Grace Believers and Tithing like under the Law?

      I hear preachers all the time saying, although we are not under the Law but under Grace, we should still give just as much as they did under the Law.  Did Paul make such a statement in Romans through Philemon?  No, and I thought he was our Apostle that gave the church instructions under Grace?  Paul says, concerning giving in 2 Cor 9:7, "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.  There are some grace believers giving "of necessity."  They think it is necessary to still give according to the Law, even without a Pauline verse to back that up.  Under the Law paying tithes was not just to benefit those serving religiously at the temple, but it was also to support the widows, orphans, and needy of Jewish society.  In the next paragraph I am going to make the argument that the average employed grace believer is already giving more than they ever did under the Law. 

     In the United States employees are forced to pay 6.2 % Social Security and 1.45 % Medicare. Their employer is also required to match those percentages as an employee benefit.  In addition to that the average American worker pays 14.5 % tax to the federal government. Also each state in the US has some form of tax to help the needy and local government "concerns" (sales tax, property tax, income tax, etc). Google search says the average American pays a total between 25 and 30 percent in federal and state taxes to support the government and "needs" of society. So when all of this is added together (25-30 percent in federal and state taxes, plus the employers match for Social Security and Medicare), the average working grace believer is paying between 32.65 % to 37.65 % in taxes of which part of that is going to help the widows, orphans, and needy in society. 

     In light of the above, I am not saying to not give to the church, but these pastors that hammer people over "tithing" using the Law, need to understand that the average working American Christian is already being forced to "tithe" to support widows, orphans, needy, as well as a government. Yes, we should still give towards the ministry of the Gospel, but the average working Christian in America is already paying more in the form of taxes than the average Jew ever paid in "tithes" under the Law to support the theocratic government of Israel and the needs of the people.  

     The real problem with a lot of these preachers guilt tripping people into giving more is they are too lazy to "make tents" if their church can't afford to pay them a full time salary.  They had rather continue to tell people a false narrative that "you have to give as much under Grace as they did under the Law" rather than getting a job.  If grace preachers really want to follow Paul, then if a church can't pay you full time, then do what 2 Thes 3:7-9 says:

[7] For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
[8] Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
[9] Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.

     My advice to any aspiring grace preacher would be to plan on having to do some "tent making" like Paul in order to support your family.  If AI is correct 47 % of denominational evangelical pastors work a second job in addition to preaching.  Since Grace Churches are on average smaller in membership than the average evangelical church I would not be surprised if the number of bivocational Grace preachers is not closer to 75%.

Israel Falls in Acts but is not Counted "Out" until Acts 28

      In boxing after a fighter falls down, the referee begins a ten-second count, giving the boxer a chance to recover and get back on his feet.  Boxers get knocked down fairly often but are able to get back up before being counted out and continue the fight.  Sometimes the boxer that gets knocked down ends up getting back up (before the 10 count) and goes on to win the fight.  Many Acts 2 and Mid Acts dispensationalists argue that since Israel has fallen by the time of Paul writing Romans 11 that God did not allow Israel another opportunity to repent and receive another offer of the kingdom. 

Romans 11:11-12 states:

 [11] I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
[12] Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

I agree that Israel has fallen by the time Romans 11 is written; however, I would argue that they have not been counted out of the fight to use boxing terminology.   In boxing terminology God has not counted to 10 in Romans 11.  It appears God does not say "ten" until after Paul preaches one final time to Israel's leaders in Acts 28.  If Paul thought Israel had been counted out, then why does he pray for their National Salvation in Romans 10:1.  In my opinion Romans 11:23 should make it clear that Israel has not been counted out of the fight at the time of Paul writing Romans.  Romans 11:23 states:

[23] And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

The very people that had fallen can get back up by not abiding in unbelief according to Romans 11:23.  The unpardonable sin is not charged to Israel until after they reject the kingdom for the final time at Acts 28.  Once Bible believers understand this, then they can quit making excuses as to why Paul acted the way he did during the book of Acts.  In Acts Paul preached a pure grace message to the Gentiles called the gospel of the uncircumcision.  However Paul recognized for Israel that their kingdom offer was still on the table, so he never once called out believing Jews for observing ceremonial ordinances of the Law because those things would continue as memorials when the Kingdom is setup.  For example, study Ezekiel 40 through 48.  Remember, if Israel had repented in Acts, then those same people would see the return of Christ and the setting up of the Kingdom (Acts 3:19-21).

