AN ELDER’S FAMILY
BY JONATHAN LINDVALL

EXCERPT FROM HOUSE CHURCH
CHAPTER 13: MINISTRY HOUSEHOLDS —
KEY TO HEALTHY CHURCHES, PAGES 172-174
BY STEVE ATKERSON

The explicit minimum qualifications for leadership in the body of Christ include other family matters. An elder/bishop (demonstrably the same thing as the pastor in the New Testament church — see poimaino, presbuteros, and episkopos in Ac 2:17, 28; Tit 1:5, 7; 1Pe 5:1-2) was to be “the husband of one wife” (1Ti 3:2; Tit 1:6). There is some controversy, today, over the application of this. Some simply apply this to polygamy, others suspect it precludes divorced and remarried men from being publicly recognized as exemplary, and still others take it to mean that an elder must be a “one woman type of man.”

I suspect the requirement of being “the husband of one wife” not only means a man with more than one wife is disqualified, but that a man with less than one wife also is not qualified to be recognized as a model for the church. While single men certainly have the benefit of fewer distractions and responsibilities, and thus more freedom, this very lack of responsibility is also a handicap when it comes to leading in the church. It is more likely for a single man to be (or at least be perceived as) a novice, but Paul told Timothy (1Ti 3:6) to choose as elders those who were “not a novice.” He further made it clear that the reputation, as well as the reality, of a man’s maturity, was important (1Ti 3:7; “he must have a good testimony among those who are outside”).

Some time after I married my wife, Connie, I began realizing how unprepared for marriage I had been. I was simply not mature enough for marriage. Yet as I pondered the matter, I concluded that I likely would never have been mature enough for marriage, while I was single. But it seems to me that within months of getting married, I had been stretched in wonderful ways that forced me to mature. I doubt I would ever have grown in those areas as a single man. Marriage made me something I could not have become otherwise. Truly in all but a few cases, “It is not good that man should be alone” (Ge 2:18). There are likely exceptions, but a man who is unmarried (or at least who has never been married) is not as likely in a position to be a thorough and balanced role model for the body of Christ as one who has demonstrated his capacity to “rule his own house well.”

In fact, I suspect that a man who has not experienced fatherhood will be similarly handicapped. Paul told Titus (1:6) to only recognize as elders those men who are “the husband of one wife, having faithful children.” Just as I was not ready for marriage until after I married, I was not ready for fatherhood until after Connie and I were blessed with our first child. Being a father pressed me in certain ways that I would likely never have matured in without having children. As the Lord continued blessing us with more children, and as each of them was trained through different stages of childhood and youth, I was being further prepared for eldership.

The other homeschooling fathers and I, in our local congregation, have theorized that God’s reason for leading us to disciple our own children at home rather than sending them to school is not exclusively (perhaps even primarily) for their benefit. God has called us to teach our own children at least partly because of the maturity this brings to us as fathers. Any teacher will acknowledge that the teachers learn as much or more than the students, in the process of teaching. In fact, I suspect one of God’s primary reasons for raising up the homeschool movement in this generation is to prepare truly qualified elders who have learned how to disciple others as a result of discipling their own sons and daughters.

Sadly, as noted earlier, the children of those who are devoted to ministry in the contemporary church often have the worst reputation. I’m blessed to be a PK myself (not Promise Keeper, but Preacher’s Kid). But as a child I learned that the acronym PK is often a derogatory term in the contemporary church. While this is not always deserved (many love to find fault in leaders to excuse their own failures), it is too often true that the children of those in public ministry are not examples to the rest of the body of Christ.

I imagine we have all seen men who seem to have a true call of God on their life for public ministry, yet who are so focused on that ministry that they neglect their own family. Paul included, as a qualification for local church leadership, that an elder’s children must be well trained. He defines “one who rules his own house well” (1Ti 3:4) as “having his children in submission with all reverence.” Then he reasons (1Ti 3:5), “for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God ?”

In his instructions to Titus (1:6) he is more explicit in specifying the expectations of the fruit of an elder’s fatherhood. He must have “faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination.” The children of elders must not only be in submission, but their faithfulness must be so evident that they are not even accused of excesses or disobedience.

Obviously elders’ children are going to be selfish and inclined to sin, just as all humanity is. Yet only those men who have proven their capacity to “train up a child in the way he should go” (Pr 22:6) should be publicly recognized as models for the church. The word translated faithful in regard to his children (Greek pistos) is elsewhere translated believing. (For example, Jesus used this word as a contrast to Thomas’ doubting in John 20:27. See also Ac 10:45; 16:1; 2Co 6:15; 1Ti 4:3, 10, 12; 5:16; 6:2.). It is certainly not a stretch to contend that only men who have trained believing children should be considered for eldership.

