again. MINISTRY editor J. R. Spangler interviews Martin Weber about how he found faith again in the church's understanding of the sanctuary and judgment
http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/M … pts&page=8

There are several concepts which help me work with my church:

1. The Church wants me to base my beliefs on the Bible.
2. The church, deep down, believes in changing its teachings if it becomes clear they are unbiblical. I refer to EGW's idea on this. If we have been teaching error, the sooner we get rid of it the better.
3. The church moves forward as a body. Thus, if I am convinced the church is in error, it is my task to kindly lobby for change out of the limelight. Two examples on this: Weiland and Short agreed to not push their views back in the 1950's and Des Ford, right at Glacier View, agreed to not present his ideas publically any more. Both these "reformers" understood the idea of moving forward in unity. For me, this is a key concept which allows us to push for change without going against Church unity.
4. I believe that the Adventist Church came into being to accomplish a God-given task. The features of our message can always use refining and revising.

elaine · 11-09-09 5:16 pm

don wrote:

It was an important part of the Jewish economy

No one disputes that fact. But to impose the Jewish economy on Christians is to distort the NT commands. There was wholesale rejection of nearly all things Jewish. That's putting new wine into old wineskins: doesn't work.

Many of Adventism's main doctrines come solely from the Hebrew economy and their scripture. (There is a Christian scripture--the New Testament).

don · 11-09-09 6:21 pm

elaine wrote:

That's putting new wine into old wineskins: doesn't work.

The Christian Church certainly established a "new wineskin" from which to organize and grow. But, this new wineskin can hardly be called a "wholesale rejection of nearly all things Jewish". Even today, we refer to the Judeo-Christian beliefs.

First Corinthians 9:13-14 can hardly be used as evidence of "wholesale rejection of nearly all things Jewish". Paul styles his economic advice on what happened in the Jewish economy.

This is not the only passage where Paul holds up the Jewish contribution to the Christian faith. To say that there was a "wholesale rejection of nearly all things Jewish" by Paul is unsupported by the textual evidence of Paul's writings.

It did not take long after the apostles time for Christians to reject all things Jewish, but it was not under Paul's watch.

elaine · 11-09-09 8:51 pm

don wrote:

To say that there was a "wholesale rejection of nearly all things Jewish" by Paul is unsupported by the textual evidence of Paul's writings.

In his letter to the Romans he said we are no longer under the written Law. "But now the Law has come to and end with Christ." He said no one was to be judged by what they ate, what days they counted as holy and hold on to your own belief between yourself and God.

He also wrote that now there is no longer a temple, we are now that temple. He refers to Moses as having a veil over one's mind and that Christ alone can remove it. What does he refer to when he speaks of Moses, if not the Jewish economy and its laws?

Then there is his letter to the Galatians which is the entire preamble and authority for Christians, in which he explains the purpose of the Law, and it is now obsolete.

How do you interpret the Pauline letters? Aren't they the initiating texts of the Christian church? Without those letters and Paul's mission, there would be no Christian church.

don · 11-09-09 9:38 pm

elaine wrote:

Without those letters and Paul's mission, there would be no Christian church.

I agree. But, you have just referred to the differences. You have failed to present Paul's ideas which support Judaism's contribution to Christianity.

The book of Romans strongly supports the Hebrew religion as the "tree" of God. The Jews are commended for being the keepers of the "Oracles of God."

Paul recognized the Law as "holy, just and good". He refers to the eternal principles of the Law as "the righteous requirements of the Law".

Did Paul lead the Christian Church into a "wholesale rejection of nearly all things Jewish?" On the contrary...

1 What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? 2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God...

These oracles of God, did Paul lead in a wholesale rejection of them? I think not.

Romans 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

What is this Law that "we establish"? Paul's statment here is certainly not a "wholesale rejection of nearly all things Jewish."

Paul uses the Jewish Bible to establish his Christian doctrine. His doing so lays claim to true Judaism. According to Paul, Jesus Christ is the hope of the Jews. Rather than being a wholesale rejection of nearly all things Jewish, Paul sees Jesus Christ as the focus of all things Jewish. Look over Romans again.

elaine · 11-09-09 11:16 pm

Which demonstrates a well-know fact: Paul has written much that is quite contradictory. Pick the one that fits with a belief.