My Position on the King James Bible

      My position on the King James Bible is very simple.  Although the King James Bible is not the original manuscripts, I believe it is the preserved, inspired, and infallible words of God.  Although I am not a "Ruckmanite," I agree with what Dr. Peter Ruckman said many years ago in a study on Greek Manuscript Evidence concerning the King James Bible and the preservation of the Scriptures.  Dr. Ruckman says in regards to the preservation of Scripture, "A verbatim reproduction of the originals, wherever they are, is not necessary to prove that what God said has been preserved intact the way he wants it said."  He goes on to state,"...I mean the King James Bible is the exact form and shape and size and content of the Bible that God wants the world to have from 1611 to the second coming of Jesus Christ..."

     In conclusion, what is one to do that has trouble understanding the King James Bible?  I will offer the same advice that I have heard from many King James Bible Believers, "Get yourself a good English Dictionary and concordance."  I would say most people now days have a dictionary and concordance available on their cell phone, which makes the task of reading and understanding the King James Bible easier than ever before.

C.R. Stam Corrects the King James Bible at Acts 28:28

 Acts 28:28 in the King James Bible states, "Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it."  Note that "is sent" is present tense.  In other words the sending of the salvation of God unto the Gentiles without Israel was happening at Acts 28.

In C.R. Stam's commentary on Acts he changes the verb tense of Acts 28:28 from "is sent" to "has been sent."  See the copy of the page from his commentary below:

Why would C.R. Stam change the verb tense at Acts 28:28?  Also why have I not seen any KJV Defenders of the Acts 2 Dispensational persuasion or KJV Defenders of the Mid Acts Dispensational persuasion call him out on changing the text of King James Bible.  It appears to me that C.R. Stam changes the verb tense because as the KJV text stands at Acts 28:28, it teaches a dispensational change takes place at Acts 28:28 (present tense "is") concerning Gentile salvation totally apart from Israel, and not earlier!  My guess as to why the KJV defenders, whether Acts 2 or Mid Acts, do not call out Stam on this, is because they do not believe a dispensational change takes place at Acts 28:28.  They all believe the change takes place earlier in the past tense.  The Acts 2 crowd will say the dispensational change is at Acts 2.  The Mid Acts crowd, in giving themselves more "wiggle room" (I have seen Mid Acts theology range from Acts 7 to Acts 19) say the dispensational change is Mid Acts.   

At Acts 28:28 the salvation of God is sent to the Gentiles totally apart from Israel.  Stam tries to imply that this had already been going on before Acts 28:28, but that is simply not true.  Up until Acts 28:28 Gentiles either had to become proselytes (as in early Acts) in order to get the salvation of God, or they had to wait until the Jew first got a chance to hear the gospel, and then afterwards the salvation of God could be sent to them (see Romans 1:16).  Please note that I did not say the Body of Christ starts at Acts 28:28 as most Acts 28 Dispensationalists teach.  The Body of Christ exists before Acts 28:28.  In fact I think the Body of Christ was probably formed at the cross, and was revealed to Paul during his Acts ministry.   The Body of Christ experiences a variety of dispensational rule changes as the gospel goes from the Jew only to the Jew first in the book of Acts.  As has been stated in prior posts, After Acts 28 the Gentile believers not only receive the salvation of God apart from Israel, but they also become "fellow" citizens and heirs.  In other words the Gentiles become equal, and the Jew is no longer first after Acts 28.

As a King James Bible believer, my dispensational position is not traditional Acts 2, traditional Mid Acts or traditional Acts 28.  I think all these positions have some things correct, but I can not fully join any of these camps, because they all at times deviate from the text of the God honored King James Bible.  I remain a Bible Believer first, and a Dispensationalist second.

Why Did Paul Water Baptize, Since he was not sent to Baptize?

 I have heard the question often asked, but never answered to my satisfaction, as to why Paul water baptized in light of his statement in 1 Cor 1:17 that states he was not sent to baptize.  Some of the answers I have heard in answer to this question include:

 

"Paul was ignorant about water baptism early on in his ministry, but he later understood God did not send him to baptize."  

"Paul baptized because that is what the other apostles were doing, but later on Paul got the revelation of the one baptism of Ephesians 4:5." 

"We don't know why Paul water baptized in light of what is said in 1 Cor 1:17, because the Bible not tell us."

 

The first two reasons above do not make any sense in light of what the Bible record says.  Paul was not ignorant early in his ministry about baptism, for he says in the past tense "I was sent not to baptize."  The second reason listed above makes no Biblical sense either, because Paul knew from the beginning that he had a gospel unique from the 12 (Gal 1:11-12).  Of the reasons above the last one listed is the most Biblical and honest, although I am not satisfied with that answer either.  I believe a deeper dive into the Scriptures can shed some more light on answering the question.