SOURCE and AVAILABLE AT:
NEW TESTAMENT REFORMED CHURCH

http://www.ntrf.org/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=3

Pastor is Master, Isn’t He? Four Part Documentary

Part 1

Calvary Chapel Church Government from Chuck Smith’s
Calvary Chapel Distinctives
Chapter Two

Commentary by James Sundquist
Chuck Smith’s book may be accessed at the following website:

http://calvarychapel.com/hope/library/smith-chuck/books/ccd/

What follows is his entire Chapter Two from his Calvary Chapel Distinctives, followed by commentary on each passage.

CHUCK SMITH: (Opens with the following Scripture)
“And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,” * Ephesians 1:22

COMMENTARY:

I find it very ironic that Chuck Smith (founder of Calvary Chapel), who supports a single-pastor-final-authority form of leadership in the Church, would invoke the above scripture to open this Chapter on Church Government, as he spends the balance of the chapter defending a monarchical pastorship of the local church. The above passage from Ephesians makes no room for two heads in the church. Regarding more than pastor leading a church, I have heard the expression that a two-headed person is a monster. Of course, I agree that a person with two heads is contrary to nature. But if we examine the above passage as well as I Corinthians Chapter 12 we see that a pastor or pastors are not the head of the church. Paul’s description of the Body of Christ and all its parts shows that the only head is Christ himself! There is no other head!

COMMENTARY:

Pastors, Elders, Deacons, Teachers, Evangelists, Prophets, and Apostles, etc. are all parts of the Body of Christ, but none of these offices are the head except Christ alone! None of these offices in the Church or any of the parts of the body are ever described as a head…not in the Church at large for the whole world, nor the individual local church. There is nothing plural in the parts of the body until you get below the head. Paul in minute detail describes the plurality anatomy of the Body of Christ BELOW the head. So, if we are going to be Scriptural let’s keep singular things that are singular and plural things that are plural. The head of the church is singular and in any local church, the head is still singular, but it is Christ himself. Once this is established, authority then pluralizes. But singular, I repeat, singular does not begin with any man but Christ himself, so singular authority cannot remain ascribed to another single pastor, bishop, shepherd, elder, or whatever office is described. I am especially indebted to Vance (Bo) Salisbury for his in depth research in providing a comprehensive list of New Testament and Greek Scholars who unanimously concur that the office of Bishop and Elder are synonymous and plural in the local Church both in the New Testament and during the Apostolic Age. Just some of the names of scholars listed with their quotes are:

Geoffrey Bromiley of Fuller Theological Seminary
Henry De Moor of Calvin Theological Seminary
(Henry De Moor, Associate Professor of Church Polity, Calvin Theological Seminary Leon Morris
Massey Shepherd
J.B. Lightfoot,
Hermann W. Beyer
F.F. Bruce
A.T. Robertson
Philip Schaff
Kenneth Scott Latourette
John Murray
Alexander Strauch
Patrick J. Brennan

1 Tim. 3:2 and Tt. 1:7 speak of the bishop in the sing. and with the art., the reference is to the bishop as a type and not to the number of bishops in a given place. There is no reference to the monarchical episcopate. On the contrary, the evidence of the NT is clearly to the effect that originally several episkopoi took charge of the communities in brotherly comity. (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol.2, pg.617, Ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, 1980, Eerdmans)

->->t even seem to clash because they (bishop and elder) are one and the same office! (Chuck Smith spells elders as “presbyteros”, but the correct Greek/English rendering or spelling is “presbuteros.”) The Bible does not clearly teach that bishops are established and elders are appointed. Titus who is alleged to be the “bishop” of Crete is appointed by Paul. But Paul himself states in Titus 1:5 that Titus was an elder “appointed” just like the exact same elders (“presbuteros” that Titus was instructed to appoint in all of the cities of Crete). In other words Paul is telling Titus to do the same thing (same verb) to secure elders in Crete, that I Paul did to you. Chuck Smith in one place states that the form of government is not clear in the NT, then he says here that the New Testament “clearly teaches” regarding church government. It isn’t the Scripture that is confusing here, it is Chuck Smith who is confusing the offices. There is no distinction in the New Testament between establishing bishops and appointing elders. There is no distinction because they are one and the same office! And even if there were two separate offices in the church as Chuck Smith suggests and that Titus is a bishop, why does Paul appoint him as the text states? He should have established him.

It stands to reason that if the office of bishop were such a superior office to elder, then Paul would have called for all of the bishops of Ephesus in the book of Acts, or only Timothy if the church could have only one bishop over the church of Ephesus. Why would Paul call for the elders (presbuteros) of Ephesus in his farewell to the Church of Ephesus in Acts 20:17?

