On December 17, 2016, Senior Pastor Dean Greimann, Regional Worship Center, Sherburn, MN, replied to Russell Kelly and James Sundquist concerning tithing. This is (hopefully) the first of a long open dialog on the subject to be posted on my blog. Since both sides of this controversy need to be heard, we encourage brother Greimann to stay with this discussion for the public benefit of the body of Christ. Greimann’s telephone is 641-812-0759; his email is My email is; my BlogSpot is; 706-401-1276. Sunquist’s email is rrin Jay


DG: Dear James Sundquist: In response to your charges against Rev. Hickle, I would like to go on record as stating:

  1. Tithe to store up treasures in Heaven instead of hoarding things on Earth.(Matthew 6:19-21)

RK: If the word, “tithe,” were replaced with the word, “give,” we would have no disagreement here. We are not opposed to freewill sacrificial giving, but we are opposed to post-Calvary unbiblical descriptions of tithing.

Although money was very common even in Genesis, the HOLY tithes (as the word is used by Moses, Nehemiah, Malachi and Jesus) never changed from “HOLY food from inside God’s HOLY land miraculously increased by God.” There are 16 texts validating this and none changing the description to “increase of money from all believers in every nation.”

DG: 2. Tithe to trust God with your money. (Malachi 3:9-11) You are under a curse—your whole nation—because you are robbing me. Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,” says the Lord Almighty, “and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it….”

RK: The modern tithe-teacher uses Malachi to steal from God’s children. Notice the discrepancies:

  1. HOLY tithes were never money
  2. Gentles never were under the command to tithe in the Old Covenant. (1:1; 4:4)
  3. Tithes could not come from outside HOLY Israel. (Lev 27:30-34)
  4. Only food producers living HOLY Israel qualified as tithe-payers. Those in other occupations did not qualify. Jesus and Paul did not qualify as tithe-payers.
  5. The curse of the Old Covenant ended at Calvary (Gal 3:13). God does not curse born-again believers.
  6. From 1:6; 2:1; 2:17; 3:1-4 it is clear that “you” in Malachi refers to dishonest priests from 1:6-14. They had stolen the tithes in Nehemiah 13:5-10. The “whole nation of you” – of you priests had been stealing tithes belonging to the Levites.
  7. Since the whole tithe of Judea would never fit into the Jerusalem temple storerooms, this text only makes sense if God is telling the priests to return what they stole from the Levites in Neh 13:5-10. Most of the tithe was brought to the cities where Levites and priests lived per Nehemiah 10:37-38.
  8. The Church building is never called a storehouse. In fact, church buildings were illegal in the Roman Empire until after A.D. 300. Since there were no church buildings to store tithes in the first centuries, the application of “storehouse” to “church buildings” is wrong.
  9. The tithe is still (correctly) called “food” in Malachi 3:10. That definition was given 1000 years earlier in Leviticus 27:30-34; it stayed the same for Malachi; it stayed the same 400 years later for Jesus in Matthew 23:23.
  10. According to Deuteronomy 28 to 30, the whole law was a test: obey all to be blessed; break one to be cursed. God did not bless tithers who broke the law in other areas (Gal 3:10).
  11. “Windows,” floodgates, insects and harvest in Malachi 3:10-12 correctly describe the tithes as food and not money.

DG: 3. Tithe in thankfulness to God because it is God that provides for us and He is the one that gives us the ability to make money.

RK: There are no validating texts because none exist. Food producers inside HOLY Israel were thankful but they were the only Israelites commanded to tithe from that which God miraculously increased. While God owns all (Ps 24:1), the HOLY tithe could only from inside HOLY Israel.

DG: (Deuteronomy 8:18) You must remember the LORD your God, for he is the one who gives ability to get wealth; if you do this he will confirm his covenant that he made by oath to your ancestors, even as he has to this day.

RK: Again, this is Old Covenant context only for Old Covenant Israel. God never commanded Gentiles or the Church to tithe.

DG: (Deuteronomy 26:10) And now, O LORD, I have brought you the first portion of the harvest you have given me from the ground.’ Then place the produce before the LORD your God, and bow to the ground in worship before him.