In the remainder of this blog post I would like to offer another reason as to why Paul water baptized, although 1 Cor 1:17 says Paul was not sent to baptize.  First let us consider the verses that come before 1 Cor 1:17 to get the completed context as to Paul's discussion on water baptism.  Many of the legalists that forbid water baptism altogether in the age of grace only quote 1Cor 1:17, and thus give people the impression that is Paul's only statement about water baptism, and that Paul is totally against the practice.  When one reads the verses that come before verse 17 it becomes obvious that Paul is not against water baptism, and he did not forbid water baptism.  Paul did not thank God that he baptized few people, because he was against the practice or was not sent to baptize, but because he was concerned people would say he had baptized in his own name (see verse 15 below).

1 Corinthians 1:13-17 states:

[13] Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
[14] I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
[15] Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
[16] And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
[17] For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

I think the key to understanding "For Christ sent me not to baptize" is to consider, who was Paul sent to?  Although the Bible says Paul would be a chosen vessel to bear Christ's name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel (Acts 9:15), there is only one group of people the Bible says Paul was specifically sent to, and that was to the GENTILES!  Acts 22:21 states, "And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles."  Acts 26:17 states, " Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee."  An apostle is defined as "one who is sent."  Romans 11:13 speaking of Paul says, "For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office."  The fact is Paul bore Christ's name to Jews, Proselytes, and Gentiles, but the Bible says Paul's sending was to one group i.e. the Gentiles!  Why is this fact important?  The reason this is important is because this narrows down Paul's "sent not to baptize" to a specific group of people, and that is the Gentiles.  Paul was sent to the Gentiles, and he was not sent to baptize them but preach the gospel to them.  What gospel did Paul preach to them?  The gospel of the uncircumcision (Gal 1:11-12 & Gal 2:7).  Remember it was agreed by the Apostles, including Paul, in Acts 15 that the Gentiles did not have to observe the ceremonial ordinances of the Law, but they were to abstain from from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication (Acts 15:29).  It is important to note that nowhere in Acts 15 does Paul tell the other apostles that they need to start teaching the Jews that they need to stop observing the Law.  I believe the reason for this, based on my study of Acts, is God continued to allow Israel time to repent of their unbelief all the way through the book of Acts, and if they had repented they would be grafted back in the olive tree (Rom 11:23) and the Kingdom would be set up in the first century.  Remember during the Kingdom Age the Jews would continue observing parts of the Law (see Ezek 40-48 & Col 2:16-17) and would be a witness of God's Light to the Gentiles as a Kingdom of Priests and a holy nation (Ex 19:6 & 1 Pet 2:9).

If one accepts that the Kingdom offer is still on the table in the book of Acts then one can understand Paul practicing water baptism.  Water baptism would be necessary for the Jews and proselytes to act as a priestly nation during the Kingdom Age.  It appears most of those baptized by Paul according to the Bible record were either Jews or proselytes to Judaism (there may be a few exceptions like the Philippian jailer and this will be discussed later), and their baptism was necessary for them to be part of the holy nation and kingdom of priests.

To sum up my answer as to why Paul baptized, although not sent to baptize, Paul baptized mostly people he was not sent to i.e. Jews and proselytes.  He baptized them because they would be part of the holy nation and be a kingdom of priests had Israel repented of unbelief during the Acts period (Romans 11:23)  Paul was not sent to baptize the people he was sent to, that is the Gentiles.  What about the Philippian jailer, wasn't he a Gentile?  The Philippian jailer in Acts 16 could have also been a proselyte to Judaism just as Lydia, and thus Paul would have baptized him with the hope that he would also be part of the holy nation and kingdom of priests.  If the Philippian jailer was an unbelieving Gentile, without being a proselyte, then he would be an exception to my answer to why Paul water baptized.  However, if it is true that the Philippian Jailer was not a Jew or proselyte, Paul did not violate a command in water baptizing a Gentile.  Remember what was said earlier about 1 Cor 1:17, that "not sent to baptize" does not equate with being forbidden to baptize.  In fact water baptism was not just a legal requirement for the priestly nation of Israel, but it also served as a physical figure of salvation (see 1 Pet 3:21).  If the Philippian jailer (and also possibly Gaius & Stephanus) were unbelieving Gentiles, then they, after believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, were under no legal obligation to observe any ceremonial ordinances as Acts 15 states.  Water baptism was not one of the necessary things mentioned in Acts 15 to be observed by Gentiles so as not to offend the Jews, so the jailer did not have to be baptized for that reason either.  So if the jailer was a converted Gentile, then the only reason I can come up with from the Scriptures, is he voluntarily got  baptized in water to demonstrate in a figure (1 Pet 3:21) God's work of salvation in a lost sinner.