ttalks:

Colossians 2:13-14(KJV)
(13) And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
(14) Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Colossians 2:13-14(NIV)
13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,
14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

pilgrim.1,

What is the handwriting of ordinances/written code with its regulations?

Good question, ttalks.

Often times, people assume that Jesus nailed 'the Law' on the Cross and thereby took it away - which idea they derive from quoting such texts as Colossians 2:13-14, etc. However, I don't think it makes a coherent sense to assume that "the Law" was nailed to the Cross - if that was the case, then "the Law" should have no place at all in any Christian doctrine whatsoever. One cannot take something away and then appeal to aspects of what was nailed to the Cross when teaching Christian doctrines. To do so is to play the game of selective reading and the convenience trap.

However, the text in simple terms tells us that the things which were written against us have been taken away. Let's see this together:


1. Those verses are not speaking about the Law:

The Law was not "against us" or "contrary to us"; for it it were otherwise, why would a believer desire something that is against him in his heart? Remember: "For I delight in the law of God after the inward man. . . So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God" (Romans 7:22 & 25).


2. The Law is not evil

For this, one only needs to look at the nature of the law in Romans 7 -
[list][li]verse 7 - "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid."[/li]
[li]verse 12 - "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good"[/li][/list]
If the Law was "contrary to us", it could not be said in other instance by the same apostle to be 'holy, just and good'. If something is said to be against us in context of Colossians 2, we should closely examine it and not make giant leaps to assume what it does not.


3. What was "written against us"?

The things that are written against us are the ordinances of our sins - these are the things written against us (as in the idea of 'debts' in Jewish eschatology).

The verse as expressed in NIV is quite misleading, for by adding or inserting "with its regulations" would make one think that it was the Law that was nailed on the Cross. Those insertions are mere conjectures and not the thought expressed in that verse. Other simple translations make the point precisely:

[list][li]"having blotted out [or, canceled] the handwritten record of debts in the ordinances against us, which was contrary to us, and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross" - Colossians 2:14, ALT (Analytical Literal Translation)[/li][/list].

What is the point here? Simply this: that Christ took our debts away - nailed them to the Cross, for which verse 13 declares that we are forgiven ALL trespasses. But this may not do justice to it if we fail to look at other verses to affirm the point.

The 'ordinances' written against sinners is a well known teaching in the Bible. An example - God makes clear in the Law that whoever sinned againt Him would be blotted out of His book (Exo. 32:33). However, we know that Israel broke God's covenant again and again (Jer. 11:10 & 22:9). What was God's answer to this? Let's see an example:

[list][li]"Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day. It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the evil which I purpose to do unto them; that they may return every man from his evil way; that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin. " - (Jeremiah 36:2-3)[/li][/list]

Now, these things were written as an "ordinances against" His people (and indeed ALL nations of the world) - the 'evil' which was determined against us for our iniquity and our sins.

YET, in all these, God had declared that He would make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah (Jeremiah 31:31-34) - and in quoting the same in Hebrews 8, God said He would remember our sins and iniquities no more (verse 12)! How would He accomplish this? By the vicarious work of His own Son on the Cross - whose death took away those "handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us" (Colossians 2:14). On the basis of this, verse 13 could declare that we are forgiven ALL trespasses - all that was written against us ("us" - whether it be Israel, Judah or ALL nations - Jer. 36:2-3). If God took away "the Law" and nailed it to the Cross, He would not afterwards come back to write them in our mind and hearts! How could God come back writing on our hearts the very things that were "against us"?

It's important to seek to understand Colossians 2:13-14, not as the NIV misreads it, but as the ALT helps us to see the point: "having blotted out [or, canceled] the handwritten record of debts in the ordinances against us, which was contrary to us, and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross".

I hope this helps?

@ pilgrim

welcome back.

why did u go on exile?

@noetic,

noetic:

@ pilgrim

welcome back.

why did u go on exile?

Lol, na wah. I apologise, for it was not 'exile'. There was a lot that occupied me, and I'm on a good break and thought to see what's happening on the forum. How body? I trust you dey kampe, abi?

pilgrim.1,

Your response to my question was quite helpful in understanding ur view.

Now, if you could still indulge me once again:

Are we in agreement when one says that the law comprises of the ten commandments along with all the other laws in the old testament?

ttalks:

pilgrim.1,

Your response to my question was quite helpful in understanding ur view.

Now, if you could still indulge me once again:

@ttalks,

I'm open anytime to dialogue - and yes, I'd still be willing to consider further queries.

ttalks:

Are we in agreement when one says that the law comprises of the ten commandments along with all the other laws in the old testament?

Simply: yes - in as much as the operating word there is 'comprises'.

However, that is not all that the term 'the Law' entails. It includes not just what things are commanded as 'other laws' in the OT; but also the prophecies enunciated in the body of the Law. I know you're quite aware of this point; but for the sake of our readers. Examples of such prophecies may include Deuteronomy 18 about 'the Prophet' who came in the fulness of time as the Saviour, God's own Son.

'The Law' also includes doctrine about other matters - such as the nature of God (He is holy - Lev. 19:2), the unity of God (Deut. 6:4 - 'The LORD our God is one LORD'), etc.

The term 'the Law' is used sometimes, not so much as 'laws to be obeyed'; but rather as a witness to something about God's divine dealings with His people. In this sense, we read such texts as that the righteousness of God is being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets (please see Romans 3:21). As a witness, it also provides the basis for exposing false teaching and false teachers (compare Isaiah 8:20).

There are at least seventeen other matters that I've found are denoted by the term 'the Law' as variously used in Scripture (both the OT and NT), and this not including other mentions of 'laws' arbitrarily mentioned in many instances. What may be helpful here on our subject is to see the context in which 'the Law' is spoken of in regards of both our relationship to Christ and practical Christian living.

May I apologise if you might have been unclear about my previous entries - I certainly didn't mean for you to be unclear in my comments about how that 'the Law' features in Christian doctrines in quoting Romans 3:31, 1 Corinthians 7 and 14, as well other passages. I'll try and make it a bit more coherent so we all could benefit.

Cheers.

pilgrim.1,

If you agree that the law comprises of the ten commandments and the other laws, then I find it hard to understand why u do not see that the law and the old covenant are the same thing.

Look at the following verses:

Exodus 34:27-28
(27)  And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
(28)  And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

Deuteronomy 4:12-13
(12)  And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice.
(13)  And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

Deuteronomy 9:9-11
(9)  When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant which the LORD made with you, then I abode in the mount forty days and forty nights, I neither did eat bread nor drink water:
(10)  And the LORD delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the LORD spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly.
(11)  And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the LORD gave me the[b] two tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant.[/b]

The passages highlighted above show that the ten commandments were the old covenant.
The ten commandments were the old covenant;the other laws/precepts that followed were commandments within/under that covenant, altogether comprising the Law.

@ttalks,

ttalks:

If you agree that the law comprises of the ten commandments and the other laws, then I find it hard to understand why u do not see that the law and the old covenant are the same thing.

Okay, I'll tell you why I do not see it so. Notice first that my agreement with you was on the operating word "comprises" - this gave me the idea that the Law "comprises" (that it, "includes", and not 'limited to only') the 'ten commandments' and the other laws of the Old Testament ('OT', not 'old covenant').

In that sense, if 'the Law' comprises (ie., 'includes') something, it does not mean that is the only thing that makes up the Law. For this reason, I shared other matters contained in the Law, such as prophecies, doctrines, and its acting as a witness.

To ignore this point is to make the Law narrower than what Scripture points out, and then when we assume that the "Law" was nailed to the Cross, we're effectively saying that both the prophecies, the doctrines, and the witness have been nailed to the Cross and taken out of the way (if that is what you wanted to point out from Colossians 2:13-14). Further, it would be saying that 'the Law' with its prophecies, doctrines and witness were "contrary to us" and "against us" - is that what Scripture teaches? Since we know that is not what Scripture teaches, how come some are assuming that Colossians 2:13-14 was speaking about 'the law'? How come, if they make such an inference, they assume that the Ten Commandments were "against us" and "contrary to us"?

These and some other issues are the reason why I don't make the mistake of thinking that the Law is simply the 'old covenant' as one and the same thing: meaning, if the 'old covenant' waxing old and decaying, it would be the same thing to say that the Ten Commandments was waxing old and decaying as well, yes? If that is so, please show me any verse that teaches that the ten Commandments are decaying. Just one verse from either OT or NT will do nicely, thank you.

Now, to other matters:

ttalks:

Look at the following verses:

Exodus 34:27-28
(27) And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.
(28) And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

Deuteronomy 4:12-13
(12) And the LORD spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice.
(13) And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

Deuteronomy 9:9-11
(9) When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant which the LORD made with you, then I abode in the mount forty days and forty nights, I neither did eat bread nor drink water:
(10) And the LORD delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the LORD spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly.
(11) And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the LORD gave me the[b] two tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant.[/b]

Then you said:

ttalks:

The passages highlighted above show that the ten commandments were the old covenant.

I'm sorry to note that you've again not handled this issue properly. I've re-highlighted those quotes and can summarize them as below:

[list][li]"the words of the covenant, the ten commandments"[/li][li]"his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments[/li][/list]

You'll notice something striking here - 'covenant' as used those passages point merely to the Decalogue - the Ten Commandments, and nothing else. To underscore this point, after Moses read the Ten Commandments to Israel in Deuteronomy 5, he clearly stated that "he added no more" (verse 22). As regards the Decalogue, there was nothing more than the Ten Commandments written on the tables; yet, the decalogue alone did not constitute the whole of what is properly called 'the Law'.

Despite this, when we speak of God's 'covenant' with Israel in a wider context than the Decalogue, then we find other matters not expressed in the Ten Commandments. Examples:

[list][li]although God had made a covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, He yet brought the remembrance of this covenant to be operative upon Israel for their sake (Exo. 2:24; Deut. 4:31; Lev. 26:42, 45) - yet, this covenant is not to be confused with the covenant which He made with Israel as a nation specifically.[/li]
[li]within the matrix of the 'covenant' He already made with Israel, He specially promised a 'covenant of peace' unto Phinehas and his lineage. This is not the same thing as the Decalogue, and there was no "laws" upon which this 'covenant of peace' was granted to Phinehas other than that it was because he turned God's wrath away from Israel (Numbers 25:10-13; compare Mal. 2:4-5)[/li]
[li]besides the covenant of the Decalogue, God made yet another 'covenant' with Israel - "These are the words of the covenant, which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb." (Deut. 29:1-2, 10-12)[/li][/list]

The point in all this is that we be careful to see what exactly is meant by 'the covenant' in the texts which you quoted - those are referring to the Decalogue which contained just ten commandments with the emphasis: "he added no more". However, that which is called "the Law" has a wider application and is not the same thing as "the covenant".