RK: This is text manipulation. Read 26:1-10.

  1. It is about the firstfruits of the new land and not tithes.
  2. Firstfruits were never the same as tithes.
  3. Firstfruits would fit into a small basket.
  4. Even firstfruits could only come from inside the HOLY land of Israel.

DG: (Matthew 22:21) They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.

RK: Yes, Old Covenant food producers living inside HOLY Israel should tithe before Calvary. Now read the context. Man’s money with the image of man was not to be given to God or to be brought into the temple. This destroys the argument for modern money-tithing with its unholy images.

DG: 4. To put God first by acknowledging that the tithe belongs to Him.

(Deuteronomy 14:23) Bring this tithe to the designated place of worship–the place the LORD your God chooses for his name to be honored–and eat it there in his presence. This applies to your tithes of grain, new wine, olive oil, and the firstborn males of your flocks and herds. Doing this will teach you always to fear the LORD your God.


  1. Tithes are never the same as firstfruits in God’s Word. Even Deut 14:23 distinguishes between tithes and firstborn.
  2. This is about the 2ndFestival-Feast tithe which was brought to the STREETS of Jerusalem during the 3 annual feats.
  3. This tithe was EATEN in the streets by all in attendance – including the Gentile strangers.
  4. Churches which do not eat this festival tithe in the streets of Jerusalem should not use this text to prove that everybody should tithe.
  1. To honor the Lord.

(Proverbs 3:9) Honor the LORD with your wealth and with the best part of everything you produce.

RK: Again, tithes are never the same thing as firstfruits in God’s Word. Manipulating Proverbs 3:9-10 is a sin which takes essential money away from the needy to fill the pockets of the clergy contrary to Paul’s admonition in First Timothy 5:8.

DG: (1 Corinthians 10:31) So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.

RK: No tithing context.

DG: 6. Tithe to discipline yourself. To keep yourself from saying that all of your income belongs to you without giving God what rightly belong to Him…

RK: No tithing context.

DG: (1 Timothy 4:7) But have nothing to do with worldly fables fit only for old women. On the other hand, discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness.

RK: Modern “tithing” is a “worldly fable.” Nothing, absolutely nothing taught in the Church today about tithing is in the correct biblical context. The Church has (1) changed the description from food to money, (2) changed the location from God’s HOLY land to the entire earth, (3) changed the purpose from feeding Levites and priests who forfeited land inheritance in Israel to gospel workers who own fancy homes, (4) changed the command in Numbers 18:20 not to amass wealth to using tithing to amass great wealth, (5) changed the limited O.T. covenant and un-supported New Covenant context, (6) changed the description to include the first income from S.S. checks and welfare checks where there is no increase, (7) changed tithers from food producers inside Israel to all believers, (8) added Gentiles to required tithers when God’s Word did not allow such and (9) defined Jesus and Paul as tithe-payers when they are disqualified in God’s Word.

DG: 7. Tithing gives you joy.

(2 Corinthians 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.

RK: No. 2 Cor 9:7 is a description of freewill sacrificial joyful giving; it is not a description of commanded necessary O. T. tithing only from Israel. O.T. tithes were to be given whether grudgingly or not.

DG: (Psalm 4:7) You have given me greater joy than those who have abundant harvests of grain and new wine.

RK: No context of tithing. In fact, the word “tithe, tithes, tithing” does not occur in any Psalm or any writing of David or Solomon.

DG: 8. A biblical church helps people in need. Tithe to help church ministries to grow so that the church can reach out physically and spiritually to others. Tithing so that the kingdom of Heaven can and will advance through our communities.

RK: Again this has no tithing context.

DG: (Hebrews 13:16) And do not neglect doing good and sharing, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.

RK: This is not in the context of tithing. The church which falsely teaches that tithes are firstfruits steals from God’s poorest children contrary to First Timothy 5:8.

DG: (2 Corinthians 9:6) But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.

RK: This is not in the context of tithing. Those who have nothing to sow should not be made to feel guilty.