“And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.” Acts 20:17

For an occasion this monumental (Paul’s farewell), why wouldn’t Paul send for the episkopos of Ephesus….that is if the office is distinct from “presbuteros”? This would be like the President of the United States holding a Governors convention and the Secretaries of State for each of the Fifty States show up. Paul was very concerned about the Ephesian Church and wolves coming in. So he would not bring together a group of men in that church for final instructions that had no real authority in that local congregation…except the rescindible authority that the pastor of Ephesus gave them. Paul would have sent for just this single pastor.

But there is other evidence, too, of the authority elders had in the Council of Jerusalem. In fact, it was not just the elders, but Apostles too that met at that Council. If episkopos is the sole governing authority over a local congregation vs. presbuteros, then why were presbuteros gathered in Jerusalem (twice) to rule on great matters affecting the whole church? It would have been the episkopos, i.e., the overseers that gathered…the Council of Bishops! Paul goes on further when ALL of the elders (presbuteros) from Ephesus actually show up. In addressing them he says:

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Acts 20:28

Wait a minute, I thought it was episkopos that are the overseers, that is if Chuck Smith is correct and they are the rulers (not “presbuteros”)? Paul could not be more clear that elders that rule the church (plural) is who he is giving final instructions to regarding the Church of Ephesus. The truth of the matter is that episkopos and presbuteros are one and the same office in the church and have identical qualifications. There are not two ruling classes.

In one of the councils in Jerusalem the apostles and elders met to decide a matter in the Book of Acts:

“And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.” Acts 15:6

Well it should not be altogether surprising to discover that the word for elders once again is presbuteros….an office that Chuck Smith insists is subordinate to episkopos. He maintains that it is episkopos is the overseer NOT the elders and that the elders are subordinate to the overseer. If this is so, and if Greek renders episkopos as a superior church government office, then why don’t we see this word used to describe this council in Jerusalem and the one in Acts 21:18 when Paul was present? If James is the Bishop, he would outrank even the Apostle Paul at this meeting. The title bishop is not a more special, more powerful title applied to James. This title of bishop assigned to James in Jerusalem as well as is to Timothy and Titus is revisionist isagesis, reading backwards into history and the Scripture something that did not exist in the first place.

Well it should not be altogether surprising to discover that the word for elders once again is presbuteros….an office that Chuck Smith insists is subordinate to episkopos. He maintains that it is episkopos is the overseer NOT the elders and that the elders are subordinate to the overseer. If this is so, and if Greek renders episkopos as a superior church government office, then why don’t we see this word used to describe this council in Jerusalem and the one in Acts 21:18 when Paul was present? If James is the Bishop, he would outrank even the Apostle Paul at this meeting. The title bishop is not a more special, more powerful title applied to James. This title of bishop assigned to James in Jerusalem as well as is to Timothy and Titus is revisionist isagesis, reading backwards into history and the Scripture something that did not exist in the first place.

“And the [day] following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.” Acts 21:18

And what do we find? The word elders is translated from the Greek word presbuteros once again. In both cases and in a formal gathering to determine policy in the Church at Jerusalem it is presbuteros (plural) who gather to rule on a matter (not episkopos). The fact is the word episkopos could have been used, since the word did not signify a different office. I only mention all of these passages to prove that elders are not some subordinate office to bishop or pastor, as Chuck Smith teaches and requires all Calvary Chapels to abide by. Chuck Smith has, in fact, diminished the role and authority of elders in the church without any Scriptural precedent or authority to do so. This is harmful to both the pastor as well as the elders and in turn is not healthy for the entire congregation.

We once attended a church that was considering becoming a Calvary Chapel, but was told they can not become one because the church had two pastors. So what is wrong with that I asked myself? Calvary Chapel insisted that they could have only one pastor, because they view pastor as equivalent to bishop, superior in rank to elder, and as Chuck Smith’s chapter on church government confirms, there can only be one bishop who presides over a local congregation. But in effect, they were saying they could only have one elder…after all, that is all a pastor is… that is according to Scripture. So this is not a Calvary Chapel “Distinctive” but rather “Directive.” The fact is, there is not a separate Biblical church office of bishop from elder. The Bible lists the word pastor only once in the New Testament in a list of teachers and evangelists. But there are NO qualifications given for pastor, or teacher or evangelist for that matter. It is true that pastors shepherd or oversee, but that is simply a verb that all that oversee do, meaning all elders are supposed to shepherd the flock. But this is not a singular role!

PART II:
http://rock-to-salt.cephasministry.com/pastor_2.html

Dr. Russell Kelly, who wrote his doctorate on tithing, exposes the fatal logical and Scriptural flaws of John Maxwell’s and Tom Brown Ministries and teachings and promotion of tithing. John Maxwell is effectively the “E” in Rick Warren’s Global Peace Plan and one of his significant partners promoting tithing and tithing covenants. Tom Brown is a leading Word of Faith teacher and New Apostolic Reformation apostate. Dr. Russell Kelly thoroughly demolishes this stronghold on the church.