One distinction to note is that the Decalogue does not contain a commandment about "circumcision" (check Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5); we can only find matters above the circumcision in the statutes which were given unto Israel in other instances (Lev. 12:3).

Going back to your basic premise, if you are arguing that the "old covenant" is the same thing as "the Law", and therefore assume that it is nailed to the Cross and taken out of the way (inferring from your quoting Colossians 2;13-14), are we then to say that the Ten Commandments have been -

[list][li]nailed to the Cross?[/li]
[li]taken out of the way?[/li]
[li]they were contrary to us?[/li]
[li]they were against us?[/li][/list]

If Colossians 2:13-14 is speaking about the Decalogue (the 'covenant' for which you quoted Exo. 34:27-29; Deut. 4:12-13; and Deut. 9:9-11), would you be saying that the same Decalogue was contrary to us and against us? Was that what was nailed to the Cross? if not, how then are you making the law and the old covenant the very same thing?

ttalks:

The ten commandments were the old covenant;the other laws/precepts that followed were commandments within/under that covenant, altogether comprising the Law.

So then, has the Law been nailed to the Cross, including the Ten Commandments - were such things taught as having been taken out of the way because they were contrary to us or against us?

Again, I repost the following chapter:

2Co 3:1-18
(1)  Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?
(2)  Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:
(3)  Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
(4)  And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:
(5)  Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
(6)  Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
(7) But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
(8  How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
(9)  For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
(10)  For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
(11)  For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
(12)  Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
(13)  And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
(14)  But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
(15)  But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
(16)  Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
(17)  Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
(18)  But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

Look at verse 7.It says the ministration of death was written and engraven in stones.
The question we should now ask is:
What was written and engraven in stones?
Answer: The ten Commandments,which is the old covenant/what the old covenant is built upon.
Here we see that the ten commandments are refered to as the ministration of death.
They are also refered to as the ministration of condemnation in verse 9.
They are also said to have been done away in verse 11.

And you ask how could the law be against us/How could it be contrary to us?

It was against the israelites because they could not keep to its requirements;hence it became a ministration of death since there were curses for not being able to keep the requirements.

I think I should redefine what a covenant is in relation to laws

A covenant is an agreement.
The laws are the terms and conditions by which the agreement is upheld.

The old covenant which had its foundation in the ten commandments was God's agreement with the israelites.
This agreement had terms and conditions by which it could be upheld and these were the laws given by Moses to the people after
giving them the ten commandments.

Deuteronomy 4
12 And the LORD spoke to you from the heart of the fire. You heard the sound of his words but didn't see his form; there was only a voice.
13 He proclaimed his covenant—the Ten Commandments—which he commanded you to keep, and which he wrote on two stone tablets.
14 It was at that time that the LORD commanded me to teach you his decrees and regulations so you would obey them in the land you are about to enter and occupy.



The ten commandments were the agreement; the laws that followed were the terms and conditions/decrees and regulations of the agreement and made up the embodiment or body of the agreement.
The ten commandments were the head; the laws were the body.
All together, they make up/made up the old covenant.

The ten commandments were/are the law of Moses.They represent the old covenant.Every other law that was given after the writing of the ten commandments were given based on or in line with that covenant.
We cannot seperate the law/laws from the old covenant.
Together they make up a single unit.

Just a little addition:
The ten commandments could be looked at like a constitution.
The laws which came after them are like laws which are enacted or made based on the constitution.
The ten commandments are the foundation of the the other laws.

@ttalks,

Again, I well appreciate your persuasions and understand why you see things the way you do. However, when we draw inferences, it is important to test them out to see if they endure a coherent whole. If ideas are made which cannot be sustained by comparing other verses, then the initial inferences immediately collapse and cannot stand up to be defended.

On that basis, when we carefully examine the inferences you drew and then test them out, the one question to ask is this: can they be sustained or would they suffer an immediate inward collapse? The reason why I offer this point is because that is what a balanced understanding of Scripture comes about. The apostle Peter warned that we should not give "private interpretation" to any single verse (2 peter 1:20-21); and only when we compare them can we see the substance of any verse.

ttalks:

Look at verse 7.It says the ministration of death was written and engraven in stones.
The question we should now ask is:
What was written and engraven in stones?
Answer: The ten Commandments,which is the old covenant/what the old covenant is built upon.
Here we see that the ten commandments are refered to as the ministration of death.
They are also refered to as the ministration of condemnation in verse 9.
They are also said to have been done away in verse 11.

Thanks for quoting again 2 Corinthians 3:1-18. One is tempted to simply assume that the 'old covenant' = 'the Ten Commandments' = 'the Law', as you had opined. If that is the case, please notice the striking point you highlighted in that chapter: "They are also said to have been done away in verse 11". From this, the only inference(s) you seem to have offered is that:

[list][li]the 'old covenant' (all of it) is done away[/li][li]the 'Ten Commandments' (all of them) are done away[/li][li]'the Law' (the entire whole) is done away[/li][/list]

Now, if that is the case, then there is therefore no need to appeal to ANY part of what is "done away" and carry them over into Christianity. To "do away" with something and yet come back to maintain that "some aspects" are to be "upheld" is to fall into the convenience trap and resort to selective reading. I draw this from your assertion earlier that - "The new testament upholds aspects of the law but not all". But as we can see, 2 Corinthians 3:1-18 does not suggest at all that ANY "aspects of the Law" or parts of what is "done away" were preserved! Nothing preserved, upheld, sustained or addend from what is done away, according to that chapter. The apostle Paul does not teach such a notion of "some aspects" in that chapter, especially in verse 10 where he stated clearly that "even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect" - the old does not add anything to the new to make the new glorious in any respect.

ttalks:

And you ask how could the law be against us/How could it be contrary to us?

It was against the israelites because they could not keep to its requirements;hence it became a ministration of death since there were curses for not being able to keep the requirements.

From the foregoing, I'd like to now examine the concerns you highlighted from 2 Corinthians 3:1-18. You will notice there are at least a few descriptive terms used for what is 'done away' in that chapter:

[list][li]'the ministration of death' - verse 7[/li][li]'the ministration of condemnation ' - verse 9[/li][/list]

Yet, the point here is to seek to understand what exactly these descriptive terms are pointing to. True, the Decalogue was written/engraved on stones (Exo. 32:15-16; and 34:28). But were the Ten Commandments (ie, the Decalogue) a "ministration of death/condemnation" to anyone? If that is the case you seek to make, then nothing from the Decalogue should be carried over into Christianity, much as the point is that verse 11 asserts it (the ministration of death) is "done away". But we know that the Decalogue still plays an effective role in Christian living - we know this, don't we? Therefore, if the Ten Commandments are "done away", why are there so many Christian doctrines that derive from the same Ten Commandments?

It does not even help to say that the Decalogue was 'contrary to us' or 'against us' just because there were curses for not being able to keep its requirements. I have news for you - in the new covenant, a person who is unable to keep its 'requirements' was exposing himself/herself to more severe penalties! You can see in the text below that there were penalties in either case of the old covenant and the new covenant were they were despised -

[list][li]"He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?" - (Hebrews 10:28-29)[/li][/list]

The Ten Commandments were not "against us" or "contrary to us" - that was not what was "nailed to the Cross" in Colossians 2:13-14.

So what is the 'ministration of death/condemnation'?

Clearly, the Ten Commandments do not minister death and condemnation to anybody. In the first place, no Gentile was given the 'old covenant' - we know this from verses already cited (Deut. 5:2-3; Rom. 2:14 and 3:19). So, we as Gentile believers in Christ cannot start claiming that the Law was against us when we were never given that Law in the first place!

Second, following the principle of 2 Peter 1:20-21, we need to compare scripture with scripture to get a coherent whole of a subject. For this, we turn to Romans 7 where we are told precisely how this 'ministration of death' comes about.

1. First, the Law was not the problem -
[list][li]Is the law sin? God forbid - Rom. 7:7[/li][li]the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good -  Rom. 7:12[/li][li]'For we know that the law is spiritual' - Rom. 7:14[/li][/list]

2. Paul never said that the Law was a ministration of death -
[list][li]'Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid' - Rom. 7:13[/li][/list]
It is clear that he saw the Law as both 'spiritual' and 'good, holy and just' (v. 12, 14); and he asked the astute question: could we say then that the thing 'which is good' has suddenly been 'made death' unto him? His answer is strong: GOD FORBID!

You see, 'the Law' was not a 'ministration of death' - for the 'ministration' was itself something that came about from the experience of a carnal man: ('For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin' - Rom. 7:14). How then was the 'good thing' (the law) found in his experience to have become something that it was not meant to be?

3. Paul points to something else as the problem: sin --
[list][li]'And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death' - Rom. 7:10[/li][li]'For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me' - Rom. 7:11[/li][/list]

This is simple enough:
(a) the commandment was 'ordained unto life'
(b) as a carnal man sold under sin, he found the same commandment to be 'unto death'
(c) he does not blame the commandment for his problem
(d) rather, he discovered that it was "sin" that deceived him, for the Law did not deceive him.
(e) 'If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good' - v. 16

If the law was actually itself a 'ministration of death', could you please tell me why the same apostle would be saying afterwards:

[list][li]"For I delight in the law of God after the inward man" - Rom. 7:22[/li][li]'So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God' - Rom. 7:25[/li][/list]

I just want to know how the very same apostle could "delight in" and "serve" the Law, if that same Law was to be called "the ministration of death/condemnation"?  How do we connect both ideas and make sense of the idea that something is considered a 'ministration unto death' and yet the same apostle is saying, 'yes, I "delight in" and "serve" that same thing!?!

Now, back to 2 Corinthians 3:1-18.

The simple issue there to understand is this: the 'old covenant' which is simply Judaism is what God was doing away with in 2 Corinthians 3. It was not the 'Ten Commandments' or the Law. No offense to anyone, but Judaism was what was simply being discussed in that chapter. That is why it is clear that it appertains to the glory of Moses. 