DG: (Proverbs 19:17)  The one who is gracious to the poor lends to the LORD, and the LORD will repay him for his good deed.

RK: A Christian’s first priority is to make sure his own family has minimum shelter, food, heat and medicine. The church which demands a tithe first is stealing from God’s poorest.

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.

DG: (1 Corinthians 9:13-14) Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.


  1. If verse 14 only refers to verse 13, then Christians must duplicate every single type of support O.T. Levites and priests received in the Temple –thus the argument is self-defeating.
  2. If “in the same way” from verse 14 refers back to verses 7-13, then it concluding a principles that all vocations care for their own from their own principles. The principles of support for gospel workers in verse 14 are the gospel principles of grace and faith and not the law.

DG: (Numbers 18:21) I give to the Levites all the tithes in Israel as their inheritance in return for the work they do while serving at the tent of meeting.

RK: This verse contradicts modern tithe-teaching because it proves that the full Levitical tithe went ONLY to the SERVANTS of the priests. The priests only received 1% as seen in Numbers 18:25-28. If this verse were obeyed, tithes would go to the deacons, greeters, musicians, singers and church workers.

DG: (Romans 10:14) How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?

RK: Paul boasted about preaching for free 1 First Corinthians 9 and Acts 20. O.T. priests and Levites only worked one week out of 24 in the Temple; the remainder of the time they were herdsmen, farmers and tradesmen per First Chronicles, chapters 23 to 26. You have no biblical authority to demand tithes be paid to support full-time gospel workers. The Bible neither commands nor prohibits full-time gospel workers.

DG: 9. God will bless you for placing Him first in your giving to Him your tithes.

RK: Again you infer a claim without validating texts. Placing God’s kingdom first (Matthew 6:33) does not invalidate First Timothy 5:8. Neither does it teach tithing after Calvary. Again, Scripture must be twisted out of context in order to equate tithing with firstfruits.

DG: …  just take a closer look at His churches in third world countries. He blesses those who freely give out of their love and obedience to His commands, expecting nothing in return.

RK: The key word is “freely” – not grudgingly, not by command and not by radically changing the biblical definition of the HOLY tithe. If tithing worked, every Christian would tithe and there would be no poor Christians. The fact is that most that sacrificially “tithe” remain very poor.

DG: … One can never out-give God.

RK: That is true, but it does not validate post-Calvary tithing. As a carpenter, Jesus Himself did not qualify as a tithe-payer.

DG: … referring to money that belongs to the Lord …

RK: Please give validating Scripture before making these kinds of remarks. Jesus said to give money with images of Caesar on it to Caesar; that includes our money today. Howe do you explain that?

DG: I’ve witnessed …. people who cheerfully gave were blessed in their finances.

RK: Yes, we have all witnessed that but it does not validate tithing because the vast majority of “tithe-payers” in poverty remain in poverty; it is not a magic formula. We have also witnessed atheists, agnostics and Muslims who become very wealthy by applying sound business practices.

DG: 10a. Tithing shows your love for the Lord …

RK: Where does God’s Word say that? Stop inventing your own morality statements. Food tithes were required for Hebrews living inside God’s HOLY land whether they loved God or not.

DG: 10b. … and it tests where your heart is at.

RK: God never commanded Gentiles to tithe. Tithing was only a pre-Calvary test for food-producers living inside HOLY Israel. And, the whole law was a test in Deuteronomy 28 to 30: obey all to live; break one to die (Galatians 3:10). Please explain that.

DG: 10c. … Tithing your first fruits is one thing that God commands us to do

RK: You keep repeating this same lie. Tell me where tithes and firstfruits are the same thing! The tithe was the TENTH animal and the TENTH of the crop which could only be counted after the full harvest. And tell me where God “commands” “us,” His Church, to tithe. You keep repeating the same weak arguments over and over.

DG: (2 Corinthians 8:8-9)

RK: This is a reference to freewill sacrificial generous joyful giving —not tithing which was none of those.

DG: (John 14:15) “If you love Me, keep My commandments.