Part I IS A PUBLIC REBUKE AND EXPOSE ON JOHN MAXWELL BY DR. RUSSELL KELLY.

I wrote my own expose on John Maxwell in my second book exposing Rick Warren entitled: RICK WARREN’S GLOBAL PEACE PLAN VS. SCRIPTURE
SEE: http://www.thechristianexpositor.org/page170.html

PART II IS PUBLIC REBUKE OF TOM BROWN BY DR. RUSSELL KELLY.

DR. RUSSELL E KELLY’S REBUTTAL TO JOHN C MAXWELL ON TITHING
April 12, 2012

Amazing Finance, John C Maxwell

http://www.amazinglifenow.com/amazingfinances/whatistithing.htm

What Is Tithing And Why Is It Important?
by John C. Maxwell
TITHING: A BIBLICAL FOUNDATION
Question: Isn’t Tithing Under the Old Testament Law?

Maxwell: Answer: No. While tithing one’s income was a lawful practice for God’s people, tithing was practiced by patriarchs 400 years before the law was even around (Gen. 14:20/ 28:22)!

Kelly: The Bible says nothing about Abram (not Abraham) tithing his “income.” The Bible does not tell us WHY Abram tithed; it does not say that he was commanded by God; neither does it say that his tithe of pagan spoils of war was a freewill decision. It is dishonest to twist God’s Word to make it say what you want it to say. The “tithing” which was practiced before the law did not qualify as “holy” tithes under the law as used by Malachi in 3:10 or by Jesus in Matthew 23:23. And Jacob’s tithe (not Israel) was an example of Jacob setting the terms and telling God what to do first. His tithe was also from pagan lands and his example is not for Christians to follow.

Maxwell: Abraham “tithed” to the Lord through the priest Melchizedek as a lifestyle principle, not a ritual.

Kelly: The only thing we know from the Bible is that Abram tithed spoils of war to a priest of El Elyon, God Most High. El Elyon was an extremely common name for god among the pagans of Canaan, Egypt and Babylon. It is as valid a question to ask why he did not include the name of Yahweh in his worship title as he should have per Genesis 4:26. Maxwell has no authority to add to God’s Word and call this a “lifestyle principle.” He should know better.

Maxwell: According to Deuteronomy 14:22-23, tithing was to be a practice of prioritizing God in life, and of recognizing that He is the source of our income.

Kelly: According to 16 texts, the contents of the HOLY (not pagan) tithe was always only FOOD from inside God’s HOLY land which God had miraculously increased. Tithes could not come from what man increased, from non-Israelites, or from outside Israel. The tithe is never the same as income. Although money was common in Genesis and essential for Sanctuary/temple worship, money is never a tithed item in the Bible. Only Hebrew food-producers who lived inside Israel could tithe. Lev 27:30, 32; Num 18:27-28; Deu 12:17; 14:22-23; 26:12; 2 Chron 31:5-6; Neh 10:37; 13:5; Mal 3:10-11; Matt 23:23; Luke 11:42.

Question: How Do We Know That “Tithe” Means 10%?

MAXWELL: Answer: Tithing is directly mentioned thirty-nine times in Scripture, and in each case it means “a tenth part.”

Kelly: This is deception by being half true. The “context” of a HOLY tithe is only FOOD from inside Israel.

Maxwell: Again, in Genesis 14 it states that Abraham “tithed to the Lord;” then, in the New Testament explanation of that event, Hebrews 7:2-4 says that it was 10%.

Kelly: Again deception by being a half-truth. Abram (not Abraham) “tithed to El Elyon” which does not necessarily refer either to Yahweh (LORD) or the Lord (Adonai) of Israel. Maxwell conveniently omits that Hebrews 7:4 says he tithed “spoils.”

Maxwell: Numbers 18:26 speaks of the Levites “tithing off of the tithe” by giving 10% to the Lord from their income.

Kelly: This is really a distortion of the contents of the text. Numbers 18:21-24 (Neh 10:37b) teachs that those Levites who received the first Levitical tithe were not the minister-priests, but were only their assistants. According to Numbers 18:25-28 (Neh 10:38) the Levites only gave one per cent (1%) of the tithe to the priests. Maxwell does not elaborate on this because those who received the tithe were not allowed to own or inherit land in Israel. Today gospel workers get the whole tithe and also own and inherit much property.

Question: What If I Go Broke Giving Up That Much Income?

Maxwell Answer: This is a natural objection, given that the person still operates off of this world’s rationale.

Kelly: This is an odd statement considering the fact that your definition of “tithe” reflects the world’s rationale and not the Bible’s usage.

