Making Change, Ken Hemphill, Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2006, paperback, 19 pages.

Kenneth Hemphill; SBC National Strategist for Empowering Kingdom Growth; Ph. D. Cambridge University; former President Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Book Review by Russell Earl Kelly, Ph. D., February 7, 2009

This book represents the very best that the Southern Baptist Convention has to offer regarding stewardship, tithes and offerings. It is also one of the worst examples of how to manipulate Scripture to teach tithing I have ever read.

P39: [1 Tim 5:8] "Providing for one's own family is an indisputable Christian duty. To forsake this would be a tacit denial of the faith … So anyone who thinks stewardship overrides this responsibility has failed to heed the heartbeat of God." ----- Almost 38 pages will pass before Hemphill begins to repudiate his statement here by teaching that Christians must give the first 10% of income to the church before any other bills are paid. See page 77.

P43-44: "The Israelites were prohibited by law from exploiting the poor …" "Solomon made a clear connection between serving the poor and honoring God. 'The one who oppresses the poor insults their maker.'" ------ In my opinion expecting the poor to give the first 10% of income even before medicine, food and shelter is equivalent to exploiting the poor.

P48-56: While discussing how the OT ministry and Temple were financed, Hemphill carefully replaces the word, "tithe," with "specified portions" on page 42 but uses "tithe" for the first time on page 43. He fails to point out that the OT sanctuary and Temple were not financed from tithes.

P53: "The fact that the Levites were told to give a tenth of the tenth they received (Num 18:26) [Neh 10:37-38]." ----- The OT Levites who received the first Levitical tithe were only servants to the priests and did not minister. The priests only received 1% of the total tithe. Hemphill makes no effort to reconcile this principle to the Church.

P53: "The Levites were not given a tribal inheritance in the Promised Land but were placed instead in forty-eight Levitical cities (Num 35:1-8). [Also Joshua 20-21; 1 Chronicles 23 to 26]. ----- Hemphill ignores what they did in those cities. They raised (tithed) animals; they farmed to feed those animals; they learned and worked at trades to use in the Temple. And kings used them as politicians, judges, rulers and representatives.

P53: "Therefore the generous support of the people of God enabled those in ministry to dedicate themselves fully rather than being concerned about earning a living. That is the Old Testament pattern." ----- This is a myth. They rotated in 24 week cycles to work at the Temple a minimum of 2 weeks per year. The Bible does not teach that Levites and priests only performed spiritual work in the sanctuary. Over ten times it states that, in exchange for receiving tithes, they were not allowed to own or inherit property. Yet Christian pastors both expect tithes and also own and inherit property.

P54-55: "In 1 Thessalonians Paul did NOT speak about providing financial resources for those in ministry." … [1 Cor 9:14] "On certain occasions Paul waived his right to receive support from the church and chose instead to work as a tentmaker. ----- This is wrong. The reverse is true. As a rabbi Paul considered it a sin to be paid for teaching the Word of God. Paul boasted that his "wages" were working for "free" in 1 Cor 9:12-18. In fact, Paul worked to support both himself and those with him and only occasionally received limited support. This is still true at the very end of his ministry as seen in Acts 20:29-35. The word "tithe" never appears in Paul's epistles (with a possible exception of Hebrews 7 where it is abolished in 7:12 and 7:18).

P55: Quoting the SBC Bible version, Hemphill argues that 1 Timothy 5:17 teaches that pastors are due a "double honorarium." "The context leaves little doubt that Paul had in mind generous financial remuneration." ----- This is wrong. The context from 5:1-20 is that of being due "double honor" when being disciplined. Paul would not refuse a salary himself and then tell his favorite disciple that he deserved a double salary. In 1 Timothy 6:5-10 Paul told Timothy to be content with the bare necessities of life.

P64: [Ps 24:1] "God is the Creator and Owner of all that exists." ---- This text is used by every tithe teacher. However this fact is never used as a reason to collect or receive tithes from defiled pagan dust in the Bible.