RK: What does this mean in context? Jesus lived and died while the Old Covenant was in full authority. Jesus taught and perfectly kept all of the Law without sin. Before Calvary Jesus’ “commandments” included temple sacrifices, temple worship and tithing to support Levites and priests. Are we to tithe to Levites and priests as Jesus commanded?

DG: In conclusion, your approach to God’s command for us to give Him the sacrifice of our first fruits, including our income, is a worldview that is invading the post-modern church and is spreading across our nation today.

RK: Read back over our article and count how many times you have stated WITHOUT VALIDATING TEXTS that “tithes ae the same thing as firstfruits.” You, my friend, are a LIAR and are twisting God’s Word!!! My view of tithing is from God’s Word in its original context. On the other hand, your view is that of the modern church which has totally destroyed the context and original meaning of God’s “tithe” and has redefined it as “income from all sources.”

  1. What gives you the right to re-define the Old Covenant HOLY tithe as “income” instead of “food from inside God’s HOLY land miraculously increased by Him”?
  1. What gives you the right to teach what you glean about tithing and leave out Numbers 18:20-28 which limits property ownership, amassing wealth and giving the tithe to servants instead of ministering priests?
  1. What gives you the right to receive tithes from Social Security and welfare which are not “increase” and force God’s poorest to go without proper medicine, shelter and food?
  1. I will reply to your closing article on the Law and Covenants soon.

In Christ’s love

Russell Earl Kelly




Posted by Russell Earl Kelly at 8:36 AM No comments: 




On December 17, 2016, Senior Pastor Dean Greimann, Regional Worship Center, Sherburn, MN, replied to Russell Kelly and James Sundquist concerning tithing. This is (hopefully) the first of a long open dialog on the subject to be posted on my blog… Since both sides of this controversy need to be heard, we encourage brother Greimann to stay with this discussion for the public benefit of the body of Christ. Greimann’s telephone is 641-812-0759; his email is My email is; my BlogSpot is; 706-401-1276. Sunquist’s email is rrin Jay

DG: Much of the foundation of this worldview is based upon the church being the “New Testament Church” which has removed itself from the Old Testament foundational laws and commands and replacing them with a new foundation that says that we are no longer under the law (Old Testament) but under grace.

RK: Dispensationalism is based on the literal interpretation of God’s many unconditional promises to Old Testament national Israel. This literal interpretation is found in both the Old and New Testaments of God’s Word. It points out the many differences between God’s literal promises to the nation Israel and the Church: (1) one is a literal nation while the other is called a mystery. (2) One is promised a literal reign of Messiah on Earth while the other is promised a home in heaven. (3) One is called Yahweh’s chosen nation while the other is called the Body of Christ. The only way to dismantle God’s clear literal teaching about Israel is to re-interpret the scores of prophecies unconditionally given to Israel into a spiritual fashion; thus making the O.T. prophets totally wrong    with no context for their listeners.

DG: This is indeed a true statement and there are many verses that can support this claim, as Martin Luther clearly pointed out, we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

RK: In a sermon specifically about tithing and the Law in 1525, Martin Luther said

LUTHER, MARTIN; August 27, 1525



The Law of Moses Binds Only the Jews and Not the Gentiles. An Introduction to Moses.

Here the Law of Moses has its place. It is no longer binding on us because it was given only to the people of Israel. And Israel accepted this law for itself and its descendants, while the Gentiles were excluded.

NATRUAL LAW: To be sure, the Gentiles have certain laws in common with the Jews, such as these: there is one God, no one is to do wrong to another, no one is to commit adultery or murder or steal, and others like them. This is written by nature into their hearts; they did not hear it straight from heaven as the Jews did. This is why this entire text does not pertain to the Gentiles.  …

But we will not have this sort of thing. We would rather not preach again for the rest of our life than to let Moses return and to let Christ be torn out of our hearts. We will not have Moses as ruler or lawgiver any longer. Indeed God himself will not have it either. Moses was an intermediary solely for the Jewish people. It was to them that he gave the law.