Unfortunately, many people who mistake 2 Corinthians 3:1-18 for the idea that the 'Ten Commandments' are done away (verse 11) do not understand simply that the 'ministration of death/condemnation' was not the Decalogue. If it were the Decalogue, then please test out that assumption by carefully considering the following questions:

  - To do away with something means that it is no longer obeyed.
    That is what many people have argued; and we know that once
    you do away with something as a unit, you cannot appeal to any
    "aspects" from that same thing to carry over elsewhere - because
    it would mean simply that you truly have NOT done away with that
thing.

Consider therefore the "parts" or aspects of the Decalogue - have these also been done away with? --

[list][li]Exo 20:14 - Thou shalt not kill.[/li][li]Exo 20:14 - Thou shalt not commit adultery.[/li][li]Exo 20:15 - Thou shalt not steal.[/li][li]Exo 20:16  - Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.[/li][li]Exo 20:17 - Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.[/li][/list]

Those are "aspects" of the same 'Ten Commandments'. Questions:
[list][li]are they contrary to us?[/li][li]are they against us?[/li][li]have they been nailed to the Cross?[/li][li]have they been done away?[/li][li]if they are done away, WHY do we find Christian doctrines derived from the Law that is supposed to have been done away with?[/li][/list]

I hope you can see that the idea that the ten Commandments are done away just does not stand up to face value. Not at all - because if that is the case, then NOTHING from what is "done away" should be used in Christian doctrines for practical living. If any "aspect" is addend from what is 'done away' and carried over into Christianity, it immediate collapses the idea you derived from 2 Corinthians 3:1-18, for Paul never in one instance made any inference of carrying any part over from what is "done away".

I'm beginning to see signs to bow out of this debate cos my points just ain't getting across.

When the bible says "done away", that does not mean destroyed.It has to be understood in terms of what the covenants stood for.
When the bible says the old covenant is done away with,it simply means it does not serve as a requirement by God for justification.
It's purpose had been fulfiled.
The old covenant pointed to the raising up of a new covenant.That was all it stood for;it was there till the new and perfect covenant would come.
The old covenant only serves to point to the need for the new covenant.

Now, you say how can we say the ten commandments have been done away with?
The ten commandments have been done away as requirements for us to be in covenant with God.The old covenant was based on these ten commandments and the conditions for enabling the covenant to be constant was obedience to its requirements.
The new covenant does not require us to obey the ten commandments for it to be effective in our lives.
All we need to do within the new covenant is to obey the Spirit of God.  Romans 7:6.
How do we obey the Spirit of God?
By simply following what the Spirit teaches as expressed in the new covenant;found in the doctrine of the apostles.
As Christians,we do not need to make sure we are obeying the individual commandments in the ten commandments.
As long as we love our neighbours as we love ourselves,we're fine.

This is what Christians need to know:
Gal 5:16
(16)  This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

When we walk in the Spirit, we would not fulfil the lust of the flesh(doing the stuff that is sin).
It is those who do not walk in the Spirit that need to be mindful of keeping the individual commandments.
Those in the Spirit do not need to bother themselves because the fruit of the Spirit will always be good and never evil.

Gal 5:22
(22)  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

Back to "ministration of death".As I said earlier,the bible calls the ten commandments/law/old covenant the ministration of death.
It was called so because the law/ten commandments/old covenant could not give life but only brought death because it was very certain
that no man could keep the law perfectly due to the nature of sin in man.

The law in itself was good,but in its whole embodiment,as regards what it requires of man;which was impossible due to man's nature,made it a ministration of death.

An instance:
In a jungle,the very best food which would provide the best nourishment for the jungle clan resides upon a tall,thin, edifice
rising out of the middle of a crocodile infested river.
The information about what this food can do to those who get to eat it makes people within the jungle clan attempt to cross the river with the dangers lurking within.
The natural thing happens and the crocodiles feed upon those who attempt to cross the river.
Now,those of the clan that did not make the attempt do desire the food but because of what is involved ,they can't get it.
So, in their usual conversations about the food,the process of getting the food is termed "an attempt of death".
The food is good but the requirement to get its wonderful attributes is called "attempt of death."

It is this mind boggling and impossible situation about the law that Paul was highlighting in Romans 7:14 down to the end.
It explains why the law is regarded as a ministration of death;because the nature of sin in man makes it so.

Any area in the new covenant highlighting a law of the old covenant should not be surprising because the new covenant is promoting the right stuff and if a law in the old covenant does promote the same right stuff, it definitely will play a part in buttressing the doctrine it promotes.

Now,the new covenant does not in any way promote tithes as one of its requirements and as we all know,the practice of tithes is based on what the law says.
If the new covenant had in anyway promoted tithes as one of its requirements of service, there would have been no problem.
But it does not so there is no point trying to find a way of letting it remain within the covenant when it was not put there in the first place.

@ttalks,

ttalks:

I'm beginning to see signs to bow out of this debate cos my points just ain't getting across.

Well, what can I say? I get your points, but my concerns are simply that the way you handle the Law is making it difficult for you to answer the questions that arise from your inferences. I reckon that when the coherent whole is grasped, the other matters are easily accessible.

ttalks:

When the bible says "done away", that does not mean destroyed.It has to be understood in terms of what the covenants stood for.

So, you agree then that "done away" does not mean that the Law was "nailed to the Cross" in Colossians 2:13-14? Again, "done away" (2 Cor. 3:11) is not the same thing as "took it out of the way" (Col. 2:14)?

ttalks:

When the bible says the old covenant is done away with,it simply means it does not serve as a requirement by God for justification.

This presents a problem. I wonder where it is taught that the 'old covenant' ever justified anybody? It seems to me that "justification" was not one of the purposes of the 'old covenant', considering such verses as the following -

[list][li]the Law of Moses could not justify anyone - Acts 13:39[/li][li]'no man is justified by the law in the sight of God' - Gal. 3:11[/li][/list]

Seeing this is the case, I'm really concerned when people assume (or seem to infer) that the 'old covenant' previously was the basis for "justification" until the new covenant was established. In that case, it gives the idea that there are two grounds of justification in Scripture: (a) one by the old covenant; (b) the other by the new covenant. Yet, it is evident that the collective testimony of Scripture does not presuppose that any man was justified in God's sight on the basis of the Law or 'old covenant'. If there is such a verse actually teaching justification at any time by the old covenant, please share and I shall gladly consider it (perhaps I've been terribly mistaken).

ttalks:

It's purpose had been fulfiled.
The old covenant pointed to the raising up of a new covenant.That was all it stood for;it was there till the new and perfect covenant would come.
The old covenant only serves to point to the need for the new covenant.

Wait a mo. If "justification" was at all possible at any time by the 'old covenant', what then was the need for a 'new covenant' to come and do the same work? Does this not make the case simple that the 'old covenant' never justified anyone?

The case you're trying to make here is no different from your initial position, part of which was your stating that:

[list][li]"Putting the law at an end does not mean it is destroyed or abolished. it simply means it is no longer required for our salvation.[/li][/list]

And my answer to that was: "The Law was not given at any time as a requirement for our salvation." Whether it was "salvation" or "justification", neither of them were purposes of the 'old covenant' - and the case is no different as repeated here.

Once we are able to grasp this simple fact that the Law was never at any time given for "justification" (or "salavation", then we more easily see why there's no reason to say that "it is no longer required for" such things, for it was not the basis of such things in the first place.

ttalks:

Now, you say how can we say the ten commandments have been done away with?
The ten commandments have been done away as requirements for us to be in covenant with God.The old covenant was based on these ten commandments and the conditions for enabling the covenant to be constant was obedience to its requirements.

Okay, I get you. Again, though, the Ten Commandments were never committed to "us" as Gentiles in the first place (remember Deut. 5:2-3; Rom. 2:14 and 3:19). Following this, it could not be said that the old covenant was a requirement for "us" to be in covenant with God. Secondly, the apostle Paul clearly says that we as Gentiles were "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise" (Eph. 2:11-12) - for the old covenant were never committed to the Gentiles at anytime.

Third, what made the old covenant 'operative' (or "enabled" was not the Ten Commandment or anything written. No, not at all. Remember we already have dealt with this very point, and I shared that what made a covenant to be operative and effectual was what ratified it. If the words of the covenant had only been written and read to the people, it was as ineffectual as if there were no covenants at all! That is what Hebrews 9:17 - "For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth". Following this, it goes on to say:

[list]Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, "This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you" (Heb. 9:18-20, ESV)[/list]

Indeed, I agree with you that the substance of the old covenant was its contents - i.e., what it declares. However, what "enabled" or put it into force or operation was the very thing that ratified it: the 'blood of the covenant' (again verse 17 - "otherwise it is of no strength at all". It was not their obedience or disobedience that "enabled" the covenant; rather, it was its ratification by blood that did so.

ttalks:

The new covenant does not require us to obey the ten commandments for it to be effective in our lives.

Agreed; and I don't remember saying that it did.

ttalks:

All we need to do within the new covenant is to obey the Spirit of God. Romans 7:6.
How do we obey the Spirit of God?
By simply following what the Spirit teaches as expressed in the new covenant;found in the doctrine of the apostles.
As Christians,we do not need to make sure we are obeying the individual commandments in the ten commandments.
As long as we love our neighbours as we love ourselves,we're fine.

Yes, I agree. I don't remember saying that we need to seek obedience to individual commandments in the Decalogue as Christians; although we cannot deny the fact that loving God and loving neighbour are clearly the "fulfilling of the Law and the prophets", even as Christians (Rom. 13:8 & 10) .

ttalks:

This is what Christians need to know:
Gal 5:16
(16) This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

When we walk in the Spirit, we would not fulfil the lust of the flesh(doing the stuff that is sin).
It is those who do not walk in the Spirit that need to be mindful of keeping the individual commandments.
Those in the Spirit do not need to bother themselves because the fruit of the Spirit will always be good and never evil.

A very good point. If I may ask: what then is "evil" in giving a tithe of our financial resources as part of Christian giving? Mind you, there are many tithers who do so without trying to fulfill the 'old covenant'; and in many instances, many of them have been led by the Spirit of God to do so. If then these Christians are tithing their financial income as an expression of their stewardship to honour the Lord, what "evil" could there be in that?

ttalks:

Gal 5:22
(22) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

Amen.

ttalks:

Back to "ministration of death".As I said earlier,the bible calls the ten commandments/law/old covenant the ministration of death.
It was called so because the law/ten commandments/old covenant could not give life but only brought death because it was very certain
that no man could keep the law perfectly due to the nature of sin in man.