P65: "When it comes to money, God is not simply concerned about the tithe - the 10 per cent we are required to return to him." ----- "Tithe" occurs once in this chapter. Hemphill is very slowly introducing his major thrust of tithing. Notice that, while it is "required," the requirement that tithe-recipients not own property is not "required." There are at least 25 tithing principles in the OT and none are followed by churches today.

P77: In a chapter discussing budget planning, the word "tithe" occurs twice. "Start with large categories such as "tithing, food, housing, clothing." … "Larry Burkett suggests that you look at five major divisions - the tithe, taxes, family needs, paying off debts, and developing surplus to respond to others." ----- First, it takes twisting Scripture to make tithes equal firstfruits when they are never the same. Second, notice that he places tithes in front of "family needs." This means church support in front of medicine, food and shelter which totally contradicts what he wrote on page 39. Third, Burkett put family needs third which is cruel theology for the sick and poor.

P83: "After your tithe repay your debt first." … "Never rob God to pay off debts." ----- First, this contradicts the list on page 77l Second, again it is based on the false assumption that tithes are firstfruits which is easily proven to be false by texts such as Deuteronomy 26:1-4 and Nehemiah 10:35-37.

P83: "God challenges us to put him to the test and see if he will not open the windows and pour out a blessings (Mal 3:10). ----- This very common comment is wrong. a) The 600+ OT laws which included tithing were never commanded to the Church. b) The only way a Hebrew could claim blessings from tithing is to obey all 600+ commands of the law per Galatians 3:10. c) The entire law was the same test -(test me by) obeying and be blessed; (test me by) disobeying and be cursed. e) There is no legitimate principle which allows Christians to remove tithing from the entire law and disregard most of the remainder.

P88: "Generous giving -out of our surplus- enables us to go beyond the foundational level of tithes and offerings." ----- This is deceptive. First, "generous giving" is a Spirit-blessed NT principle which springs from Christian love which is the "enabler." Second, the tithe was never the "foundation," "expectation," "standard," "beginning place," "good place to start" or "training wheels" which tithe teachers argue because tithes only applied to food producers who lived inside Israel. This is the first of many repetitions of this straw man in the book. Third, tradesmen such as Jesus, Peter and Paul did not qualify as tithe-payers and neither did those who lived outside of Israel.

P93: "God is not asking you to dedicate your money, time, talents, influence, creativity or anything else to him. He only desires you." ----- This is incredible when Hemphill also tells us that the tithe is the foundational law of giving and that Christians will be cursed who do not tithe. See page 112.

P97-98: [Gen 14:20-21] "In sheer gratitude Abram offered him (Melchizedek) a tenth of everything he had." … "Then the king of Sodom offered Abram all the spoils of war …" ----- The Bible nowhere says that Abram freely chose to give a tithe from spoils of war. Most commentaries suggest that pagan Canaanite tradition influenced the 90% in verse 21.

P98: "The gift of a tithe to Melchizedek was based on the recognition that God was owner and provider." ----- Although "El Elyon" was worshipped by both Canaanites and Hebrews, the Bible does not say that Abram tithed spoils of war in recognition of El Elyon. Many commentaries suggest it was expected by Canaanite priest-kings from spoils of war.

P98: [Gen 28:22] "This stone that I have set up as a marker will be God's house and I will give to you a tenth of all that you give me." ----- This is dishonest distortion of God's Word. Hemphill conveniently changed the context by omitting the two preceding texts - 20-21 "And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, So that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the LORD be my God." Jacob's scheming vow is not an example for Christians to follow. He set the conditions and only promised to tithe from pagan sources after God met his conditions.

P98: "Moses further instructed them that when they took possession of the land of promise, they were to offer the firstborn males of all their livestock as a sacrifice." ----- Hemphill misses the point that none of the tithes or offerings was considered holy unless they came off God's holy land. Those given by Abram and Jacob did not qualify as holy tithes under the Law.

P99: "Choice examples of the crop were to be brought to the house of the LORD (Ex 22:19) to be used for the support of the priests (Num 18). According to Deuteronomy 26:1-11 these offerings were to be brought in a basket for presentation in the sanctuary." --- At least this once Hemphill admits that firstfruits were not tithes yet insists on teaching that they are the same in the remainder of the book. The firstfruits were extremely small token offerings which would fit in a basket. Often one person could carry an entire village's firstfruits on one pack animal. Only the course of priests (1 of 24) which was ministering its one week rotation would eat the firstfruits and firstborn inside the sanctuary. This is unrelated to tithing.