We must therefore silence the mouths of those factious spirits who say, “Thus says Moses,” etc. Here you simply reply: Moses has nothing to do with us. If I were to accept Moses in one commandment, I would have to accept the entire MosesThus the consequence would be that if I accept Moses as master, then I must have myself circumcised, wash my clothes in the Jewish way, eat and drink and dress thus and so, and observe all that stuff.

So, then, we will neither observe nor accept Moses. Moses is dead. His rule ended when Christ came. He is of no further service.

TEN COMMANDMENTS: That Moses does not bind the Gentiles can be proved from Exodus 20:1, where God himself speaks, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” This text makes it clear that even the Ten Commandments do not pertain to us. For God never led us out of Egypt, but only the Jews.

The sectarian spirits want to saddle us with Moses and all the commandments. We will just skip that. We will regard Moses as a teacher, but we will not regard him as our lawgiver – unless he agrees with both the New Testament and the natural law. Therefore it is clear enough that Moses is the lawgiver of the Jews and not of the Gentiles. He has given the Jews a sign whereby they should lay hold of God, when they call upon him as the God who brought them out of Egypt. The Christians have a different sign, whereby they conceive of God as the One who gave his Son, etc.

SABBATH: Again one can prove it from the third commandment that Moses does not pertain to Gentiles and Christians. For Paul [Col. 2:16] and the New Testament [Matt. 12:1-12; John 5:16; 7:22-23; 9:14-16] abolish the Sabbath, to show us that the Sabbath was given to the Jews alone, for whom it is a stern commandment. The prophets referred to it too, that the Sabbath of the Jews would be abolished. For Isaiah says in the last chapter, “When the Savior comes, then such will be the time, one Sabbath after the other, one month after the other,” etc. [Isa. 66:23]. This is as though he were trying to say, “It will be the Sabbath every day, and the people will be such that they make no distinction between days. For in the New Testament the Sabbath is annihilated as regards the crude external observance, for every day is a holy day,” etc.

TEN COMMANDMENTS: Now if anyone confronts you with Moses and his commandments, and wants to compel you to keep them, simply answer, “Go to the Jews with your Moses; I am no Jew. Do not entangle me with Moses. If I accept Moses in one respect [Paul tells the Galatians in chapter 5:3], then I am obligated to keep the entire law.” For not one little period in Moses pertains to us.



TEN COMMANDMENTS: Question: Why then do you preach about Moses if he does not pertain to us? Answer to the Question: Three things are to be noted in Moses. I want to keep Moses and not sweep him under the rug, because I find three things in Moses. In the first place I dismiss the commandments given to the people of Israel. They neither urge nor compel me. They are dead and gone, except insofar as I gladly and willingly accept something from Moses, as if I said, “This is how Moses ruled, and it seems fine to me, so I will follow him in this or that particular.”

TITHING: I would even be glad if [today’s] lords ruled according to the example of Moses. If I were emperor, I would take from Moses a model for [my] statutes; not that Moses should be binding on me, but that I should be free to follow him in ruling as he ruled. For example, TITHING is a very fine rule, because with the giving of the tenth all other taxes would be eliminated. For the ordinary man it would also be easier to give a tenth than to pay rents and fees. Suppose I had ten cows; I would then give one. If I had only five, I would give nothing. If my fields were yielding only a little, I would give proportionately little; if much, I would give much. All of this would be in God’s providence. But as things are now, I must pay the Gentile tax even if the hail should ruin my entire crop. If I owe a hundred gulden in taxes, I must pay it even though there may be nothing growing in the field. This is also the way the pope decrees and governs. But it would be better if things were so arranged that when I raise much, I give much; and when little, I give little.

When these factious spirits come, however, and say, “Moses has commanded it,” then simply drop Moses and reply, “I am not concerned about what Moses commands.” “Yes,” they say, “he has commanded that we should have one God, that we should trust and believe in him, that we should not swear by his name; that we should honor father and mother; not kill, steal, commit adultery; not bear false witness, and not covet [Exod. 20:3-17]; should we not keep these commandments?” You reply: Nature also has these laws. Nature provides that we should call upon God. The Gentiles attest to this fact. … The Gentiles have it written in their heart, and there is no distinction [Rom. 3:22]. As St. Paul also shows in Romans 2:14-15, the Gentiles, who have no law, have the law written in their heart.