The law in itself was good,but in its whole embodiment,as regards what it requires of man;which was impossible due to man's nature,made it a ministration of death.

No wahala.

ttalks:

An instance:
In a jungle,the very best food which would provide the best nourishment for the jungle clan resides upon a tall,thin, edifice
rising out of the middle of a crocodile infested river.
The information about what this food can do to those who get to eat it makes people within the jungle clan attempt to cross the river with the dangers lurking within.
The natural thing happens and the crocodiles feed upon those who attempt to cross the river.
Now,those of the clan that did not make the attempt do desire the food but because of what is involved ,they can't get it.
So, in their usual conversations about the food,the process of getting the food is termed "an attempt of death".
The food is good but the requirement to get its wonderful attributes is called "attempt of death."

Hmm, again thank you for the analogy. I don't want to run the risk of misconstruing which fits where. But if I may attempt: since the "food is good", it makes me think of the same thing in Romans 7:14 - "the Law is good". I could only hazard a guess that the "attempt of death" is not the food, but the experience of the person reaching for the food, not so? In which case, it is the person himself who 'finds in his own experience' that the 'attempt' is the problem and not the food itself. In same manner, Paul in Romans 7:10 says that while the commandment was "ordained unto life", by experience he found to be unto death ("I found".

ttalks:

It is this mind boggling and impossible situation about the law that Paul was highlighting in Romans 7:14 down to the end.
It explains why the law is regarded as a ministration of death;because the nature of sin in man makes it so.

The 'nature of sin in man' points to his experience ('I am carnal' -v. 14); but his experience does not change anything about the true nature of the Law ('I consent unto the law that it is good' - v. 16).

ttalks:

Any area in the new covenant highlighting a law of the old covenant should not be surprising because the new covenant is promoting the right stuff and if a law in the old covenant does promote the same right stuff, it definitely will play a part in buttressing the doctrine it promotes.

This is where you've again run into a huge problem. Let's be consistent here, biko. You have held the view all along that -

* the 'old covenant' is the Law - they are the same thing
(your quote: "As said before, it is the law which is the same as the old covenant"

* as being the same thing, the Law is the 'ministration of death'

Question: if the 'old covenant' = 'the Law' = 'ministration of death', what "right stuff" are you bringing over from a 'ministration of condemnation'? Are you forgetting that the apostle in 2 Cor. 3:10 declares that the old covenant has "no glory in this respect"?

Lol, it's simple, really. If something as a whole is called the 'ministration of death and condemnation', one would think twice before trying to select some of its pieces and carry them into 'the glory that excelleth'. A 'ministration of death' is still a 'ministration of death' anyway you look at it, small-medium-or-large.

ttalks:

Now,the new covenant does not in any way promote tithes as one of its requirements and as we all know,the practice of tithes is based on what the law says.

First, tithes were never established as a "requirement" anywhere for one's salvation - whether old or new covenant. Those who tithed before the Law were not doing so in order to be "justified" or "saved" or to "enter" into any covenant with God.

Second, the practice of tithing is not "based" on what the Law says - rather, the Law incorporated tithing that was already in existence long before the emergence of the nation of Israel. Like I said, what the Law did not originate, it cannot annul as if they both had a common history.

ttalks:

If the new covenant had in anyway promoted tithes as one of its requirements of service, there would have been no problem.

The new covenant does not promote any type of giving as a "requirement" for service - it is men who make "requirements" where there are none. This is why many people who argue againts tithes would always think of it as a "requirement" or "obligation" - and many people who tithe become confused all the more. This should not be the case.

ttalks:

But it does not so there is no point trying to find a way of letting it remain within the covenant when it was not put there in the first place.

You seem to dismiss it simply because you haven't taken the time to understand what it means or the principles in the NT that point to tithing, not as a "requirement" of service, but as a response to what the apostle taught. Look closely at 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 and think about what the apostle was alluding to - it may throw some more light on the subject for you.

Shalom.

Hmmm! And the battle rages on. . . . To tithe or not to tithe?

It's really amazing how such diametrically opposing views can be eloquently justified with verses from the same Bible. However it seems as though some contributors are deliberately - and quite ingeniously - sieving out Biblical references to back their convictions. Moreover, I have noticed that debates like these particularly hardly ever results in capitulation of either side no matter how the compelling the argument is; the pieces evidences/references after being exhausted are recycled, and debate continues to rage on.

Soo what really is the use?

pilgrim.1:



This presents a problem. I wonder where it is taught that the 'old covenant' ever justified anybody? It seems to me that "justification" was not one of the purposes of the 'old covenant', considering such verses as the following -

[list][li]the Law of Moses could not justify anyone - Acts 13:39[/li][li]'no man is justified by the law in the sight of God' - Gal. 3:11[/li][/list]

Seeing this is the case, I'm really concerned when people assume (or seem to infer) that the 'old covenant' previously was the basis for "justification" until the new covenant was established. In that case, it gives the idea that there are two grounds of justification in Scripture: (a) one by the old covenant; (b) the other by the new covenant.   Yet, it is evident that the collective testimony of Scripture does not presuppose that any man was justified in God's sight on the basis of the Law or 'old covenant'. If there is such a verse actually teaching justification at any time by the old covenant, please share and I shall gladly consider it (perhaps I've been terribly mistaken).

This is the result of the justification which existed through the law(Note:it isn't the true justification as we know through the new covenant,but it is a justification in itself)

Deu 28:1-14
(1)  And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God [b]will set thee on high above all nations of the earth:
(2)  And all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God.
(3)  Blessed shalt thou be in the city, and blessed shalt thou be in the field.
(4)  Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy ground, and the fruit of thy cattle, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.
(5)  Blessed shall be thy basket and thy store.
(6)  Blessed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and blessed shalt thou be when thou goest out.
(7)  The LORD shall cause thine enemies that rise up against thee to be smitten before thy face: they shall come out against thee one way, and flee before thee seven ways.
(  The LORD shall command the blessing upon thee in thy storehouses, and in all that thou settest thine hand unto; and he shall bless thee in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
(9)  The LORD shall establish thee an holy people unto himself, as he hath sworn unto thee, if thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, and walk in his ways.
(10)  And all people of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of the LORD; and they shall be afraid of thee.
(11)  And the LORD shall make thee plenteous in goods, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy ground, in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers to give thee.
(12)  The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the work of thine hand: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow.
(13)  And the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if that thou hearken unto the commandments of the LORD thy God,[/b] which I command thee this day, to observe and to do them:
(14)  And thou shalt not go aside from any of the words which I command thee this day, to the right hand, or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them.


Deuteronomy 29:12-13
(12)  That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the LORD thy God, and into his oath, which the LORD thy God maketh with thee this day:
(13)  That he may establish thee to day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

Deuteronomy 30:15-16
(15)  See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;
(16)  In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.


For justification through the old covenant, the people had to hearken unto (do all) the commandments of the Lord.
God giving them the promises for hearkening shows that they were expected to hearken and reap the results of hearkening.
Doing all the commandments would show they hearkened and make them justified under that covenant.
But the problem is that they never could hearken completely and that is why they couldn't be justified within that covenant.
The old covenant was conditional; it required the response/doing of the people as regards what it commanded for justification.

The thing is,in the dispensaton of the old covenant or while the old covenant was in force,the people were justified before God if they kept the commandments.

But now,in the dispensation of the new covenant, people are not justified by keeping the commandments, they are justified by having faith in Christ.

It was on the basis of the impossibility of being justified under the old covenant(because the people could not do what was required) that the new had to be put in place.

Hebrews 8:7
(7)  For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

The old covenant had fault in the sense that it expected the impossible from the people for it to justify them based on what it required.

pilgrim.1:

Wait a mo. If "justification" was at all possible at any time by the 'old covenant', what then was the need for a 'new covenant' to come and do the same work? Does this not make the case simple that the 'old covenant' never justified anyone?

The case you're trying to make here is no different from your initial position, part of which was your stating that:

[list][li]"Putting the law at an end does not mean it is destroyed or abolished. it simply means it is no longer required for our salvation.[/li][/list]

And my answer to that was: "The Law was not given at any time as a requirement for our salvation." Whether it was "salvation" or "justification", neither of them were purposes of the 'old covenant' - and the case is no different as repeated here.

Once we are able to grasp this simple fact that the Law was never at any time given for "justification" (or "salavation", then we more easily see why there's no reason to say that "it is no longer required for" such things, for it was not the basis of such things in the first place.

I think my response above deals with this.

pilgrim.1:

Third, what made the old covenant 'operative' (or "enabled" was not the Ten Commandment or anything written. No, not at all. Remember we already have dealt with this very point, and I shared that what made a covenant to be operative and effectual was what ratified it. If the words of the covenant had only been written and read to the people, it was as ineffectual as if there were no covenants at all! That is what Hebrews 9:17 - "For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth". Following this, it goes on to say:

[list]Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, "This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you" (Heb. 9:18-20, ESV)[/list]

Indeed, I agree with you that the substance of the old covenant was its contents - i.e., what it declares. However, what "enabled" or put it into force or operation was the very thing that ratified it: the 'blood of the covenant' (again verse 17 - "otherwise it is of no strength at all". It was not their obedience or disobedience that "enabled" the covenant; rather, it was its ratification by blood that did so.

I know it is the blood of the covenant that ratified the covenant or "passed it into law" as said in legal terms.
But remember,the covenant was conditional.
Fine,the blood ratified it, but it still required action from the people for its promises to take effect in their lives of for it to be a part of their lives.Action in the sense that they do what it requires.
If it wasn't ratified, it wouldn't even be a covenant,so why would the people even be considering following something that isn't ratified?
So, my point is not in what made it a covenant, but in what the already ratified covenant expected of the people for its promises to take effect.
If the people did not do what the covenant expected, they couldn't reap what it promised.

pilgrim.1:


A very good point. If I may ask: what then is "evil" in giving a tithe of our financial resources as part of Christian giving? Mind you, there are many tithers who do so without trying to fulfill the 'old covenant'; and in many instances, many of them have been led by the Spirit of God to do so. If then these Christians are tithing their financial income as an expression of their stewardship to honour the Lord, what "evil" could there be in that?