P100: "The tithe was equivalent to a tenth part of all the produce that God graciously provided for Israel (Lev 27:30, 32)." ----- Distortion. The tithe was not "equivalent" to all the produce. It "was" all the produce! That is what the text says! However, after (almost) correctly defining the OT tithe as only food from inside Israel, Hemphill then proceeds to totally ignore what he has just admitted in the remainder of the book. Contrary to popular opinion, food was not used as barter to replace money. Although money is extremely common even in Genesis and essential for sanctuary worship (check it out), the tithe is never money in 16 verses which describe its contents over a 1500 year span from Leviticus 27 to Luke 12. Hemphill and other tithe teachers have no biblical support for defining the tithe as 10% of income. Even the increase of the tithe was (as Hemphill says) miraculously and "graciously provided" from God's hand -not from man's hand. That is why skilled craftsmen such as carpenters and tentmakers could not tithe from what they produced and sold.

P100: "Numbers 18:21-32 indicates that the tithe was received by the Levites and was to be used for their support and ministry since they had no inheritance in the land." ----- It would be better worded "in exchange for" their loss of inheritance in the land. First, the Levites who received the whole Levitical tithe were not the priests (18:21-24); they were servants to the priest who functioned as our own ushers, choir, musicians, builders, maintenance, treasurers, judges, rulers and politicians (Num 3; 1 Chron 23 to 26). This principle is ignored by the Church. Second the priests only received 1% of the total - or a tenth of the tithe (Num 18:25-29; Neh 10:38-39). Third, although they did not inherit land, they lived on land provided by the other tribes and worked it as farmers and herdsmen. They also worked at trades necessary for temple building an maintenance (Num 35; Josh 20-21). It is wrong to imply that they were all full-time temple workers when only 2% of the total were at the temple most of the time (per 24 courses of male priests age 30 and up).

P100: [Deu 12 and 14] "The place where God's name dwelt would have been the tabernacle or the temple." ----- Partially true. The context of Deuteronomy 12 and 14 is the second festival, or feast tithe. The "place" referred to the streets of Jerusalem where the second tithe was consumed. There is no text which says that the second tithe was brought to, or stored in, the temple. In fact, Nehemiah 10:37-39 commands the people to bring their tithes to the Levitical cities -not to the temple.

P101: "An additional tithe is mentioned in Deuteronomy 14:28-29. … I find it fascinating that the Deuteronomic code required that the tithe of agriculture be used in a family feast celebrating God's provision and presence." ----- Once again Hemphill admits that the tithe was "of agriculture." If (as he later argues) it also included "all income" then why is income not included in the commands to tithe? Also, while finding it "fascinating," there is not discussion of why the Church ignores this OT tithing principle of a third-year tithe only for the poor. And neither does the church teach that no tithes should be received from farmers every seventh year as implied in the OT principles of tithing (Lev 25).

P101: [Mal 3:8] "The result was that they [Malachi's audience] were suffering under a curse [for not tithing]. In other words they had forfeited God's presence, provision and protection. … [Concerning thieves robbing churches] "I responded that I was not at all surprised since many of the people who sat before me in the pews stole from God every Sunday when they kept back his tithes and offerings." ----- First, this is a dishonest use of Malachi 3:8 a) because God never commanded the church to tithe, b) because the church has a priesthood of every believer, c) because it is impossible for born-again children of God to be under the OT curse and d) because NT giving principles have replaced OT giving principles. Second, does Hemphill the Baptist believe that one can fall from grace by not tithing? That is the necessary conclusion of one who "forfeits God's presence, provision and protection."

P101: "It is hard to believe that someone who claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ, who has experienced the grace of God in redemption and daily provision, would ever consider coming into God's presence with empty hands." ----- In other words, 'Don't dare show up in church without your tithes and offerings!" Do you need to buy medicine? Forget it. This attitude is a major reason why many churches are dwindling today!  The poor, widows, orphans and sick are not welcome in Hemphill's churches today!