But just as the Jews fail, so also do the Gentiles. Therefore it is To honor God, not steal, not commit adultery, not bear false witness, not murder; and what Moses commands is nothing new. For what God has given the Jews from heaven, he has also written in the hearts of all men. Thus I keep the commandments which Moses has given, not because Moses gave the commandment, but because they have been implanted in me by nature, and Moses agrees exactly with nature, etc.

TITHING: But the other commandments of Moses, which are not [implanted in all men] by nature, the Gentiles do not hold. Nor do these pertain to the Gentiles, such as the TITHE and others equally fine which I wish we had too. Now this is the first thing that I ought to see in Moses, namely, the commandments to which I am not bound except insofar as they are [implanted in everyone] by nature [and written in everyone’s heart].

….[new thought]…..



I find something in Moses that I do not have from nature: the promises and pledges of God about Christ. This is the best thing. It is something that is not written naturally into the heart, but comes from heaven. God has promised, for example, that his Son should be born in the flesh. This is what the gospel proclaims. It is not commandments. And it is the most important thing in Moses which pertains to us. The first thing, namely, the commandments, does not pertain to us. I read Moses because such excellent and comforting promises are there recorded, by which I can find strength for my weak faith. For things take place in the kingdom of Christ just as I read in Moses that they will; therein I find also my sure foundation. In this manner, therefore, I should accept Moses, and not sweep him under the rug: first because he provides fine examples of laws, from which excerpts may be taken. Second, in Moses there are the promises of God which sustain faith. … Genesis 3:15 …Genesis 22:18 … Deuteronomy 18:15-16 …

One must deal cleanly with the Scriptures. From the very beginning the word has come to us in various ways. It is not enough simply to look and see whether this is God’s word, whether God has said it; rather we must look and see to whom it has been spoken, whether it fits us. That makes all the difference between night and day.

The word in Scripture is of two kinds: the first does not pertain or apply to me, the other kind does. And upon that word which does pertain to me I can boldly trust and rely, as upon a strong rock. But if it does not pertain to me, then I should stand still. Therefore tell this to Moses: Leave Moses and his people together; they have had their day and do not pertain to me. If Christ had not added, “preach to all creatures,” then I would not listen, would not be baptized, just as I now will not listen to Moses because he is given not to me but only to the Jews. This distinction should be noticed, grasped, and taken to heart by those preachers who would teach others; indeed by all Christians, for everything depends entirely upon it.

“God’s word, God’s word.” But my dear fellow, the question is whether it was said to you. God indeed speaks also to angels, wood, fish, birds, animals, and all creatures, but this does not make it pertain to me. I should pay attention to that which applies to me, that which is said to me, in which God admonishes, drives, and requires something of me. …

It is like this with the word of God. Suppose I take up something that God ordered someone else to do, and then I declare, “But you said to do it.” God would answer, “Let the devil thank you; I did not tell you to do it.” One must distinguish well whether the word pertains to only one or to everybody. … Thus what God said to Moses by way of commandment is for the Jews only. …

Thus we read Moses not because he applies to us, that we must obey him, but because he agrees with the natural law and is conceived better than the Gentiles would ever have been able to do. Thus the Ten Commandments are a mirror of our life, in which we can see wherein we are lacking, etc. The sectarian spirits have misunderstood also with respect to the images; for that too pertains only to the Jews. [[2nd commandment]]

Summing up this second part, we read Moses for the sake of the promises about Christ, who belongs not only to the Jews but also to the Gentiles; for through Christ all the Gentiles should have the blessing, as was promised to Abraham [Gen. 12:3].

……[new thought]…………



In the third place we read Moses for the beautiful examples of faith, of love, and of the cross, as shown in the fathers, Adam, Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and all the rest. …Therefore we should not sweep Moses under the rug. Moreover the Old Testament is thus properly understood when we retain from the prophets the beautiful texts about Christ, when we take note of and thoroughly grasp the fine examples, and when we use the laws as we please to our advantage.