Maxwell: In God’s economy, however, the more a person sows, the more he reaps (Galatians 6:7). Give and it shall be given unto you, (Luke 6:38).

Kelly: Irrelevant. These texts are not discussing tithing. They are eternal principles of giving.

Maxwell: Tithing is just one of the three ways to “invest” in God’s kingdom …

Kelly: There are no Bible texts given to validate this statement.

Maxwell: — and in every case, God promises to repay in abundance. There is nothing unspiritual about this.

Kelly: In the context of the blessings and curses of the law (Deuteronomy 28 to 30), abundant blessings only came to those who obeyed all 600 plus commands. The curse of the law fell on those who violated any one command per Deu 27:26 and Gal 3:10. God does not promise blessings for tithing when other parts of the law are being violated (Neh 10:29; Mal 4:4; Gal 3:10).

Maxwell: The Apostle Paul discusses how to invest in the ministry through giving in Philippians, then concludes with verse 19: “And my God shall meet all your needs according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus.” Doubtless, prosperity preachers today can distort this sowing/reaping principle — but it remains a scriptural principle just the same.

Kelly: The context is freewill giving and not tithing. Because the Philippian church had assisted Paul financially, Paul said that God would bless it in return; this is the principle of sowing and reaping, not tithing. It is a conditional promise.

Maxwell: The classic test illustrating this is Malachi 3:8-12 where God instructs His people to bring their tithe to His storehouse in order to prove His generosity, as He blesses in return.

Kelly: Malachi 3:8-12 is the single most abused giving text in the Bible and Maxwell joins right in to abuse its context.

(1) In 1:1-5 it is only addressed to Old Covenant Israel (Ex 19:5-6) and not the New Covenant church.

(2) It is secondarily addressed to dishonest priests who were then cursed for giving God leftovers (1:6; 2:1 compared to 1:13-14) and for stealing the tithe from the Levites (Neh 13:5-10).

(3) Most important the tithe was still only food over 1000 years after its description in Leviticus 27:30-34.

(4) The literal storehouse was actually two large storerooms combined and only 10 ft. by 20 ft. (compare 1st Kings 6:6 with Neh 13:5). It could not possibly hold the tithe of the nation and did not need to since the people brought their Levitical tithes to the Levitical cities per Neh 10:37b.

(5) The curse is the curse of the Old Covenant (Neh 10:29; Mal 4:4).

(6) The church assembly is never compared to a storehouse building in the Bible. The early church building was not even legal until after A.D. 300.

Question: Does Jesus or The New Testament Teach Us To Tithe?

Maxwell Answer: People often mistake the New Testament truth that since “everything” belongs to the Lord, tithing is now obsolete. It is true that everything does belong to God, but far too often this becomes a cop-out for carnal people to hold on to money and material things.

Kelly: Although the sentiment is true, the implication is wrong. While “everything belonged to the Lord” even in the Old Testament (Ps 24:1), the HOLY tithe could still only come from FOOD from inside HOLY Israel. There is no precedent because only food-producers living inside Israel qualified as tithe payers. Jesus, Peter, and Paul did not qualify.

Maxwell: They prefer to spiritualize the issue just as the Pharisees did in Matthew 15:4-6.

Kelly: It is not a matter of spiritualizing the issue. It is a matter of “rightly dividing the Word.” Old Covenant tithing has not been brought over into the New Covenant after Calvary. Period. The covenant, priesthood, temple, and definition all ended. God did not command tithing and neither did he say that tithe-recipients could own or inherit property.

Maxwell: Jesus is concerned about both our understanding that God owns everything and that we ought to continue exhibiting our submission to God (tangibly) through the act of tithing.

Kelly: Without a Bible text to validate this, it is error and distortion.

Maxwell: Matthew 23:23. Luke 11:42 echoes the same truth, straight from Jesus’ lips.

Kelly: Read the text.

(1) Being before Calvary, it is Old Covenant context. Jesus would have been sinning if he had commanded His disciples to tithe to himself and it was illegal to command Gentile disciples to tithe at all.

(2) The audience is not the New Covenant church; it is “you scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites.”

(3) The context is not New Covenant; it is “matters of the law.”
(4) This is where proper hermeneutics must begin – in the text itself.

Maxwell: Tithing is brought up again in Hebrews 7:5-9 where the writer discusses Melchizedek receiving tithes as a “type of Christ.”

Kelly: Gross distortion. (1) 7:5 defines tithes as a commandment of the law to support the priesthood. (2) 7:12 says that it is necessary to change that law (of tithing) since the priesthood of Jesus is outside the law. And (3) in 7:18 the “change” was not “from Levi to gospel workers”; rather it was “from priests” to “an annulling of the commandment going before” “to collect tithes” from 7:5.

Maxwell: Clearly, this age of grace we live in was not to eliminate a biblical practice like tithing.