He speaks much of the Law, both pro and con, IMO.

don · 11-09-09 11:21 pm

elaine wrote:

Paul has written much that is quite contradictory.

I don't think we should settle for surface contradictions. With a little thought, or much thought, we can come to see what he was really saying. Most writers, present or ancient, don't really contradict themselves. They just don't explain themselves to our day and way of thinking.

bob · 11-10-09 11:39 am

Yes, the law is still in force. It is there as the schoolmaster to bring the unsaved to a realization of the need to be saved. Once we take Jesus hand we are under His care and that care is Grace. The Torah law was nailed to the Cross. It is no longer binding on the saved ones that are holding on to Jesus.

Paul wasn't speaking out of both sides of his mouth. It is quite clear that Christians are not subject to Torah law. If anyone believes contrary to this then they are subject to the whole law. There is no separation of points of Torah law. Either all or none. You can't have one foot in the Old and one in the New. The New Covenant is an entirely different covenant. Some of the parts my resemble the Old like Jesus said in Matt. 5 His new laws on murder, offerings, adultery, divorce, oaths and revenge. He didn't do away with these eternal principals, He added more value to them. He was very specific on the points He wanted included in His New Covenant. Funny He didn't talk about what we eat, when to worship or tithing. Would you ever think that these things are not part of the New Covenant? What part of the law was not nailed to the Cross? Not one part would disappear until everything was accomplished. SDAs must believe something was accomplished at the Cross because they do not keep the whole Torah. Is there some hidden command to observe mere parts of the Torah and turn your back on all the other things it commands? Where is the authority to pick and choose?

elaine · 11-10-09 12:54 pm

Bob, that is problem with the conflation of the Law into separate components: moral and civil or ceremonial. This is a modern concept, totally foreign to the Bible writers who never separated the Law: it was always one entity as seen by both the Hebrews and new Christians. It was constructed solely by Adventists to separate in a very selective manner so that they could pick and choose which ones were permanent and those that were now obsolete. This has no confirmation from the Bible, either Old or New Testaments.

It cannot be substantiated by Scripture. To do so is to go on a fool's errand.

cadge · 11-10-09 3:01 pm

No one who still has the veil over themselves (2Cor3:11-18) can come to understand the "new and living way"(Heb.10:20).

They will not understand that the scripture that says that "he will seek to change times and laws" means that the Papal power took the done away with law of the Old Covenant and transferred it to the new era after Christ; defying that Christ had fulfilled the law. They took the old covenant 4th commandment law and re-instituted it on another day and made it a salvic holy day of obligation for control of the people. They changed the no longer obligatory day of Saturday to Sunday and made it mandatory (changed laws). They took it from the Old Covenant and brought it into the New (changed times). They and those that take the ten commandment keeping as New Covenant law as salvic, except to be used as a schoolmaster to convict the unrightous of sin, defy the teaching of 1Tim 1:1-11 and join the harlots of revelation 17. They took away the New Covenant work of the Holy Spirit and put the people under the laws and traditions of the Catholic church. They made the sacraments and repetitious prayers and penances and indulgences etc.the means of salvation.

Our test will not be, about a day. It will be about "whatsoever ye do to the least of my brethren, that ye do also to me". It will be "love worketh no ill to his neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law". It will be "For the law is fulfilled in one word, even this; thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself".

It will be about totally living and laying down our lives for our fellowman and relieving his suffering as Jesus did; "a living sacrifice". "Let this mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus."

It will be about whether we live to accumulate wealth and material possessions for our own entertainment and worldly satisfaction or whether we are zealous to gather these things to work the works of righteousness by and in His Spirit.

We demonstrate our love to God in how we treat our fellow man. This is how we keep the law of Christ.

Tithing is trickery. We are to easily duped into thinking that giving the necessary 10% fulfills our duty and the rest is ours to use upon our own lusts.

The con men will say "well it's all God's, but he's only asking for 10%". The truth is that He is not asking for ten percent. He doesn't want your money, He wants your heart. After we become His we will be all tied up in using what is His to bless others by whatever ways and means we are impressed by Him to do. That's how come you will be a cheerful giver.