P101: "Why would we forfeit the pleasure of worshipping the King with tithes and offerings? Clearly this is the standard and legacy of OT worship." ----- No, it is not! The straw man is lifted up again. First, OT worship only required food producers living inside Israel to begin their level of giving at 10%. Second, the second and third tithe was for (not brought by) the poor, widows, orphans and strangers. Third, Hemphill may as well remove page 42-47 from his book where he discussed oppressing the poor because he is guilty of it. Fourth, there are no biblical texts which make tithing the "standard" for OT giving. Fifth, NT giving is primarily sacrificial which means more than 10% for many but less for others.

P102: [Mt 23:23] "I have always been surprised that people who claim to be followers of Christ attempt to use scripture taken out of context to avoid the obvious implication of the teaching of biblical principles." ----- This is the pot calling the kettle black! I would dearly love to be locked in a room with Dr. Hemphill and make him retract this statement.  This entire review is filled with how he has taken texts out of context.  And I would like for him to clearly set down in writing his set of biblical principles (hermeneutics). The SBC has thus far been unable to provide a good book on hermeneutics which has consistent principles for the use of the law and tithing.

P102: "Over the years I have encountered people who wanted to argue that tithing was a matter of legalism and thus inappropriate for a person now under grace. But this argument is flawed from the beginning since the first two instances of tithing occur before the giving of the law (Gen 14, 28)." ----- First, with one statement Hemphill thinks he has defeated everybody who disagrees with him. His unstated principle is "If something is before the law, very old and very common, then it must be an eternal moral principle." The same kind of logic could be used to support idolatry, child sacrifices, temple prostitution, Saturday Sabbath, unclean food laws, circumcision and multiple wives. Second, at least the first Levitical tithe was purely cold hard law; giving was not a matter of one's disposition or grace. Third, Abram and Jacob's tithes did not qualify as holy tithes off a holy land to a holy priesthood. They were pagan spoils of war which were only 1% in Numbers 31. Fourth, nothing Abraham and Jacob did in Genesis 14 and 28 is an example of tithing for Christians to follow today: a) only pagan spoils of war, b) not his own personal property, c) recorded only once, d) the 90% went to the king of Sodom, and e) Jacob's were probably given to the poor.

P102: "Furthermore one would be hard pressed to find support for the idea that someone who has experienced the amazing grace of our Lord … would desire to do less than someone under the law. Such a person would be a disgrace to grace." ----- First, the argument is a straw man because it is based on the false and un-provable assumption that everybody in the OT was required to begin his/her level of giving at 10%. Second, grace-giving begins with a Spirit-filled response of love which produces sacrificial giving. Hemphill would be hard pressed to connect grace giving to law giving. The real disgrace is adding law back to grace which is contrary to Paul's instruction in Galatians 1:8-9 and 3:1-5.

P102-103: "Others retreat to the argument of silence. They surmise that since tithing is mentioned infrequently by Jesus it can't be that important. But how many times must something be taught in God's Word before it becomes important to the committed followers of Christ? It is likely that tithing was seldom mentioned by Jesus because he anticipated that those basic matters were clearly understood by all." ----- First, it is Hemphill who is arguing from silence in this very sentence when he says "it is likely that." The problem is Hemphill's lack of a consistent hermeneutic. That which has been brought over from the OT into the new is clearly repeated after Calvary to the church in terms of grace and faith. That is why the Sabbath, food laws, circumcision and multiple wives are clearly discussed yet tithing is not. Second, the only time Jesus mentioned tithing was to criticize tithe-payers in the context of the law. It would have been impossible to Jesus to command his Gentile disciples to tithe.

P103: [Mt 23:23] "Let's look at what the New Testament says about tithing." ----- This is where the flawed lack of consistent hermeneutics of Hemphill is most evident. Matthew 23:23 is before Calvary and is, therefore, in Old Testament context. In fact, Jesus clearly states that he is discussing "matters of the law" - that is the context - not matters of grace. Jesus also commanded obedience to all of the law during his lifetime. If tithing is for the church simply because Jesus taught it, then so should be the whole law. I doubt that the SBC favors killing disobedient children as taught in Exodus 21:15, 17.