Conclusion and Summary. I have stated that all Christians, and especially those who handle the word of God and attempt to teach others, should take heed and learn Moses aright. Thus where he gives the commandments, we are not to follow him except so far as he agrees with the natural law. Moses is a teacher and doctor of the Jews. We have our own master, Christ, and he has set before us what we are to know, observe, do, and leave undone. However it is true that Moses sets down, in addition to the laws, fine examples of faith and unfaith – punishment of the godless, elevation of the righteous and believing – and also the dear and comforting promises concerning Christ which we should accept. The same is true also in the gospel. For example in the account of the ten lepers, that Christ bids them go to the priest and make sacrifice [Luke 17:14] does not pertain to me. The example of their faith, however, does pertain to me; I should believe Christ, as did they.

Enough has now been said of this, and it is to be noted well for it is really CRUCIAL. Many great and outstanding people have missed it, while even today many great preachers still stumble over it. They do not know how to preach Moses, nor how properly to regard his books. They are absurd as they rage and fume, chattering to people, “God’s word, God’s word!” All the while they mislead the poor people and drive them to destruction. Many learned men have not known how far Moses ought to be taught. Origen, Jerome, and others like them, have not shown clearly how far Moses can really serve us. This is what I have attempted, to say in an introduction to Moses how we should regard him, and how he should be understood and received and not simply be swept under the rug. For in Moses there is comprehended such a fine order, that it is a joy, etc. God be praised.



DEAN GREIMANN: Paul wrote of this in His letter to the church in Rome, For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!” (Romans 6: 14-15).

RK: Paul’s struggle in Romans 6 and 7 is explained in Romans 8:1-2. Believers are still under “law” principles but the “principle“ has changed to “the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death.” You have not shifted to the new definition of “law.”

DG: Yet the Bible clearly states that “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.” (Matthew 5:17).

RK: One can dig a hole too deep to escape by quoting Matthew 5:17 and ignoring its context.

  1. From verses 21-48 Jesus quotes all three parts of the law: commandments, judgments and worship statutes.All are moral; transgression of any is still sin.
  2. Therefore, “law” in 5:17 must refer to the whole law as illustrated in 21-48.
  3. Therefore, using your own logic and focusing on 5:19, we are either under all of the law or none of it. Which do you choose?
  4. If 5:20 is a clue (and it must be), Jesus is only referring to the “righteousness of the law” which He fulfilled at Calvary.
  5. Therefore, post-Calvary New Covenant believers are not under the jurisdiction of any part of the Old Covenant law.

DG: So, what is the Law that Jesus came to fulfill?

RK: According to Matthew 5:19 – ALL OF IT – that is what “every  jot (period) or tittle (hash mark) literally means!!! – the two smallest marks of the Hebrew alphabet. It takes willful sin to twist the meaning of 5:18-19 and then sub-divide the law! It was one indivisible law. Mankind (not God) has subdivided it into moral, judgments and ceremonial. Even the judgments and ordinances were moral to Israel! Shame on anybody for trying to break up the wholeness of the law.

DG: Is it that Jesus came to fulfill the Old Testament altogether?

RK: No. If we define “law” is “God’s revealed will,” then (for Hebrews) “law” includes everything from Genesis to Malachi as we see demonstrated in Romans 3:10-18 where Paul includes Psalms and Isaiah with the law.

DG: This would be a false teaching, as many of the prophesies have yet to be fulfilled by Jesus are found in the Old Testament.

RK: Again, Jesus wanted His hearers to attain the “righteousness of the law” in 5:20. He did not want them to attain the fulfilled prophecies of the future. Your interpretation forces you to remain under the whole law.

DG: To suggest that ALL of the Old Testament falls under one Law, which is the Law of Moses, the Torah, would be equally damning as the Levitical Law, not to mention the Old Testament points to Jesus.

RK: I ask you to sit down and define “law.” You cannot and will not do it because it confuses you. Yet, while you cannot use it consistently, you accuse others of not understanding it.

“Law” is God’s revealed will. For Gentiles before Calvary it consisted of nature and conscience (Rom 2:14-16). For Hebrews before Moses, it consisted of whatever God had revealed to them at that time per Romans 5 where death reigned.