Cadge

bob · 11-10-09 5:05 pm

Elaine, it is interesting how far a group will go in order to try to make some some doctrine work. I used the word "Torah" for that very reason. Torah indicates all of the law God gave to the Israelites. When Jesus spoke of law the Jews knew He was referring to all 316 commands. They were all inseparable. Not one jot nor one tittle would in anyway be disregarded until all was fulfilled. When Jesus died on the Cross all was fulfilled. The Torah, 316 laws, became history.

Don, if this is wrong please explain how it could be any other way.

The problem is Tom, Elaine, David and I have defied the words of the prophet. Tom won't admit that he has, but can't logically explain her innocence. Don has to weigh the options. If he agrees with scripture, he has denied the prophet. Being a worker in the church the latter is not a good place to hang your hat. I understand the dilemma. There are many church workers facing the same hard problem. If we only knew how many.

One such person was Dr Jerry Gladson. He was between a rock and a hard place. I have read his book "A Theologian's Journey". He literally went through hell, but he survived. Greg Taylor is another survivor that lived to write "Discovering the New Covenant". This too is a good and informative read. He does a great job explaining the Old and New Covenants. He is straight forward, unlike Hubert's attempt not to stir up the bees of Ellen White's authority while trying th explain that the New is merely an extension of the Old.

elaine · 11-10-09 5:18 pm

Bob, I have read Dr. Gladson's book; also several others, beginning with Canright. No refutation has been satisfactory, which is why most of them were either disfellowshipped, defrocked, or left the SDA church. To disagree with the doctrines, publicly or in writing is "THE Cardinal Sin of Adventism."

Hubb is a good, honest man, sincere. However, sincerity does not mean being "right." He is preaching to the choir on his website.

At least, Don will dialogue with us "reprobates.

don · 11-10-09 11:14 pm

bob wrote:

The Torah, 613 laws, became history.

The Torah, as a system of living, was not brought forward into the Christian Church. Acts 15 illustrates this. The most convincing example of this, for me, is the provision in Deuteronomy 17. The really difficult cases, those which could not be solved locally, were to be brought to the high priest. When the early Christian Church faced their first crisis, the one over Circumcision, the problem was taken to the church in Jerusalem, not the high priest and his council.

However, look over the provisions of the Mosaic laws. Note the principles behind the regulations. Many of the principles remain valid for the Christian. It has been said that the Mosaic system was just one big set of laws, the Torah. Well, that is not quite true. The Torah contained two body of laws. The Ten Commandments written on stone and the Book of the Law. The Ten Commandments were kept in the ark. The Book of the Law at the side of the ark.

Never in the New Testament does Paul speak against the Law of God, except to point out that it cannot save us because we are all sinners.

The idea that the Christian is released from moral principles is unsupported by Paul.

The Christian Churches are divided on how they deal with the "Law of God". Adventism is a minor influence in the theology regarding the law. Martin Luther's well-known three uses of the Law is a case in point.

I once had a discussion with a United Church of Canada pastor and doctor of theology, a friend. When I mentioned how some say the Ten Commandments are not for the Christian, he was adamant that they were still relevant. This surprised me. He, of all ministers, expressed "liberal" theology; including support for monogamous gay relationships, i.e. gay marriage. So, this idea that the Law of God, expressed in the Ten Commandments, is somehow irrelevant to the Christian does not have universal support among the Christian Churches.

If God had come down to the pygmies of Africa and wrote a message on the bark of a tree with his very own hand, do you think I would pay attention. You bet I would. Everything that God writes with His own hand would capture my attention. God's values remain the same; for the pygmy, the Jew, and Gentiles like me.

Even all the regulations of the Mosaic Book of the Law, though they do not apply directly to my life, the principles behind them are of deep interest to me. Paul calls these the "righteous requirements of the Law." It is these principles that Paul refers to when he says that the Law is holy, just and good. (Obviously Paul did not mean Circumcision when he proclaimed the Law with these three adjectives. When he speaks of the law in this way, he quotes from the Ten Commandments.)