Kelly: It most certainly does. The covenant, temple, and priesthood supported by tithing was “abolished, annulled” per Hebrews 7:18-19.

Maxwell: if anything, we should be living an even greater, more supernatural life by giving more than our tithe!

Kelly: Again, tithing was only commanded to and received from food producers living inside Israel. It never was a standard minimum giving point for all Hebrews. Sacrificial equality giving for Christians does not look at a percentage. While some are not giving sacrificially at 10%, others are giving sacrificially at much less than 10% (2 Cor 8:1-16).

Question: Where Should My Tithe Go?

Maxwell Answer: This question has no dogmatic, scriptural answer, since the references to tithing aren’t specific as to where the tithe should be given. In the Old Testament, tithes were received at the place of worship …

Kelly: This shows a lack of deep study by Maxwell. The “tithe’ should go nowhere because there is no such thing as a tithe for the church. Jewish Christians in Judea kept paying tithes to the temple system per Acts 21:20-21. However “references to tithing were VERY SPECIFIC as to where the tithe was to be given”:

(1) Levitical tithes went to the Levitical cities for the Levite servants of the priests (Num 18:21-24; Neh 10:37b).

(2) Levites gave the best one tenth of their one tenth to the priests in the Levitical cities (Neh 10:38).

(3) Levites and priests brought what they needed a week at a time to the Temple storerooms (Neh 10:39; 12:44).

(4) The second festival tithe was brought to and eaten in the streets of Jerusalem during the festivals (Deut 12:1-19; 14:22-26).

(5) The third year poor tithe was kept in the towns (Deut 14:28-29; 26:12-13).

Maxwell: … which, today could be interpreted as the local church. This practice continued, even into the New Testament.

Kelly: The local church was not a building to store anything; it was an assembly of believers. Church buildings were not legal until after AD 300. There is no historical verification of Maxwell’s statement “This practice continued, even into the New Testament” – that is a fabricated statement.

Maxwell: Malachi 3:10 instructs us to “bring the tithe into the storehouse.”

Kelly: No, it does not. It instructed Old Covenant Israel – not the church (Neh 10:29; Mal 4:4; Lev 27:34; Ex 19:5-6).

Maxwell: This is where the term “storehouse tithing” comes from.

Kelly: It is not found in the New Testament as a description of the church.

Maxwell: The storehouse represents God’s designated place of (corporate) worship; the place where His people are spiritually fed and nurtured. Again, this seems to imply the local church.

Kelly: No, it does not. Surely something this important would have texts. “Temple” is not equivalent to “storehouse.” The “storerooms” were only a very small part of the Temple and corporate worship was not held inside storerooms for food! Compare Neh 13:5 with 1st Kings 6:6.

Maxwell: The Apostle Paul argues that financial giving to the local church enables the elders or bishops to be supported, again implying that we should tithe to the body of believers where we are taught.

Kelly: You are teaching your false implications as laws for the church.

Question: But What If I’m Not Able To Do This?

Maxwell Answer: Obviously, God calls us to give what we cannot what we can’t. Nothing more and nothing less. If someone is unemployed or in school, under the financial care of someone else — then there may be no income to tithe. But the challenge God gives us in Scripture is to become a liberal giver; to practice the principle of giving our first and our best to Him.

Kelly: The error of this statement is in equating tithes with firstfruits. They are never the same in God’s Word. First-fruits were very small token food offerings given “first” (Deut 26:1-4; Neh 10:35-37a). First Timothy 5:8 overrides giving our first to the church. “If any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”

Maxwell: Hence, tithing becomes less an issue of the wallet, and more an issue of trust. Am I trusting God to meet my needs, as I put Him first with my finances?

Kelly: All invented.

Maxwell: No doubt, we live in the age of grace.

Kelly: Grace, not law. Tithing was the heart of the law. Tithing supported the activators of the law.

Maxwell: God calls us to freedom, not bondage.

Kelly: Paul said that those who add the law back to grace have changed the pure gospel and have been bewitched (Gal 1:8-9; 3:1).

Maxwell: But formal membership in a local church calls us to live above our rights. It’s not an issue of being God’s child; it’s an issue of being God’s example for others.

Kelly: Irrelevant in a discussion of tithing.

Question: But What If I Can’t Give “Cheerfully?”

Maxwell Answer: It is true, 2 Corinthians 9:7 calls us to only give offerings that we have purposed to give; not grudgingly, but with a cheerful heart. However, note two truths. The context of this chapter refers to a special offering for an outside need, not to tithing.

Kelly: True. But you omitted “not by commandment.”

Maxwell: Tithing is the base (which God owns anyway: Malachi 3:8).

Kelly: No. This is distortion. Only food producers who lived inside God’s HOLY land of Israel were the base. Tithing never did apply to everybody or even to people like Jesus, Peter, or Paul.

