This morning's sermon on tithing

[Esaias]

(con't)

Now, as to the question regarding obligatory tithes from produce sourced outside the land of Israel. It would seem that normally, produce sourced from outside the land of Israel would not be subject to a mandatory tithe requirement, since Jacob never vowed a tenth of the agricultural produce of other lands (which he couldn't have done anyway, really, since they weren't given to him and weren't his to vow). The Sinaitic commandment concerning the tithe was enacted in order to fulfill Jacob's vow. He had vowed ten percent of the produce of the land, therefore it was dedicated to God and thus holy, it belonged to God. So Jacob's descendants, in whom Jacob would be given the land, would be required to fulfill their father's vow. Jacob would fulfill his vow in his children.

Israelites living in foreign lands would of course not be under obligation to pay a tithe on the agricultural produce generated in those lands - just as Jacob seemed to recognise no obligation to tithe anything he had gotten from Laban. Jacob's vow had nothing to do with foreign lands. Israelites living abroad would be living in someone else's land, subject to those foreign laws, vows, etc. Thus, no requirement to tithe that stuff to God.

Again, the obligatory nature of tithes depended upon Jacob's vow concerning the land of Israel. In fact, it may be that if Jacob had never made the vow he made, there would have been no requirement to tithe anything at all, to begin with.

Now, an interesting question arises concerning if and when Israelites obtained foreign lands by conquest (or by some other means). If they acquired a foreign land, and were not merely living in those foreign lands as strangers and pilgrims, but rather as the primary inhabitants or citizens, then it would seem the tithe requirement would kick in. The land would have been given to them by God. Thus, it would be considered to have been given to Jacob, and therefore possibly subject to the tithing vow.

In other words, did the two and a half tribes that settled on the east of Jordan have an obligation to pay tithes?

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by 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!

So whether or not he has a biblical mandate to teach 10% is not relevant ?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

I will say the text says plainly "it's holy unto the Lord." Anything holy unto Him always was as we see through the story of Cain and Abel, and Abraham and Melchizedek. And always will be because He is immutable. So could you say something that was holy unto the Lord is no longer holy unto Him today, especially outside of any scripture to say so? That makes it part of the moral law because we can see even before the law people were observing it. And everything Abraham tithed to Melchezidek surely didn't just fit into the agricultural category.

Exodus 31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Exodus 31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

The person you are answering has an esoteric approach to biblical interpretation. Context means nothing.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Exodus 31:15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

But that's a antitype of the Holy Ghost as we can see from the book of Hebrews Chapter 4. Or like OG said about circumcision that's a type of the covenant cut at baptism, or the Tabernacle plan was a type of what is the plan of salvation in Acts 2:38. So they were and still Holy unto the Lord and still in observance.

So if your saying tithes were a type then where was the anti type given in scripture?

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Originalist

The person you are answering has an esoteric approach to biblical interpretation. Context means nothing.

I'm only questioning what you are trying to set up as Biblical truth. Showing the holes that are in your argument.

Now Brother Esaias showed more scriptural proof and I can see that; although he never did deal with Cain and Abel who were Gentiles that never lived in the land of Canaan and that's what I'm questioning you about. You only try to use mockery, and slander anytime anyone questions your limited explaination. Then you are calling people liars and telling them to repent of their false doctrine, which I'm not teaching anyone. So truthfully, you need to repent and pray through. Because it's not about any of those things your saying it's you have no answer, but you claim to have all the answers. 1 Peter 3:15 "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear." That is one thing I can say Brother Esaias does well he is always ready to give an answer to every man that asks for a reason. You just slander and put people down. Your lucky I'm Apostolic and can take it. But if your trying to convert Baptists you need to fix that approach!

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

I'm only questioning what you are trying to set up as Biblical truth. Showing the holes that are in your argument.

Now Brother Esaias showed more scriptural proof and I can see that; although he never did deal with Cain and Abel who were Gentiles that never lived in the land of Canaan and that's what I'm questioning you about.

For crying out loud. You first cite the "tithe of THE LAND (of Israel) that was HOLY UNTO THE LORD" and now you try to read the same holiness into the OFFERING (not tithe) of Cain and Abel? Pathetic. And all as an attempt to preserve your idol doctrine that you bow down and worship. Oh yes I am mocking. But I am not slandering. You have plainly spelled out what you believe.



You only try to use mockery, and slander anytime anyone questions your limited explaination. Then you are calling people liars and telling them to repent of their false doctrine, which I'm not teaching anyone. So truthfully, you need to repent and pray through. Because it's not about any of those things your saying it's you have no answer, but you claim to have all the answers. 1 Peter 3:15 "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear."

You don't even quote Peter in context. That verse has nothing to with justifying a tithing doctrine. But hey, at least I didn't wish that you were emasculated like Paul wished on the Judaizers, though you are of the same vein.



That is one thing I can say Brother Esaias does well he is always ready to give an answer to every man that asks for a reason. You just slander and put people down. Your lucky I'm Apostolic and can take it. But if your trying to convert Baptists you need to fix that approach!

Obviously the Baptists are miles ahead of you on rightly dividing scriptures that deal with giving commands for the New Testament church, and that is a shame.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Originalist

Well misrepresentations through out I never said any of those things you alluded to. But I ain't trippin you need to pray through, but that's going to be hard at a Baptist church... Your the guy God ordained to have a trinitarian Pastor, Hmmm. I guess all that's just semantics we have a lot in common... I will say your understanding does have more in common with them, then with real Apostolic's though. Oh and this has nothing to do with tithes as none of the rest of what I said did either. I was only pointing out holes, in your argument. I give tithes and offerings and I've never out given God. You can drop shade like that was what this was all about but it wasn't. It was you couldn't give an answer to nothing I was saying. Look at the original language of Cain's offerering no it wasn't a offering look again...

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

But that's a antitype of the Holy Ghost as we can see from the book of Hebrews Chapter 4.

Please demonstrate 1) how the Sabbath is a type of the Holy Ghost per Heb. 4; 2) how your rule that "once holy always holy" has an exception clause, and 3) how this exception clause does not apply to the priestly anointing oil. Or, conversely, 4) how the anointing oil is NOT a type of the Holy Ghost.

Or like OG said about circumcision that's a type of the covenant cut at baptism, or the Tabernacle plan was a type of what is the plan of salvation in Acts 2:38. So they were and still Holy unto the Lord and still in observance.

You believe 8th day circumcision of the foreskin of the male sexual organ and the establishment and maintenance of Moses' Tabernacle are "still in observance"? What?

So if your saying tithes were a type then where was the anti type given in scripture?

I never said they were a type of anything.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

Now Brother Esaias showed more scriptural proof and I can see that; although he never did deal with Cain and Abel who were Gentiles that never lived in the land of Canaan and that's what I'm questioning you about.

Neither Cain nor Abel were tithing, but offering an offering, likely the first fruits. So I'm not sure how one transfers to the other?