There is nothing evil in giving a tithe(10%) of our financial resources as part of Christian giving.People who do this are not doing wrong.
But those who do wrong are those who give tithes of their financial resources based on the law in Malachai 3.
Those who give tithes of their financial resources based on lies that some ministers have formulated saying that tithes must be given whenever one gets an income or gain in income(Which makes it a constant/an automatic response when an income is gotten or gained).
Giving as we see in the new covenant is not based on any "must do" condition, but rather as the person decides to.2 Corinthians 9:7.
It is not based on compulsion or neccesity.It is as the person freely chooses to.

If a person wants to give a tithe of his/her, it should be whenever he/she is moved or feels like giving such.It is not a fixed stipulation unless that person freely chooses to make it a fixed stipulation based on his/her personal decision.

In the old covenant, tithes had a fixed stipulation on the people as regards when/the time to give/pay it.Within the new covenant,whosoever chooses to tithe does so without the fixed stipulation as regards when to give it.

Within the new covenant, a person who gives tithes lets say 3,4, or 5 times in a year has not done wrong.This random no of times of giving the tithe show personal choice as to when to give it; no fixed stipulation.

A person who gives tithes 12 times in a year in relation to the 12 salaries or 12 monthly gains he/she makes has not done wrong as long as it is as he/she decided personally and not based on what a Pastor commanded or based on Malachai 3.

A person who gives or is involved in different forms of giving based on his or her choice as to how much and when and whom to give and does not give any tithe at all, also has done no wrong.

The person who does wrong is the one who gives tithes based on a fixed stipulation of time as promulgated by most pastors and also based on what Malachai 3 says and not based on the principle of giving as promoted by 2 Corinthians 9:7.

pilgrim.1:

This is where you've again run into a huge problem. Let's be consistent here, biko. You have held the view all along that -

  * the 'old covenant' is the Law - they are the same thing
     (your quote: "As said before, it is the law which is the same as the old covenant"

  * as being the same thing, the Law is the 'ministration of death'

Question: if the 'old covenant' = 'the Law' = 'ministration of death', what "right stuff" are you bringing over from a 'ministration of condemnation'? Are you forgetting that the apostle in 2 Cor. 3:10 declares that the old covenant has "no glory in this respect"?

Lol, it's simple, really. If something as a whole is called the 'ministration of death and condemnation', one would think twice before trying to select some of its pieces and carry them into 'the glory that excelleth'. A 'ministration of death' is still a 'ministration of death' anyway you look at it, small-medium-or-large.

Now it is pretty clear that you've decided to abandon the explanation I gave as regards the "ministration of death/condemnation" as regards the law which I gave before.
If u still have that explanation in view, u wouldn't ask this question.
The attempt of trying to do what the law requires is what makes the law the "ministration of death/condemnation" because that attempt is a futile one, and thus results in the negativity contained within(the results of not hearkening/doing what he law commands).
But what the law promotes is not the "ministration of death/condemation".It promotes the "right stuff" that I refered to.

pilgrim.1:

First, tithes were never established as a "requirement" anywhere for one's salvation - whether old or new covenant. Those who tithed before the Law were not doing so in order to be "justified" or "saved" or to "enter" into any covenant with God.

Second, the practice of tithing is not "based" on what the Law says - rather, the Law incorporated tithing that was already in existence long before the emergence of the nation of Israel. Like I said, what the Law did not originate, it cannot annul as if they both had a common history.

Those who tithed before the law did so based on their own personal decisions and not on a commandment or law from God to do so.

If the practice of tithing is not based on the law but is based on people's personal choice and decision as to when to give it,FINE.
But we know that most of the preachers of today don't preach this.
Rather they make most of their followers to tithe based on the law;using Malachai 3 as their back up.

pilgrim.1:

The new covenant does not promote any type of giving as a "requirement" for service - it is men who make "requirements" where there are none. This is why many people who argue againts tithes would always think of it as a "requirement" or "obligation" - and many people who tithe become confused all the more. This should not be the case.

Look at my last response above.

pilgrim.1:

You seem to dismiss it simply because you haven't taken the time to understand what it means or the principles in the NT that point to tithing, not as a "requirement" of service, but as a response to what the apostle taught.  Look closely at 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 and think about what the apostle was alluding to - it may throw some more light on the subject for you.

1 corinthians 9:13-14 does not refer to tithes, it refers to the proceeds of what is gotten from the "freewill", "personally decided","compulsion free","not based on the law" giving which includes the right tithe giving not the wrong tithe giving which is based on the law.

pilgrim.1:

Shalom.

@ttalks,

You have done quite well in calmly reasoning out your persuasions and answering questions. This is what sustains my interest in continuing the dialogue, a breath of fresh air from other encounters. Thank you again.

ttalks:

This is the result of the justification which existed through the law(Note:it isn't the true justification as we know through the new covenant,but it is a justification in itself)

Well, I wouldn't call it "justification" of any type, whatsoever - the Bible does not call it that, nor is there any basis by which one may assume that anybody was "justified" in the sight of God by adhering to the old covenant or even the Law (Acts 13:39 and Galatians 3:11 - a fact that even those under the old covenant were aware of: "for in thy sight shall no man living be justified", Psalm 143:2).

For starters, the references you offered from Deuteronomy 28:1-14; 29:12-13 and 30:15-16 do not address the question of the justification of a believer at all. They all point out the fact that doing those things stipulated would bring them earthly blessings, or otherwise curses if they disobeyed them. This is why there was nearly always a reminder that those under the covenant were prone to turn away from their God (Deut. 29:18-19).

Those verses you cited could therefore not be said to be a "result" of justification, nor could they be said to be "a justification in itself". Three basic things about Biblical justification -

[list][li]a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law (Rom. 3:28)[/li][li]no man is justified by the law in the sight of God (Galatians 3:11)[/li][li]the law is not of faith (Galatians 3:12)[/li][/list]

If there was a 'justification' through the 'old covenant', then indeed we could argue that a man obtained "justification" in the sight of God through his "tithes" (which would immediately contradict those three points above). The same could be argued for the sabbath keeping; as well for circumcision; as well yet for numerous other rituals and observations (such as the Jewish feasts, sacrifices, animal offerings, etc) in Judaism. Clearly, we know that none of these things (including tithes) ever justified any man in the sight of God. So, we cannot use the references you proffered to point to justification of any type, whatsoever.

ttalks:

For justification through the old covenant, the people had to hearken unto (do all) the commandments of the Lord.

As hinted earlier, "no man is justified by the law in the sight of God", for the Law is not of faith (Galatians 3:1-12).

ttalks:

God giving them the promises for hearkening shows that they were expected to hearken and reap the results of hearkening.

The "results" were earthly blessings which are not the same thing as justification.

ttalks:

Doing all the commandments would show they hearkened and make them justified under that covenant.

If that was the case, then the NT would not afterwards tell us that "no man is justified by the law in the sight of God", would it?

ttalks:

But the problem is that they never could hearken completely and that is why they couldn't be justified within that covenant.

Nope, hearkening partially or completely has nothing to do with justification at all. There were men who hearkened to God in the OT (Old Testament, not 'old covenant') - and yet, they were not justified by any works of any Law. Take Abraham, for example:

[list][li]'For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.[/li][/list]

There are many such men in the OT who could not obtain justification in the sight of God by any "works"; and the same with those who were of the "works of the Law". One of the pivots of the 'old covenant' was what ratified it, otherwise "it is of no strength at all" (Heb. 9:17). However, even when the 'old covenant' had been ratified, we learn that the very thing that ratified it could not "take away" sin (Heb. 10:4). Nothing in the 'old covenant' ever justified a believer; and the reason why the 'old covenant' could not justify anyone was not because they could not hearken to it, but rather because in itself it could not justify the believer! The 'old covenant' was powerless to justify any believer, even if that believer hearkened diligently to all its stipulations (Gal. 3:11).

ttalks:

The old covenant was conditional; it required the response/doing of the people as regards what it commanded for justification.

Anyone who responded fully could not be justified by the old covenant.

ttalks:

The thing is,in the dispensaton of the old covenant or while the old covenant was in force,the people were justified before God if they kept the commandments.

I just have to keep reminding you of the huge mistake you're making, easy bro --

[list][li]'no man is justified by the law in the sight of God' (Gal. 3:11)[/li][li]'a man is not justified by the works of the law' (Gal. 2:16)[/li][li]'for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified' (Gal. 2:16)[/li][li]'for in thy sight shall no man living be justified' (Psa. 143:2)[/li][li]'by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight' (Rom. 3:20)[/li][li]'if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God' (Rom. 4:2)[/li][/list]

These all would not make any sense at all if it is true to maintain that "the people were justified before God if they kept the commandments". See what I mean?

ttalks:

But now,in the dispensation of the new covenant, people are not justified by keeping the commandments, they are justified by having faith in Christ.

Amen. As ever, before the 'new covenant' no man could have been justified by Judaism.

ttalks:

It was on the basis of the impossibility of being justified under the old covenant(because the people could not do what was required) that the new had to be put in place.

Okay, I see your point; but it's a totally different take for me - let me reiterate:

Even if the people could do what was required in the 'old covenant', they still could not be justified in the sight of God. Why so? For the simple reason that the 'old covenant' in itself had no power whatsoever to justify anyone. Someone might be found doing all that that was required - and there were many instances (Luke 1:6; Php. 3:6). . it is even said at various times concerning the nation of Israel -

[list][li]"the children of Israel did according to all that the LORD commanded Moses, so did they" (Exo. 39:32, 42; Num. 1:54; 2:34)[/li][li]"And they kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the first month at even in the wilderness of Sinai: according to all that the LORD commanded Moses, so did the children of Israel" (Num. 9:5)[/li][li]"As the LORD commanded Moses his servant, so did Moses command Joshua, and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that the LORD commanded Moses." (Josh. 11:15)[/li][/list]

What's the point in all this? Simple: inspite of the monumental evidence that there were many people who obeyed the commandments under the 'old covenant', for all of that the Bible says that -

[list][li]'no man is justified by the law in the sight of God' (Gal. 3:11)[/li][li]'a man is not justified by the works of the law' (Gal. 2:16)[/li][li]'by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight' (Rom. 3:20)[/li][/list]

It was not because people could not obey the old covenant to perfection that they therefore could not be justified - nope; it was rather because even when there is evidence that there were many people who walked according to all that was required, the 'old covenant' simply had no power of justifying the believer.

ttalks:

Hebrews 8:7
(7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

The old covenant had fault in the sense that it expected the impossible from the people for it to justify them based on what it required.

