Thread by @imoran17401114

A thread on my thoughts on Pastor Adeboye's take on Matthew 23:23.

@PastorEAAdeboye
@LekeAlder
@LekeAdeboye
@DrJoeAbah
@walegates @sam_adeyemi
@subomiplumptre
@pauladefarasin
@DavidOyedepoMin
@daddyFRZ @femiaribisala
@SaharaReporters
@DailyPostNGR
@kennykore
@MatAshimolowo

In this thread, I have steered clear of the detail-heavy discussion of tithe as a whole and limited myself to how one may interpret Matthew 23:23.

My immediate reaction on reading about Pastor Adeboye's remarks, like that of most respectful and thoughtful Christians, was that the General Overseer (G.O or Daddy G.O) of the Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG) has probably gone too far this time.

His words, to what appears to be a gathering of pastors of the RCCG, which the pastors were to take to their respective congregation was: 

"Make it clear to them [that is, their congregation]. Anyone who is not paying his tithes is not going to heaven. Full stop."

The video doing the rounds on social media, and upon which much castigation has been heaped, was rather short. It's only about 2 minutes long. One should never draw conclusions on incomplete information, so I sought a fuller recording. See link below. 

On seeing the fuller recording, I noted that the G.O did not just talk about Mat 23:23.

Quoting Malachi 3:8 & making references to the fall of man brought about by disobedience, defeat of Israel ocassioned by Achan's disobedience & the redemptive mission of Christ, there was enough material, which, at the very least, caused me to shed my initial sceptical reaction

As I thought more about it, it became increasingly clear that the declaratory statement that tithe was as much a part of salvation as good deeds was NOT a half-baked, irrational statement from a cash-desperate, senile pastorpreneur, as some have derogatorily dubbed the G.O.

This declaration shifts the tithe debate. For those unfamiliar with the debate, there is within the pro-tithe camp the voluntary stance versus obligatory stance.

The range of beliefs in this camp is a mixture advocating that tithing is a precondition for additional blessings and a bar to curses, some believing in only the former, others in a combination of both.

Within the anti-tithe camp is the counter-argument that tithe is unworthy of any mention and of no use in a dispensation of grace, tithing being a requirement under the law, which Christ's death and resurrection supposedly made obsolete.

The counter-argument runs further that, as tithe is a requirement under the law, paying tithe is in fact tantamount to paying for misfortune, for cursed is anyone who relies on the work under the law simply because if you break any you have broken all.

The pro-tithe camp rebuts this by claiming that, although tithing became a part of the law, it precedes the law, citing Melchizedek's receipt of tithe and priesthood as the template for the church

What's rather interesting is that when one looks at Matthew 23:23, there is room in there which allows for the view that Jesus does not dismiss the law altogether. In fact, Jesus says, rather curiously, that there are important matters of law, and he goes on to list three.

These 3 are justice, mercy and faithfulness. This is a rather curious list. Looking through all the 613 positive and negative stipulations in the Torah, one would not find any express reference to any of these 3 (i.e. justice mercy and faithfulness).

Yet Jesus is here saying that these 3 are the more important matters of the law. This calls to mind immediately an expression legal practitioners would be familiar with, viz. the spirit and letter of the law.

Jesus appears to be advocating here that the spirit of the law is what matters most and not the letter. He does not abrogate the law, a conclusion which is supported by other expressions in which Jesus professes in himself the fulfilment of the law.

He's not saying to them, "don't abide by the law at all". He's saying what the law ultimately sought to achieve was justice, mercy and faithfulness and if by acts not necessarily prescribed or proscribed in the law, that aim is achieved, then that is what you should pursue.

This is not a far-fetched supposition when one considers examples in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus puts the spirit back in the law. (Matthew 5: 38-39)

Based on Matthew 23:23, Jesus recognises that tithing is a component of the law without discounting that it has an earlier origin, but more importantly, he declares that it is the aim which tithing as part of the law seeks to achieve that matters more.

The goal of tithe is for the poor & landless priestly clan.That was the mercy & good judgment that made for a harmonious society.The pro-tithe camp would argue that by virtue of Melchizedek priesthood, anyone ordained to be a clergy in the church today is in a position to receive

The main criticism I have read and heard online has been that Jesus was in Matthew 23:23 speaking to Pharisees and teachers of the law. Therefore this passage does not apply to Christians. 

There are three objections to this line of thinking.

1st, based on this reasoning, one would have to dismiss, insofar as Christians were concerned, Jesus' words in the gospels because everything Jesus said was directed at Jews, whether they be Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, Essenes, or some other sect of Judaism.

There were no "Christians" to whom Jesus spoke. The crowd to whom Jesus spoke during his presence here on earth weren't Christians. The disciples weren't Christians. Indeed, at the beginning of their apostolic work, they continued to observe Judaic rites.

If by some means they were able to appear in our present world, like Moses and Elijah did at Christ's transfiguration, the apostles wouldn't recognise our rite-free Christianity.

2ndly, although all of Jesus' words were directed to Jews, the Gospels were compiled by Christians for Christian converts with the overriding theme that the words of Jesus for the most part and certainly that of Matthew 23:23 is of universal applicability.

There were of course different emphases in each of the Gospel accounts depending on who the intended readers were largely expected to be.

The universality of most of Christ's message is what distinguishes it from the epistles, which were directed at particular churches to address issues then going on in those churches in Rome, Greece and Asia Minor.

Even when Jesus directed a word at a particular individual, the universal nature of the word meant it applied not just to the specific individual addressed.

For example, no one argues lamely that, when Jesus tells a healed person to sin no more, that such admonition applied only to that healed person. Rather, we extrapolate from specific instructions that Jesus gave to see how it may be useful in our individual lives.

The epistles are more amenable to being characterised as having limited applicability, so that one is able to say, for example, that whenever Paul spoke in admonishing tones, he wasn't always prescribing rules which had to be followed.

Paul often gave advice and his epistles were opinion-laden. That is not to discount their instructive nature. He was afterall a spirit-led man through whom God spoke volumes.

With Jesus it was different. Jesus' declaration were not mere opinion or advice. Further, they were rarely, if ever, restricted in their instructive nature to groups of people, even when directed solely to those groups. His utterances were of applicability to both Jews & Gentiles

Thirdly, the falsity of the reasoning that Mat 23:23 applied solely to Pharisees is immediately laid bare when one considers the entire chapter. Matthew 23 was strongly-worded. In it, Jesus pointed out many things the Pharisees were doing wrong and how they should make amends

He was at the same teaching other non-Pharisee listeners how they should act. Jesus could scarcely have been saying to other Jews listening while the Pharisees were present that,"you are not required to pay a tithe of your cumin etc. ; it's only these Pharisees that should do so"

That would be double speak or double truth. Throughout that chapter, he was telling his listeners how they should not be like the Pharisees. By approving the payment of tithe for the Pharisees, he was also saying it was proper for others listening to pay it.

So, having set out my position that the stipulation in Matthew 23:23 was of universal applicability, what salvific purpose does tithe have in comparison to justice, mercy and faithfulness mentioned in Matthew 23:23?

My humble conclusion is that if there are any heavenly brownie points from tithe, it would be in some way cumulative in much the same way that good deeds are, so that in the many mansions that are in His Father's house, one may through tithe boost one's eventual reward.

Not paying tithe should not, in my humble opinion,  automatically preclude one from entering heaven, but it may determine what mansion, crown, reward one ultimately gets upon reaching there.