Maxwell: Offerings are what we give (or “offer”) to God over and above the tithe.

Kelly: Distortion of God’s Word. The Bible does not teach “tithe PLUS offerings” – it teaches tithes AND offerings” – tithes from food-producers inside Israel and offerings from others. The New Covenant teaches freewill generous sacrificial giving – not tithing.

Maxwell: Offerings are one of the three ways we can invest in God’s kingdom, alongside tithing and giving to the poor (Proverbs 19:17).

Kelly: No. Only freewill offerings which include helping the poor (2 Cor 8 and 9 and 1 Cor 16). The word “tithe” does not occur in Proverbs.

Maxwell: The second truth we should note is that if we cannot tithe with a cheerful heart — our goals ought to be to change our heart, not our tithing amount.

Kelly: This is another non-biblical invention. It should read “freewill giving amount.”

Maxwell: God enables the Spirit-filled believer to live above rights and the flesh. We should be living supernaturally, not naturally.

Kelly: Not legally according to a set percentage.

Question: Isn’t All This Just Legalism?

Maxwell Answer: Let’s talk for a moment about legalism, grace and commitment. In the Old Testament, a Jew was first required to give one tenth to God.

Kelly: Wrong. Not all Jews. Not Jews who lived outside Israel. Not Jews who earned their living through trades and crafts. Only Hebrews who earned their living from FOOD off God’s HOLY land.

Maxwell: Then at harvest time, the farmer must give the firstfruits to God, and that consisted of one sixth of his increase.

Kelly: Wrong. Edersheim said that the firstfruits were one SIXTIETH. The Bible does not tell us and Maxwell should not be stating “one sixth” as if it were a biblical fact.

Maxwell: Then every three years a second tenth was given for the poor — social security tax.

Kelly: Wrong. This was not a “second tenth”; it was a “third tenth” per Deu 14:28-29 and 26:12-13. The first tithe is Lev 27:30-34 and Num 18:21-28. The second tithe is Deu 12:1-19; 14:22-26.

Maxwell: In addition were the special offerings of cleansing and consecration.

Kelly: Vows and fines could include money. Tithes never included money.

Maxwell: That means that his total contribution to religion would be nearer to a fifth of his income that a tenth– and that does not include voluntary support to the local synagogue. It is not difficult to imagine the temptation in times of stringency to withhold the tithe. So there we have our answer as to how much of His income Jesus gave to God.

Kelly: Josephus agrees that there were 3 separate tithes. This would amount to over 20%. If you are going to teach biblical tithing, you should teach 20-23%. As a carpenter and not a food-producer, Jesus did not qualify as a tithe payer. Jesus gave freewill sacrificial offerings.

Maxwell: If we object that the Jews were under law and we Christians are under grace, and that for us the law of the tithe has been abrogated, another question arises. Will a Christian who is experiencing intimacy with his Lord wish to take advantage of grace so that he can give less to God’s work than the less privileged Jew who knew nothing of Calvary’s sacrifice and the inestimable blessings it has brought?

Kelly: This argument falsely assumes that everybody under the law was required to begin their level of giving at ten per cent. It also assumes a false modern definition of HOLY biblical tithes. It has no basis in God’s Word and it makes the poor feel guilty.

Maxwell: Was our Lord’s matchless generosity in becoming poor for us intended to beget parsimony in His children? Paul cited it rather as an incentive to sacrificial giving.

Kelly: Does our Lord want poor widows with sick children to give their first income as a tithe to the church and do without essentials contrary to First Timothy 5:8? Teaching tithes as firstfruits should be a criminal offense of stealing from the poor who are giving money from welfare checks to the church.

Maxwell: Tithing was practiced by the patriarchs four hundred years before the Law was given (Gen. 14:20; 28:22).

Kelly: And they probably learned it from Babylon and pagan tradition as the law of the land.

Maxwell: The usage of consecrated tithes prevailed among Romans, Greeks, and Arabians as well as with the Jews; so tithing seems to rest on the common law of God’s Kingdom rather than on special Hebrew legislation.

Kelly: This is a poor argument. It assumes that, if something is very old and very common, then it must reflect an eternal moral principle. Yet the same ancient civilizations which practiced tithing also practiced idolatry, worship of heavenly bodies, child sacrifices, and temple prostitution. Instead of arguing from common law, one should argue from the law of nature and the conscience (Rom 1:18-20; 2:14-16). Giving is written in the heart and conscience of every man but tithing is not.

Maxwell: Jesus gave tithes and offerings. Is the servant greater than his Lord?

Kelly: No, Jesus did not give tithes. He was a carpenter. HOLY tithes were only FOOD from God’s HOLY land. That which man crafted was not a tithe-able item.