I'm glad you finally quoted Hebrews 8:7, thank you. I acknowledge that the first covenant had a "fault" - and that fault was not because it expected the impossible from anyone. . . not at all. Rather, the fault was simply its inability to make anyone "perfect" (compare Heb. 7:19). In what ways then is it taught in Scripture that the old covenant had a 'fault'? Let's go back to Romans 8:3 -

[list]"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh"[/list]

That is one pivotal "fault" of the first covenant - it simply had no power in itself to 'condemn sin in the flesh' - it could not do it! In this sense, it made nothing "perfect", according to Hebrews 7:18-19 --

[list]"For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God."[/list]

The "weakness" is simply highlighted in Romans 8:3, as cited already - its weakness (of 'fault') was not because of the inability of the people, but rather the inability of the Law itself ("what the law could not do". So, no matter how much any godly believer tried to keep the 'old covenant' by seeking something from the Law, such a person could not thereby attain "justification" in the sight of God!

Therefore, if the 'first covenant' had this basic 'fault' (in that it could not condemn sin in the flesh), how then could it justify anybody at all?

ttalks:

I think my response above deals with this.

Please review, as I've taken time to expound on what you were missing.

ttalks:

I know it is the blood of the covenant that ratified the covenant or "passed it into law" as said in legal terms.
But remember,the covenant was conditional.
Fine,the blood ratified it, but it still required action from the people for its promises to take effect in their lives of for it to be a part of their lives.Action in the sense that they do what it requires.
If it wasn't ratified, it wouldn't even be a covenant,so why would the people even be considering following something that isn't ratified?

The answer to the highlighted question in yours is simple enough: it would still be a covenant even before it was ratified, the difference being that it would have had no strength at all until it was ratified (Heb. 9:17).

ttalks:

So, my point is not in what made it a covenant, but in what the already ratified covenant expected of the people for its promises to take effect.
If the people did not do what the covenant expected, they couldn't reap what it promised.

Well put, appreciated. Point is that the 'old covenant' never promised "justification" to anyone.

ttalks:

There is nothing evil in giving a tithe(10%) of our financial resources as part of Christian giving.People who do this are not doing wrong.

Okay, thanks for that.

ttalks:

But those who do wrong are those who give tithes of their financial resources based on the law in Malachai 3.

Malachi 3 is NOT the Law. I have said this so many times. The Law never said anything about a "storehouse" - go and see. The concept of a storehouse came after the Law, not during Moses' time, but during the time of king Hezekiah in 2 Chronicles 31:11-12. So, if Christians are proving God's power after Malachi 3:10-11, that is not doing wrong - for God Himself invited believers with these words: "prove me now herewith".

ttalks:

Those who give tithes of their financial resources based on lies that some ministers have formulated saying that tithes must be given whenever one gets an income or gain in income(Which makes it a constant/an automatic response when an income is gotten or gained).

Please clam down and go and check your Bible in 1 Corinthians 16:2 - anything you set aside as a PORTION is a percentage of your income. You cannot accuse tithers of giving their tithes based on lies, if the apostle Paul clearly set forth the same thing in that verse, quoting the CEV (if you please) - "each Sunday each of you must put aside part of what you have earned". Dialogue like this should be carefully thought through, rather than being reactive.

ttalks:

Giving as we see in the new covenant is not based on any "must do" condition, but rather as the person decides to.2 Corinthians 9:7.
It is not based on compulsion or neccesity.It is as the person freely chooses to.

I perfectly agree with you - and have already highlighted this point in the previous page:

'I don't think you have noticed how many people ackowledge that tithes
have nothing to do with the idea of ~

DEMAND,
COERSION,
COMPULSION,
FORCE,
CAJOLING,
MANIPULATION,
INDOCTRINATION,

. . . or any other ONOMATOMANIA!!

Even in Malachi 3:10, do the words "prove me now herewith" indicated that God was "forcing" His people to give tithes and offerings? It's all up to the hearer to trust God and prove His promise, and we know that proving God's faithfulness and promises are not a "do-or-die" matter in the life of a Spirit-led believer.

ttalks:

If a person wants to give a tithe of his/her, it should be whenever he/she is moved or feels like giving such.It is not a fixed stipulation unless that person freely chooses to make it a fixed stipulation based on his/her personal decision.

You're blessed, dear brother - I cannot improve on your summation as I wholeheartedly agree.

ttalks:

In the old covenant, tithes had a fixed stipulation on the people as regards when/the time to give/pay it.Within the new covenant,whosoever chooses to tithe does so without the fixed stipulation as regards when to give it.

Bless you. I might add: within the new covenant, whosoever chooses to tithe does so by carefully planning when to give, how to give, and to whom their giving is made.

ttalks:

Within the new covenant, a person who gives tithes lets say 3,4, or 5 times in a year has not done wrong.This random no of times of giving the tithe show personal choice as to when to give it; no fixed stipulation.

Amen - 2 Cor. 8:11-12 ('so there may be a performance also out of that which ye have. . . and not according to that he hath not')

ttalks:

A person who gives tithes 12 times in a year in relation to the 12 salaries or 12 monthly gains he/she makes has not done wrong as long as it is as he/she decided personally and not based on what a Pastor commanded or based on Malachai 3.

Okay.

ttalks:

A person who gives or is involved in different forms of giving based on his or her choice as to how much and when and whom to give and does not give any tithe at all, also has done no wrong.

True.

ttalks:

The person who does wrong is the one who gives tithes based on a fixed stipulation of time as promulgated by most pastors and also based on what Malachai 3 says and not based on the principle of giving as promoted by 2 Corinthians 9:7.

I don't think it is healthy to make these rigid statements, because you may be formulating your own personal by-laws for others, which is not a spiritual thing to do. 1 Cor. 16:2 shows that the apostle instructed giving at a "particular timing" (on the first day of the week) - and he had given the same instruction to other churches (see verse 1).

Second, there are godly pastors among 'most pastors' who give godly counsel about the manner of giving and what timing is suited to people's needs under their care.

Third, there are people who have repeatedly proven the faithfulness and power of God to keep His promises according to Malachi 3 - and this does not violate their principled giving and stewardship based on 2 Cor. 3:7 at all. If this is the case, it is unhealthy to accuse anyone of doing wrong simply because we don't know what the Spirit of God has been doing in their lives.

ttalks:

Now it is pretty clear that you've decided to abandon the explanation I gave as regards the "ministration of death/condemnation" as regards the law which I gave before.

Look again - did I really do that? I only expounded on what you're missing, because I anticipated you would run into huge problems when it came to a discussion of "justification", which again is what I've done in explaining how that the old covenant does not justify any believer at all.

ttalks:

If u still have that explanation in view, u wouldn't ask this question.
The attempt of trying to do what the law requires is what makes the law the "ministration of death/condemnation" because that attempt is a futile one, and thus results in the negativity contained within(the results of not hearkening/doing what he law commands).
But what the law promotes is not the "ministration of death/condemation".It promotes the "right stuff" that I refered to.

Do take the time to go through my recent reply: try as hard as anyone may, the old covenant was not given to justify ANYBODY. Not one.

ttalks:

Those who tithed before the law did so based on their own personal decisions and not on a commandment or law from God to do so.

Even so, tithing (before, during, and after the Law) was never established to justify the believer or taught as the basis of anyone entering into a covenant with God.

ttalks:

If the practice of tithing is not based on the law but is based on people's personal choice and decision as to when to give it,FINE.

Okay.

ttalks:

But we know that most of the preachers of today don't preach this.

That is why we should not become so reactive in our replies and then mix up issues as they have. If we help people to a proper understanding of what the Word teaches, the confusion between both camps would be minimized. Don't you think so?

ttalks:

Rather they make most of their followers to tithe based on the law;using Malachai 3 as their back up.

There's nothing wrong with anyone quoting Malachi 3 or any part of the OT for tithing; afterall, Paul tells us that whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning (Rom. 15:4). I have no problem with anyone quoting any part of the OT for tithing or any other type of giving.

Some people have become so angry and put off by the word "tithe" that any mention of Malachi 3 just gets them riled up. It may surprise you that even Paul quoted so many OT verses that had absolutely NOTHING to do with giving and used such verses to encourage Christian giving! Oh yes, he did so. Think again: what has an "ox" got to do with Christian giving - (1 Cor. 9:9-11)?!? Or again, what has an "ox" got to do with "double honour" for the elders of the Church - (1 Tim. 5:17-18)?!?

You see, we Christians today should have large enough hearts to see beyond the "letter". This is the very lesson that we learn in 2 Corinthians 3 that you quoted several times - even unto this day when 'Moses' is read, the vail is upon some people's hearts; but as soon as the heart turns to the Lord, understanding and powerful insight comes to us (vv. 15-16). In the same manner, let a man quote Malachi 3, Proverbs 3:9-10; Jeremiah 31, etc. . I have no problem with them as long as they are not trying to rob believers one way or another. To say that we cannot quote Malachi 3 is to effectively rob God's people of His wonderful promises as well!

ttalks:

Look at my last response above.

I did.

ttalks:

1 corinthians 9:13-14 does not refer to tithes, it refers to the proceeds of what is gotten from the "freewill", "personally decided","compulsion free","not based on the law" giving which includes the right tithe giving not the wrong tithe giving which is based on the law.

You just proved you may not have read 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 but just glossed over it. Although you said it does not refer to tithes, you also remarked that it includes the right tithe giving. I'm not all about "wrong tithes"; but carefully reading those verses removes your idea that it does not refer to but includes tithes. Which one you dey?

Take another look -

[list]Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.[/list]

Compare with Numbers 18. Paul definitely was not asking people to give anything "based" on the Law - that was not his point at all. He noted the principle in the OT, and then drew this conclusion - "EVEN SO hath the Lord ordained" it in the Church. It is not now a matter of whether it was "freewill", "personally decided","compulsion free","not based on the law", etc, etc, etc. The fact that the Lord ordained what the apostle declared does not make it a matter of coercion upon any believer. So, wherever you got the idea that it was from some "proceeds" of the things you mentioned, I just wonder.