P103: "The context of Matthew 23:23 is a denunciation of the scribes (experts in the law) and of the Pharisees. … The fourth woe in particular relates to their practice of tithing as taught in Old Testament law." ----- Yes. So true. Then do not change the context to refer to the Church. 

P103: "Can you see one of these Pharisees down on his knees counting out his mint, dill and cumin?" ----- This is one of my own arguments. Yet Jesus and Hemphill say "This you ought to have done." I ask "Why don't you teach this? Why don't you obey Jesus and command your church members to count out their herbs and place them into the offering plate as tithes? This is inconsistent pick-and-choose from the law what you want to keep and reject the remainder.

P103: [Mt 23:23] "Notice, however, that Jesus was not condemning their act of tithing. … We can't miss this obvious implication. … Thus for someone to use this passage to argue against the principle of tithing puts that person in the same category with the blind guides of Jesus' day." ----- This is nasty and cruel rhetoric. Jesus came to perfectly fulfill the righteous requirements of the law in order to redeem those under the law. It is absurd to think that he would have taught against obedience to any part of the law - including tithing. The only "obvious implication" is that the law was still in full effect before Calvary.

P104: [Mt 5:17] "While debate exists among Bible scholars as to the actual meaning of this statement [I did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill], it seems best to translate it in terms of 'bringing to completion' … the final revelation of God's will (as found in the entire Old Testament)." ----- First, does Hemphill's opinion now end the "debate existing among Bible scholars"? From Matthew 5:20-48 Jesus gave six illustrations: two from the commandments, two from the statutes and two from the judgments. Therefore he was at least discussing the whole law of Moses. Second, what is Hemphill's point here? Is he arguing that Christians are under the whole law in order to justify retaining tithing? What consistent hermeneutic is he using here to retain tithing and reject the hundreds of law-commands which are not accepted by churches?

P104: "Just a few verses later in his Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:18-20), Jesus set a new standard for kingdom citizens that far exceeded the righteousness of scribes and Pharisees. The kingdom citizen, he said, should go far beyond lip service and legalistic observance of the law. Rather, he should internalize the law so that his life and teaching are molded by God's Word." ----- First, once again Hemphill is setting up the false assumption straw man that the OT had a standard which commanded everyone in the OT to begin their level of giving at 10% (although it only narrowly applied to food producers who lived inside Israel). I will repeat this every time he repeats his false assumption. Second, it is wrong to teach that the Christian is to look at the law and go far beyond it. In reality the Christian is "dead to law" (Rom 7:4) and has been quickened and risen as a new creation to serve "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ" (Rom 8:2). Christ, not the law, is the standard to which the Christian looks for guidance (John 16:8-9; 2 Cor 3:18). Third, how does Hemphill "internalize" the many commands to kill those who break the first commandments? I suspect that his hermeneutics of law are faulty. The obvious conclusion from Matthew 5:19 (which Hemphill ignores) is that the church is either under all of the law or none of it.

P105: "In each case [Mt 5:20-48] Jesus' ethical teaching was more demanding than the law." ----- Is that what Jesus was teaching? Or was Jesus re-interpreting the law? If being angry with your brother without a cause is equivalent to murder, then should the angry person be put to death as the law required (5:21-22)? If the law is now even more "demanding" than before, how can we escape this conclusion?

P106: "To interact with verses like these from Jesus' teaching and still conclude that tithes and offerings are artificial requirements, that minimum giving should be acceptable under the circumstances - as if living under grace gives us permission not to take our kingdom responsibilities too seriously- is to give our human nature far too much credit. Grace should free us not to do less but to do more, not to earn God's favor but to let it continue transforming us." ----- First, he sets up the false assumption straw man again. The OT did not require everybody to begin giving at 10%. Second, OT tithing was never an "artificial" requirement for non-food producers. Third, "living under grace" does not mean "for every church doctrine except stewardship." Nor does it mean that grace allows law to be added back which is contrary to Galatians 1:8-9 and 3:1-5. Third, unlike the OT believer in which the Holy Spirit did not permanently dwell, Christians have a "new nature" which will out-give the old nature if properly motivated by sermons on soul-winning. Churches do not fail because they do not preaching law-stewardship. Churches fail which do not preach soul-winning.