Maxwell: It is a misconception of the meaning of “grace” to think that it leaves it open for a believer to do less than a devout Jew would have done.

Kelly: Maxwell keeps repeating this weak argument because it is the strongest tithers can devise. Again, it is based upon the false premise that everybody under the law was required to begin their level of giving at ten per cent. However tithes did not apply to Hebrew craftsmen, tradesmen, Gentiles, or anybody outside HOLY Israel.

Maxwell: If the true spirit of grace has gripped my heart, I will not be calculating the minimum I can get away with but the maximum I can give to my Lord. The New Testament standard is not lower than the Old.

Kelly: Repeat it enough and it becomes true! That is the tactic used so often by those who want to teach tithing. There was no such thing as a “minimum, maximum, or standard” in the Old Covenant except for food producers who lived in Israel. The repeated argument has no biblical foundation.

Maxwell: In speaking about tithing in Matthew 23:23 Jesus said, “You tithe mind and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.”

Kelly: By using proper hermeneutics, the text itself is addressed to “you scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites” and is in the pre-Calvary context of “provisions of the law.” It cannot be a commandment for the church. As a Jew under the full jurisdiction of the law, Jesus would have been sinning if He had not taught tithing TO THE TEMPLE SYSTEM.

Maxwell: Did that obligation cease a few days later when He died?

Kelly: Yes, it ceased when Jesus said “it is finished,” when the veil in the Temple ripped, when the Old Covenant ended, and when its priesthood ended. The Jews no longer had an obligation obey Jesus’ command to tithe to the temple system to support the Levites and priests per the context of Matthew 23:23. Instead of transferring tithing to gospel workers as might be expected from Hebrews 7:12, tithing from 7:5 was abolished per Hebrews 7:18.

Maxwell: Is the Christian not “under law to Christ,” with His higher law of love? “I am not free from God’s law,” said Paul, “but am under Christ’s law” (1 Cor. 9:21, NIV).

Kelly: The “law to Christ” and “higher law” are not a repetition of the Old Covenant law. See “not according to” in Hebrews 8:9, “ready to vanish” in 8:13 and “abolished” in 7:18. Our new law is freewill, generous, sacrificial, joyful, not by command, not grudgingly, and motivated by love for God and lost souls.

Maxwell: It would seem from an impartial weighing of the relevant Scriptures …

Kelly: What “impartial weighing”? I am almost certain that you think gospel workers should accept tithes and also own and inherit property. Nice. You have your cake and you eat it too.

Maxwell: … that though there is not legal obligation on a believer to give a tithe, or more, of his income …

Kelly: Amen. And neither is there a spiritual command for the church to teach tithing found in the pages of the New Covenant after Calvary.

Maxwell: … his experience of Christ’s matchless grace should provide a powerful incentive to emulate the example of his Master.

Kelly: Jesus did not give an example of tithing. He gave an example of extreme sacrificial giving to save lost souls.

Maxwell: As has been said, sacrifice is the ecstasy of giving the best we have to the One whom we love the most.

Kelly: Finally, something we agree on.
*******

PART II: DR. RUSSELL KELLY EXPOSE ON TOM BROWN

http://tithing-russkelly.com/id216.html

Russell Earl Kelly, PHD
[email protected]
www.tithing-russkelly.com
Author of: Should the Church Teach Tithing

TITHING: www.tithing-russkelly.com
THEOLOGY: www.tithing-russkelly.com/theology
SDA: www.tithing-russkelly.com/sda

MORE OF DR. RUSSELL KELLY VIDEO EXPOSES ON TITHING AND OTHER EXPOSES ON TITHING ON OUR PERFECTPEACEPLAN WEBSITE AT:

http://www.perfectpeaceplan.com/post/tithing-apostles-of-greed-and-bondage/

Appellate Brief against Christian & Missionary Alliance & Bruce Terpstra

COMMUNITY CHURCH OF APPELLATE BRIEF TABLE OF CONTENTS

Rick Warren clamored for his Global Peace Plan and touted it to include Muslims. He even changed the P from Plant Churches to Promote Reconciliation in order diffuse any chance of offending Muslims. Even tried to invoked Scripture to justify it including Muslims…long before the recent uproar in the OC Register. What does he take us all for…fools? Who does he think he is kidding? And as you both point out he signed the Christian Response long before the OC uproars. This is beyond the pale!

BOTTOM LINE:

THERE IS NO WAY THAT THE PRINCE OF PEACE IS GOING TO FORGE HIS GLOBAL PEACE PLAN WITH THE PRINCE OF DARKNESS (RICK WARREN’S GLOBAL PEACE PLAN HE IS FORGING WITH MUSLIMS)

“Rick Warren Caught Fibbing?” World Net Daily

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/newspaper-catches-rick-warren-fibbing/