Bottom line: Christians can tithe without any sense of coercion. The idea of "freewill", "personally decided","compulsion free", etc., etc., etc., does not make it any different from what believers did in the OT - in many instances we find that they gave exactly in the same manner! This is why even the apostle was quoting directly from the OT Law in his exhortation on giving in 2 Cor. 8 and 9. If you haven't seen this, I'd be too glad to share them with you.

Shalom.

The summary of all I've been saying is this:

Giving ten percent(tithe) of your income based on how you determine personally is very good.
The only time it becomes a problem is when it is given according to the law.
What do I mean?
When I say those who use Malachai 3 to back their tithe giving, I say they are doing so based on the law because:
[list]
[li]They believe that if you tithe, the windows of heaven will open and pour u out a blessing and so on and so forth - Malachai 3:10[/li]
[li]They believe that if you do not tithe, you are robbing God and then would not have the devourer rebuked from ur land/finances - Malachai 3:8 and 11[/li]
[/list]

Those points above existing in Malachai 3 stand to show that if u tithe, u reap a blessing; if u do not tithe, u are robbing God. That was the situation under the old covenant.

But we know in the new covenant, if u tithe (that which falls under the giving in the new covenant), definitely fruit would abound to ur account; also, if u do not tithe, there isn't any devourer that would exist in ur finances and you would not be robbing God. This is because tithing under the new covenant is seen as a voluntary type of giving and not as that highlighted in Malachai.
That in Malachai had positive effects for paying it and had negative effects/circumstances(robbing God/devourer ever present) for not paying it.Which makes it mandatory cos nobody would want any negative effects/circumstances.
Anything mandatory always has positive effects for carrying it out and negative effects for not carrying it out.
But something that does not have negative effects for not carrying it out is not mandatory but voluntary.

Which is why using Malachai 3 to buttress or support any kind of tithing in this dispenstion would pertain to coersion.
Using Malachai 3 as a basis to tithe would be tithing according to the Law because it contains both the blessing for doing it and the consequences for not doing it(robbing God,devourer not rebuked).

Only if the negative aspect isn't highlighted when using that portion of Malachai 3 to talk about tithing would one say coersion isn't being used and then say it isn't according to the law.

Now, I feel I've said much about this tithing issue and I think it's quite enough.My points might have gotten through to some,it still might not make sense to some.But it is left to every individual to try to do what is right pertaining to this situation.

Anyone who feels like finding out more as regards this tithe and giving issue can read this book: Tithing,Giving and the New Testament.


Its quite a lengthy book but it really has useful info.


@pilgrim.1,

It really was an experience debating/conversing/communicating/dialoguing with u.
I hope our convictions always help us to maintain the truth.

Also, I noticed in another thread that u're into IT. That's my field too and I'm loving it; although it could be tasking on the brain sometimes.

Take care.

@ttalks,

How's your Sunday so far? I trust you're enjoying every bit in God's grace.

ttalks:

The summary of all I've been saying is this:

Giving ten percent(tithe) of your income based on how you determine personally is very good.
The only time it becomes a problem is when it is given according to the law.

Thanks for your summary. While I agree with much of your persuasion, there are definitely some points which may not be quite balanced.

For one to be able to make sense of Malachi (and any other OT book for that matter), they need to understand the spirit of the Word, rather than merely seeing it only in "letters". True, the only time we have problems in practical Christian living is when believers assume that everything they see is 'according to the Law'. If that is the case, we shall never be able to claim anything from the OT scriptures - because MANY Christian doctrines are derived directly from the same Law. I've already highlighted this, so I'll spare.

However, for the OT scriptures to make any sense at all to us as Christians, we need to see beyond the "letter" and grasp the spirit of the Word - that in a nutshell is what we find in 2 Cor. 3:14-16, viz:

[list][li]"in the reading of the old testament. ." (v. 14)[/li][li]"the vail is upon their heart. ." (v. 15)[/li][li]"when it [the heart] shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. ." (v. 16)[/li][/list]

In this regard, as we grow to see beyond the "letter" and touch the spirit of the Word, we shall then be able to see that Malachi speaks to Christians today, because it is part of what Romans 15:4 means when it says: "whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning". Now, let's see you concerns for Malachi -

ttalks:

What do I mean?
When I say those who use Malachai 3 to back their tithe giving, I say they are doing so based on the law because:
[list]
[li]They believe that if you tithe, the windows of heaven will open and pour u out a blessing and so on and so forth - Malachai 3:10[/li]
[li]They believe that if you do not tithe, you are robbing God and then would not have the devourer rebuked from ur land/finances - Malachai 3:8 and 11[/li][/list]

Those points above existing in Malachai 3 stand to show that if u tithe, u reap a blessing; if u do not tithe, u are robbing God. That was the situation under the old covenant.

But we know in the new covenant, if u tithe (that which falls under the giving in the new covenant), definitely fruit would abound to ur account; also, if u do not tithe, there isn't any devourer that would exist in ur finances and you would not be robbing God. This is because tithing under the new covenant is seen as a voluntary type of giving and not as that highlighted in Malachai.

I like your take that "tithing under the new covenant is seen as a voluntary type of giving"; although not many people are convinced that there is even a hint about tithing in the new covenant. I'm well persuaded that the new covenant teaches tithing, though; the problem for many who may not see this is how it works out in the teaching of the apostles.

There are three things I should point out here:

[list][li]Malachi 3:8 & 10 transcends the old covenant[/li][li]Malachi 3:10 is not limited or restricted to the Law of Moses[/li][li]Preaching tithe for Christians from Malachi 3 is not "based on the Law"[/li][/list]

If anyone would like me to expound on those three basic points, I would gladly do so.

However, I've already hinted that Christian giving could be taught from any OT scripture without making it a matter of what is "based on the Law". When the apostle Paul taught about Christian giving, he definitely quoted and referred to many OT scriptures without arguing to "base it on the Law". Other examples besides those I earlier highlighted in my previous post include:

A
► principle: 'if there be first a willing mind' || NT: 2 Cor. 8:12
► cross-ref.: 'whosoever is of a willing heart, let him bring it,
an offering of the LORD' || OT: Exo. 35:5

- - - - - - - - - -

B
► principle: 'by an equality. .
As it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over;
and he that had gathered little had no lack' || NT: 2 Cor. 8:14, 15
► cross-ref.: 'he that gathered little had no lack; they gathered
every man according to his eating. . || Exo. 16:18

- - - - - - - - - -

C
► principle: 'As it is written, He hath dispersed abroad;
he hath given to the poor: his righteousness remaineth for ever. . || 2 Cor. 9:9
► cross-ref.: 'He hath dispersed, he hath given to the poor;
his righteousness endureth for ever; his horn shall be exalted with honour' || Psa. 112:9

It is interesting that in the case of B above, the apostle quoted Exo. 16:18 that had nothing to do with any type of giving, and yet he freely used that in exhorting about Christian giving! The believer who has problems seeing beyond the "letter" would argue typically that Paul was "backing up his preaching from a verse in the Law", just as people argue that Malachi is "based on the Law". Those who are very quick to refer to 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 have never once complained against the fact that Paul quoted Exo. 16:18 (an 'old covenant' verse in the Law of Moses) that had absolutely nothing to do with any type of giving! Yet, the apostle used it to preach "new covenant" giving.

The simple thing to see in Malachi 3 is to go beyond the "letter" and see the spirit behind the declaration there, as well attest to the faithfulness of God to keep His promise to the believer who responds to His invitation: "prove me now herewith".

ttalks:

That in Malachai had positive effects for paying it and had negative effects/circumstances(robbing God/devourer ever present) for not paying it.Which makes it mandatory cos nobody would want any negative effects/circumstances.

Malachi 3:10 does not make anything mandatory to anyone - we read our own fear into that verse and see it as God shouting a coercion to the believer. First, God invites the believer to "prove" Him and see the results - it is up to the believer to yield to that invitation or reject it outright and miss the testimony to God's power.

Even the new covenant also has positive and negative effects to the believer - as Christians, there are numerous negative effects for disobedience even though Christ has obtained "better promises" for us. In just the same manner, nobody wants any negative effects/circumstances, yet indeed a Christian will find to his surprise that the new covenant does not excuse disobedience at any range.

ttalks:

Anything mandatory always has positive effects for carrying it out and negative effects for not carrying it out.
But something that does not have negative effects for not carrying it out is not mandatory but voluntary.

Either way, even some of those things we consider as "voluntary" also carry negative effects when we neglect or disobey them. Particularly in giving, we read very strong words in the NT:
[list][li]as regards giving, 'Even so hath the Lord ordained' - 1 Cor. 9:13-14[/li][li]reading from CEV: 'each Sunday each of you must put aside part of what you have earned' - 1 Cor. 16:2[/li][/list]

Now, I may not be a fan of the CEV, but I only quote it here to see the very strong language that it bears out in conveying that verse; whereas other versions as the KJV have it as "let every one of you" do such and such (perhaps with the import that this is not meant for a select few in the Church to obey). We need to be careful about reading "mandatory" into verses that may not suggest that idea - as in Malachi 3:10.

ttalks:

Which is why using Malachai 3 to buttress or support any kind of tithing in this dispenstion would pertain to coersion.

Not true. People see coercion in Malachi 3 when God did not intend it as such. God doesn't "force" any believer to "prove me now herewith" - it is up to the believer to prove the faithfulness of God to His Word in their lives. Indeed, some people, even without mentioning Malachi at all, still preach a certain kind of "coercion" in Christian giving; but we should not yield to the temptation to be reactive and throw the baby out with the bath water.

ttalks:

Using Malachai 3 as a basis to tithe would be tithing according to the Law because it contains both the blessing for doing it and the consequences for not doing it(robbing God,devourer not rebuked).

Not necessarily. Paul used verses from the Law and other OT references that had absolutely nothing to do with giving in order to exhort and teach about Christian giving. He did so without intending what we often argue today - "it is of the Law, therefore I cannot". If that idea has any substance, all the other Christian doctrines derived from the Law should also be rejected - no selective reading and picking according to our fancy.

ttalks:

Only if the negative aspect isn't highlighted when using that portion of Malachai 3 to talk about tithing would one say coersion isn't being used and then say it isn't according to the law.