P106: "Grace liberates us to go beyond the tithe to give proportionately, generously and joyously." ----- Straw man again. Grace motivates Christians who are dead to law-principles to give sacrificially and to the best of their ability without any view to a set percentage.

P108: [Malachi 1:9] "People were bringing blind, lame and sick animals for their sacrifices." ----- This is dishonest to the context. On page 111 Hemphill has it correct: "Notice that the sons of Levi, the very people against whom the indictments in 1:6 to 2:9 had been levied, had been singled out to be purified and refined like god and silver (3:3)." Malachi 1:6, the context of 1:8 above, is addressed to the priests -not to the people. The priests had vowed to offer the best from the tithed animals they had received and had stolen from God by exchanging them for inferior animals. And God cursed the priests in 1:13-14.

P108-110: Hemphill continues to ignore the fact that God was only addressing the priests from 1:6 and 2:1 and induces his readers to think that the people of Israel are being addressed. In fact, with the exception of the third-person address of 2:10-12, the "you" in Malachi never changes from the priests to the people of Israel. Even "this whole nation" in 3:9 makes more sense as "this whole nation of you priests." God addresses the priests from 1:6 to 1:14; from 2:1 to 2:9 and from 2:13 to the end of Malachi. Follow the pronoun "you." The priests are seen in 2:13 covering the altar; they are seen in 2:17 asking God a question and they are seen in his answer which follows in chapter 3.

P111: "God's desire is to use this experience to purify, cleanse and restore to productive living." ----- This is dishonest because the context is the priests. "Notice that the sons of Levi, the very people against whom the indictments in 1:6 to 2:9 had been levied, had been singled out to be purified and refined like god and silver (3:3)."

P:111: "Once again, however, Israel responded to God's grace with a whine of innocence -'How can we return?'" ----- It is the priests of Israel asking the questions since 1:6 and not the people. Priests are the "sons of Jacob" in 1:6 and the ordinances and covenant previously discussed in 2:9 were those with the priests.

P111: "We have already looked at the tithe in some detail.  It was generally considered to be a tenth of what one earned and was intended to be brought to the storehouse." ----- First, as pointed out from page 100, Hemphill corrected defined tithe as food from inside Israel only once and thereafter defines it as a tenth of income without any explanation of the drastic change of definition. Second, Nehemiah 10:37 commands the people to bring the whole Levitical tithe to the Levitical cities and not toe the storehouse. It makes no sense to tell the people to bring all the tithe to the Temple when 98% of those who needed it were in the Levitical cities. Leviticus 10:38 says "And the priest the son of Aaron shall be with the Levites, when the Levites take tithes: and the Levites shall bring up the tithe of the tithes unto the house of our God, to the chambers, into the treasure house." It was the responsibility of the Levites to bring the tithe into the Temple -not the people. Third, the two small rooms in the Temple could not possibly contain the entire tithe from the nation (Neh 13:5-10). There is a serious mis-interpretation of Malachi 3:10.

P111-112: "Stephen Oxford wrote 'From the time of Hezekiah, there was in the sanctuary a storehouse built for depositing the tithes and offerings of the people. This was also true  of the second temple in the days of Nehemiah.'" ----- First, why does Hemphill quote Oxford? Why does he not simply declare the same thing? Is he doubtful of Oxford's conclusion? Second, Oxford is wrong if he thinks that the Temple storehouse could hold all the tithes from the (then much smaller) country. A careful reading of 2nd Chronicles 31:1-19 and Nehemiah 13:1-10 reveals only two small rooms. Third, Hezekiah erred when he commanded the people to bring the tithes to the Temple. There was no storage facility for al of it and it spoiled in the streets until it was re-shipped back to the Levitical cities (2 Chron 31:1-19). Fourth, if David and Solomon wanted the people (of the much larger nation) to bring their tithes to the Temple, then why did not the first Temple have storage space for them? Surely it is evident from Nehemiah 10:37-38 that the vast majority of the tithes were never stored at the Tempe storehouse. Therefore the NT comparison of the church as the equivalent to the OT temple storehouse is wrong.