Consider our oft repeated passage of 1 Corinthians 9 and how the Hebrew temple system provides the divine precedent for supporting Christian Gospel workers. It is obvious that the tithing system as a body of laws cannot be implemented by the Christian Chruch. Yet, the tithing principle, along with the offering principle, provide guidance to the Christian Church regarding God's commanded support of His workers. Should the Christian Church lock itself into the Hebrew tithing regulations? No. How can it? But, is it robbing God if his work and workers are neglected? Of course, it is.

don · 11-11-09 9:38 am

elaine wrote:

At least, Don will dialogue with us "reprobates.

I have said this before: everyone here at atomorrow have contributed to my development of thought. :-)

Regarding Dr. Gladson, I took Old Testament studies from him at Southern. He used E. J. Young's book for a text. Gladson was a kind and thoughtful man who inspired us with his scholarship and positive attitude.

I find it interesting that once he moved beyond his connections with Adventism, it was then, not sooner, that he began to rethink some of his doctrines. Our immediate environment plays a very significant role in how we look at things. We are not controlled by it, but we need to know how powerful our immediate environment is.

bob · 11-11-09 11:08 am

don wrote:

(Obviously Paul did not mean Circumcision when he proclaimed the Law with these three adjectives. When he speaks of the law in this way, he quotes from the Ten Commandments.)

Holy, just and good, I do not deny that the law is everything Paul said it was. It was a beacon for the Israelite nation. Paul also related to us that the law was a curse and that we are not under the law.

When Paul spoke of "law", he certainly did mean the whole law. How can you say that he only meant the 10 commandments? Where is your proof? Don, do you really read our posts or are you so consumed with your thoughts that you merely skim over some of our thoughts? WHY DID JESUS CHANGE THE MEANING OF SOME OF THE 10 COMMANDMENTS IF WE ARE STILL UNDER THE ORIGINAL? Again this is a way you use to reconcile your belief that the 10 are still binding on the Christian. You are perverting the Gospel of Christ. When Jesus Himself told us that the law would be fulfilled, who are we to say He didn't do that for us. Paul said He did.

Please read and digest Gal 3: 1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 4Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? 5Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?

6Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." 7Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. 8The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." 9So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." 14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
The Law and the Promise
15Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. 17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

19What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.

21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

It is obvious that Abraham did not have the law given at Sinai. Duet 5 tell us that. There is no reason to believe he did accept to give credibility to the prophet.

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 11-08-09 11:24 am

The Bible on the Practice of Tithing

#2 11-08-09 11:32 am

Re: The Bible on the Practice of Tithing

#3 11-08-09 11:45 am

Re: The Bible on the Practice of Tithing

#4 11-08-09 1:31 pm

Re: The Bible on the Practice of Tithing

#5 11-08-09 2:35 pm

Re: The Bible on the Practice of Tithing

#6 11-09-09 1:31 am

Re: The Bible on the Practice of Tithing

#7 11-09-09 8:55 am

Re: The Bible on the Practice of Tithing

#8 11-09-09 10:55 am

Re: The Bible on the Practice of Tithing

#9 11-09-09 11:42 am

Re: The Bible on the Practice of Tithing

#10 11-09-09 12:39 pm

Re: The Bible on the Practice of Tithing

#11 11-09-09 1:38 pm

Re: The Bible on the Practice of Tithing

#12 11-09-09 5:16 pm

Re: The Bible on the Practice of Tithing

#13 11-09-09 6:21 pm

Re: The Bible on the Practice of Tithing

#14 11-09-09 8:51 pm

Re: The Bible on the Practice of Tithing

#15 11-09-09 9:38 pm

Re: The Bible on the Practice of Tithing

#16 11-09-09 11:16 pm

Re: The Bible on the Practice of Tithing

#17 11-09-09 11:21 pm

Re: The Bible on the Practice of Tithing

#18 11-10-09 11:39 am

Re: The Bible on the Practice of Tithing

#19 11-10-09 12:54 pm

Re: The Bible on the Practice of Tithing

#20 11-10-09 3:01 pm

Re: The Bible on the Practice of Tithing

#21 11-10-09 5:05 pm

Re: The Bible on the Practice of Tithing

#22 11-10-09 5:18 pm

Re: The Bible on the Practice of Tithing

#23 11-10-09 11:14 pm

Re: The Bible on the Practice of Tithing

#24 11-11-09 9:38 am

Re: The Bible on the Practice of Tithing

#25 11-11-09 11:08 am

Re: The Bible on the Practice of Tithing

Board footer