I understand you, and I've also tried to share my concern about the "curse" in that chapter that scares many Christians. When I can find the link, I'll post it.

ttalks:

Now, I feel I've said much about this tithing issue and I think it's quite enough.My points might have gotten through to some,it still might not make sense to some.But it is left to every individual to try to do what is right pertaining to this situation.

Anyone who feels like finding out more as regards this tithe and giving issue can read this book: Tithing,Giving and the New Testament.

Thanks for the link.

ttalks:

@pilgrim.1,

It really was an experience debating/conversing/communicating/dialoguing with u.
I hope our convictions always help us to maintain the truth.

Also, I noticed in another thread that u're into IT. That's my field too and I'm loving it; although it could be tasking on the brain sometimes.

Take care.

Oh well, I must confess that I'm not quite advanced in IT (Juniper). But hey, I have enjoyed our discourse tremendously. Thank you for sharing, and many blessings to you.

@ttalks & pilgrim1,
you guys have again thrown more light on this very controvercial subject. I think the decision of wether 'to tithe or not to tithe' finaly lies on the individual (christian).

Well, for some of us, tithing is out of the question.

That notwithstanding, I am impressed at the 'spirit of sportsmanship' shown in the course of this debate despite the obvious difference in opinions.
I think some 'you know whos' should learn from this.

SirJohn:

@ttalks & pilgrim1,
you guys have again thrown more light on this very controvercial subject. I think the decision of wether 'to tithe or not to tithe' finaly lies on the individual (christian).

Well, for some of us, tithing is out of the question.

That notwithstanding, I am impressed at the 'spirit of sportsmanship' shown in the course of this debate despite the obvious difference in opinions.
I think some 'you know whos' should learn from this.

Yeah that was quite some debate, and from experience it can be quite exhausting debating/arguing with pilgrim.1 she NEVER ever agrees even when it is obvious she is wrong, she would run circles around you, distorting your posts and quote scriptures out of context. She actually is really good at this, but then again i appreciate her because despite all her brilliant efforts at justify tithing with her numerous biblical and extra biblical submissions she as only been able to confirm to me further that there is no real substance to the deception of tithing that as gained so much popularity amongst some of our pastors this is evident with the fact that all her brilliant submission never stand up to scrutiny when put under the magnifying glass. If tithing was required for christians it would have been clearly stated/ taught by the apostles and pilgrim.1 would not be trying to force the idea of tithing into 1 corinthians 9:13-14. but then if you are not adequately versed, you can get easily swayed away by prolific quotes of scriptures albeit in the wrong context.

In summary, the situation is like the blind leading the blind. Most people feel they should pay the tithe because of the blessings purportedly attached to it; sometimes not willingly. The pastors are having a field day qouting from the laws while they are not ready to practise the law to the full. Why not sacrifice animals, burn incense, honor the sabbath etc instead of just taking out the tithe issue because of its percuniary benefits? I blame not the pastors who deceive but their followers who are gullible and who are lazy to figure out the truth for themselves. I am afraid most proffesed christian are puppit xtians; it's now my pastor said, not the bible said. We should do more than just listen but like the Boerian christians in Paul's days we should find out for ourselves whether what we've heard are truly biblical.

KunleOshob:

Yeah that was quite some debate, and from experience it can be quite exhausting debating/arguing with pilgrim.1 she NEVER ever agrees even when it is obvious she is wrong, she would run circles around you, distorting your posts and quote scriptures out of context. She actually is really good at this, but then again i appreciate her because despite all her brilliant efforts at justify tithing with her numerous biblical and extra biblical submissions she as only been able to confirm to me further that there is no real substance to the deception of tithing that as gained so much popularity amongst some of our pastors this is evident with the fact that all her brilliant submission never stand up to scrutiny when put under the magnifying glass. If tithing was required for christians it would have been clearly stated/ taught by the apostles and pilgrim.1 would not be trying to force the idea of tithing into 1 corinthians 9:13-14. but then if you are not adequately versed, you can get easily swayed away by prolific quotes of scriptures albeit in the wrong context.

Hi Kunleoshob,

It is obvious that people with different views can have the grace to be civil in their dicussions - and that is what I've very well enjoyed with ttalks. It is unnecessary to become personal against me with childish accusations when you have had nothing intelligent to offer - that game has waned and makes you look really out of date. If you do have anything intelligent to say, please offer them and save all the caterwauls: they're quite unnecessary - unless you're only out to prove your vacancy of thought.

brainbox1:

In summary, the situation is like the blind leading the blind. Most people feel they should pay the tithe because of the blessings purportedly attached to it; sometimes not willingly. The pastors are having a field day qouting from the laws while they are not ready to practise the law to the full. Why not sacrifice animals, burn incense, honor the sabbath etc instead of just taking out the tithe issue because of its percuniary benefits? I blame not the pastors who deceive but their followers who are gullible and who are lazy to figure out the truth for themselves. I am afraid most proffesed christian are puppit xtians; it's now my pastor said, not the bible said. We should do more than just listen but like the Boerian christians in Paul's days we should find out for ourselves whether what we've heard are truly biblical.

If you follow Christian doctrines for your life, why base marriage on the Law? Why quote the Law for loving God and loving neighbour? Why base the teaching of women in Church on the Law? Why are Christians today not also complaining that all those and many more are "based on the Law" and therefore reject them as well?

pilgrim.1:

Hi Kunleoshob,

It is obvious that people with different views can have the grace to be civil in their dicussions - and that is what I've very well enjoyed with ttalks. It is unnecessary to become personal against me with childish accusations when you have had nothing intelligent to offer - that game has waned and makes you look really out of date. If you do have anything intelligent to say, please offer them and save all the caterwauls: they're quite unnecessary - unless you're only out to prove your vacancy of thought.

Classical pilgrim.1, always quick to resort to insults to put her points across. As you well know i have written more than enough to correct your erronous position on tithes in the past and i realized that arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall. You refused to admit the fallacies in your positon despite all the overwhelming evidence provided. instead you are quick to pick other unrelated verses in the bible, twist it and force your own meaning into it to further buttress your point. how is it possible to have an intelligent conversation with someone who is so intellectually corrupt And that is why i refused to engage you in further dialogue on this topic cos the truth is already known to you even though you refuse to accept it.

@Kunleoshob,

KunleOshob:

Classical pilgrim.1, always quick to resort to insults to put her points across. As you well know i have written more than enough to correct your erronous position on tithes in the past and i realized that arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall. You refused to admit the fallacies in your positon despite all the overwhelming evidence provided. instead you are quick to pick other unrelated verses in the bible, twist it and force your own meaning into it to further buttress your point. how is it possible to have an intelligent conversation with someone who is so intellectually corrupt And that is why i refused to engage you in further dialogue on this topic cos the truth is already known to you even though you refuse to accept it.

For one, you'd be the only one claiming the false assertions you're making. Go through my entries on this thread - not once have I sought to resort to insults in engaging ttalks, and others who have commented have observed the civility between us. Second, there was nothing you tried to correct - and when you quoted texts out of context in this thread, I started out calling your attention to the fact that you were being unfair in your attitude. The points we have discussed so far did not lead to your unnecessary accusations, and both ttalks and I were able to bring our discussion to an amicable close.

You only refuse to engage me for the simple reason that you actually don't have anything intelligent to say. Let's leave it at that, with fingers crossed that the day you've upgraded on your attitude, then we can read you. Cheers.

pilgrim.1:

If you follow Christian doctrines for your life, why base marriage on the Law? Why quote the Law for loving God and loving neighbour? Why base the teaching of women in Church on the Law? Why are Christians today not also complaining that all those and many more are "based on the Law" and therefore reject them as well?

While it is important to acknowledge that the law was important while it lasted, it is essential you are reminded that the law has been abolished by the law of the Christ. Christians therefore are guided not by the mosaic laws but by the law of the christ. However, the law might have been done away it, but the principles behind the law are still very relevant even in christian lives because the one who gave the law is God (The same one we still serve). Interestingly, all of the aspects of life you mentioned as being derived from the law are mentioned in the creek scriptures and there are clear directives on them by either Jesus or his disciples unlike tithing which was clearly replaced by volunteering giving in the early congregation. You can read these scriptures to get my points better- Mark 12:30; Matt. 19:4-6,1 Tim 2:11-13,1 Corint.14:33,34.

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. Mark 12:30

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Matt.19: 4-6

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 1 Tim 2: 11-13

33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. {confusion: Gr. tumult, or, unquietness}
34 ¶ Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 1 Corin 14: 33-34

So my dear if people point to these aspects of life that were also addressed in the law, it is because they are clearly stated as relevant to christian living today in the law of the christ. Cheers

brainbox1:

While it is important to acknowledge that the law was important while it lasted, it is essential you are reminded that the law has been abolished by the law of the Christ. Christians therefore are guided not by the mosaic laws but by the law of the christ.[b] However, the law might have been done away it, but the principles behind the law are still very relevant [/b]even in christian lives because the one who gave the law is God (The same one we still serve).

Thanks for this very simple but precise explaination. This is what some of us have been trying to explain since, the apostles also wrote several scriptures to explain this reality but some people are obvoiusly tooo thick in the head to realise this and would rather cut themselves off the grace of christ by trying to uphold the letters of the law.

@brainbox1,

brainbox1:

While it is important to acknowledge that the law was important while it lasted, it is essential you are reminded that the law has been abolished by the law of the Christ. Christians therefore are guided not by the mosaic laws but by the law of the christ. However, the law might have been done away it, but the principles behind the law are still very relevant even in christian lives because the one who gave the law is God (The same one we still serve). Interestingly, all of the aspects of life you mentioned as being derived from the law are mentioned in the creek scriptures and there are clear directives on them by either Jesus or his disciples unlike tithing which was clearly replaced by volunteering giving in the early congregation. You can read these scriptures to get my points better- Mark 12:30; Matt. 19:4-6,1 Tim 2:11-13,1 Corint.14:33,34.

[>snip<]

So my dear if people point to these aspects of life that were also addressed in the law, it is because they are clearly stated as relevant to christian living today in the law of the christ. Cheers

Thank you for making the same essential point I've been making for eons - "principles", not "legalism". In as much as I have not asserted anywhere that Christians are under the Law, my point has been the very same as in yours - "the principles behind the law are still very relevant even in christian lives". Need I say anymore?

Regards.