P112: "When we rob God we are actually cheating ourselves because it places us under a curse (3:9) that closes the floodgates of God's blessing. This is language we don't often use. We love to talk about 'blessing.' The idea of 'cursing' seems foreign to our ears." ----- First, this comes from Hemphill who has been lecturing us about how tithing is not about legalism. Yet it reeks of cold hard OT law with its accompanying blessings and curses. Second, the word "curse" has been used against the priests four times in 1:14 and 2:2. It would be consistent to interpret the priests as still being the recipients of God's OT curse. Third, Hemphill's faulty hermeneutics of law are showing again. He teaches that the OT law applies to Christians except that which he has decided no longer applies. Tithing has survived his cut. Fourth, I would like to hear how Hemphill explains Galatians 3:13 "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." It is impossible for God to curse a born-again Christian. No adopted child of God can sit with him in heavenly places while being cursed. Therefore Hemphill must think that tithing is essential for salvation. Fifth, I would like to hear him explain Galatians 3:10 "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." The only way OT Hebrews could claim the blessings from tithing was to observe all 600+ commands of the law. Sixth, I would like to hear Hemphill explain Galatians 1:8-9 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." It seems like adding law back to the gospel falls under Paul's curse.

P112: [Mal 3:10] "Thus God issued a challenge -'Bring the full 10 per cent into the storehouse … Test me in this way." ----- This was explained already. First, the whole tithe would not fit into the Temple storehouse. Second, only the Levites and priests were normally responsible for bringing tithes into the Temple. Third, the NT Temple is within the believer. Fourth, The early church did not have its own buildings for over 200 years after Calvary and it does not correspond to the storehouse. Fifth, the Protestant reference to the church building as the "house of God" is an OT, pagan or Roman Catholic concept where God dwells. Sixth, again, the only way an OT Hebrew could claim the blessings from tithing was to observe all 600+ commands of the law.

P112: "The opening of the floodgates of heaven was an indication of an abundance of rain (Deut 28:12)." ----- This comparison to Malachi 3:10 proves that Hemphill knows the context is that of the entire law. There is no consistent hermeneutic which allows him to separate the blessings and curses of tithing from the blessings and curses of the whole law. The commandments, statutes and judgments of the Law either stand together or fall together.

P121-126: Even though discussing freewill offerings from 1st Corinthians 16 Hemphill still refers to tithing five times.

P123: [1 Cor 16] "The issue in our present passage is the collection for the saints." ----- For the SBC everything above the expected tithe is grace giving of freewill offerings. Nothing said or written about offerings is intended to remove the obligation to tithe. The context of 1 Corinthians 16 is not a discussion of how to build churches or how to pay gospel workers. However the grace-only principles are the same when the law is removed.

P124: "Our giving should be a matter of theological conviction that leads to practical and consistent expression. Consistency requires thought, planning and preparation that in turn allows us to have a greater sense of worship as we give." ----- "Theological conviction" is the result of in-depth honest study of God's Word. When it involves tithing, this is not being done in SBC churches and seminaries. It is a taboo subject.  And the lack of a "consistent" hermeneutic of law is at the root of the problem.

P124: "What can you do to develop consistency? First, I would suggest that you follow Paul's direction about laying aside your tithe and offering first." ----- This is a blatant lie. First, the chapter is not about tithing. Second, Paul and the rest of the Bible never equates tithes with firstfruits. Third, Paul never "directed" anybody to "lay aside tithes and offerings first." In fact he taught believers to pay for their medicine, food and shelter first. Even the fundamental tithing text of Leviticus 27:30-34 describes the tithe as the "tenth" and not even the "best." 1 Tim 5:8 "But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."

P125: "God has no favorites in his purpose of blessing, and since he wants to bless everyone, he expects everyone to give. No one should ever be excluded from worshipping God through tithes and offerings and no one should do so without theological reflection that leads to thoughtfulness and consistency." ----- First, this is a rather goofy statement. Is there a church anywhere that forbids people from giving? Second, I have met many discouraged Christians who stay home because they have too many medical bills and are too poor to contribute as much as their pastor expects. Third, if Hemphill wants members to give only after "theological reflection" then he should encourage open discussion of tithing like any other doctrinal subject. Fourth, churches which add to God's Word by requiring officers to tithe are committing the sin of respecting persons, or showing favoritism. Spiritual gifts are also given to the poor and to disqualify them from use of those spiritual gifts because of their financial situation is a sin.

P125: "Paul would have practiced tithing according to Old Testament prescriptions." ----- Nonsense. First, after 14 years of re-education Paul taught that the believer was dead to law (Rom 7:4). Second, as a rabbi Paul considered it heresy to accept a wage for teaching the Word of God. (Read Schaff and most other church historians.) Third, as one who knew the OT definition of "tithe" Paul knew that craftsmen had nothing tithe-able and that even food products from pagan lands did not qualify as tithes. Paul wrote in Galatians that adding law back into grace is witchcraft. Gal 3:1 "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? … 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?"

P127-133: In his discussion of freewill grace giving principles from 2nd Corinthians 8, Hemphill uses the word "tithe" three times.

P132: "Jesus, of course -as we saw earlier- had approached tithing from the approach of an assumed truth, as something that God's people should have mastered without neglecting the weightier things [of the law] as love, mercy and justice. In other words, Jesus was saying 'I shouldn't have to go back and cover elementary school matters with you.'" ----- This is wrong. First, Jesus was discussing "matters of the law" to Jews still under the law in Matthew 23:23. Second, even though the scribes and Pharisees were the recognized interpreters of the law and had expanded it beyond its original scope, Jesus still supported their excess (Mt 23:2-3). Third, of course it was an "assumed truth" -to Jews. However it was NOT an assumed truth for Gentiles who were not allowed or commanded to tithe by Jesus. In fact the early church in Acts 15:10 refused to place its Gentile converts under the yoke of the law.

P132: "Paul, too, was clear in saying that the tithe was only the beginning of Christian stewardship." ----- This is a blatant lie. Paul said no such thing! First, Hemphill sets up his straw man again. Second, although the SBC did not begin teaching tithing until 1895, nothing less than the tithe is acceptable in SBC theology today. Anything less is robbing God. Imagine how that makes poor sick church members feel who cannot even afford their medicine.

P132: "What may have been a moral duty for Old Testament man had now become a joyous privilege produced in the believer by the Holy Spirit." ----- First, "may have been" suggests that Hemphill is unsure about declaring that tithing was an OT moral principle. Second, he sets up the straw man again by implying that everyone in the OT was expected to begin their level of giving at 10% when it only applied to food producers who lived inside Israel. Third, the Holy Spirit nowhere endorses tithing by the Church after Calvary. In fact, any doctrine which is not repeated to the Church in terms of grace and faith after Calvary is said to have "zero" glory in comparison to NT revelation per 2 Corinthians 3:10. The heart-nature-conscience of believers teaches giving without any reference to a set percentage either up or down.

P132: "Paul concluded with an appeal both to proportionate and generous giving (8:12)." ----- This is not what the text teaches. The text teaches "equality" giving, not "proportionate" giving. Those who have much more should give much more while those who have much less can only give less. The text is NOT discussing giving by the same percentage. That which comes "first" is not the tithe; rather it is the "willing mind."

2 Cor 8:12 For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.

2 Cor 8:13 For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened:

2 Cor 8:14 But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality:

P163: "A decisive kingdom moment occurred on May 8, 1845. ----- irst, the establishment of the SBC had nothing to do with tithing because it did not attempt to adopt tithing until 1895. Second, the tithing texts were not added to the SBC Faith and Message until 1963. Third, the word "tithe" still does not appear in the SBC Faith and Message. It is, however, mandatory for those who receive a paycheck from the SBC to teach tithing per their Position Paper on tithing. Fourth, one reason for the establishment of the SBC in 1845 was their pro-slavery position. At least they changed their position on that doctrine. Does tithing have the same chance of being changed?

Russell Earl Kelly, PHD

www.tithing-russkelly.com\............................................................................................

........................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................