When the U.S. Declaration of Independence was signed, citizens of the colonies instantly declared themselves free of all English Law (both good and bad English laws). However, when they began replacing those English laws, they re-incorporated them into new laws under the new context.  That is what God did!  The New Covenant was “not according” to the Old. The “Thou shalt nots” became “you will” from new creation Spirit-indwelt believers.

DG: There are several different laws given in the Torah, which you, as holding a doctorate, should know.  I will not go into the moral laws, the civil laws and the universal laws that God gave to the Israelites and to all humankind,

RK: Why not? The hermeneutic of law is the root of our disagreement over tithing. Hebrews saw ONE indivisible moral law; you see THREE un-equal types of law and call one “moral” without any biblical validity!


(1) Lev 26:14-15,  (2) Deut 5:1, (3) Deut 5:31 (4) Deut 6:4, (5) Deut 7::11, (6) Deut 8:11, (7) Deut 11:1, (8)  Deut 26:`17, (9) Deut 30:16, (10) 1 Kings 2:3; (11) 1 Kings 6:12, (12) 1 Kings 8:58, (13) 1 Kings 9:4; (14) Ps 89:30, (15) 2 Chron 33:8, (16) Neh 1:7, (17) Neh 9:13-14 (Sabbath reference), (18) Neh 10:29, (19) Matt 5:17-48, (20) Gal 3:10 BOOK.

DG: … however I will get into the Levitical laws that God gave to Moses (offering up sacrifices go all of the way back to Cain and Abel) which are the sacrificial laws.

RK: While God gave Adam and Eve sacrificial laws, you cannot simply conclude that they were the same as the Levitical sacrificial laws. (1) The head of the household was no longer the priest. (2) The Levitical laws were far more intricate. (3) The Hebrew festivals were custom-designed for Israel. And, (4) as long the head of the household was the family priest, tithing would not be a law (and that appears to be where you seem to be going with this line of argument).

DG: Although there are several different sacrifices and offerings that are given to the Levites (priests) in the Torah, the only means of covering (not forgiving) of one’s sins was through the shedding of blood by the priests (Levites) on behalf of the accused by the sacrificing an innocent animal at the altar.


(1) The judgments include the PENALTIES for presumptive sin and the statutes/ordinances included the PENALTIES for lesser sins. Since laws cannot exist apart from their penalties, it was essential that both judgments and statutes remain as long as the Ten Commandments.

(2) Read Exodus 21 to 24 of the judgments. They appears to be an appendage to the Ten Commandments and cover sins not specifically covered by the Ten. The judgments declare the death penalty for willful major transgression!!!

(3) Like murder and adultery, bestiality is a sin punished by death. If the judgment did exist, would bestiality be a sin?

(4) I know that O. T. sins were only “covered,” but you seem to forget that they were also pronounced “forgiven.” Check out “forgiven” in Strong’s. That is why God had to declare Himself “just” in Romans 3:25-26 and Hebrews 9:15.

DG: As the writer of Hebrews states throughout the first half of the book, this was an incomplete, never ending system of offering up the blood of sheep and goats by the priests, for without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins.

RK: Agreed.

DG: However, Jesus fulfilled the Law (the Levitical Law) by offering Himself up as our sacrificial Lamb, without blemish or sin,

RK: More so, Jesus fulfilled the whole righteousness of the whole law by living a perfect sinless life. There was “no sin in Him” refers to far more than the minor sins of ignorance and omission covered by the Levitical sacrificial laws. Jesus was also innocent of transgression of the presumptive sins punished by death in the judgments by the judges!  Why don’t you discuss this aspect?

DG: When Jesus said that it is finished, the need for having and observing the Levitical law was fulfilled by Him.

RK: This is absurd because the Levitical law only dealt with sins of ignorance and omission and very minor sins. Again, it did not deal with grievous high-handed willful sins of presumption which allowed no sacrifice to reconcile from broken fellowship.

There was no sacrifice offered when Moses struck the Rock, or Achan stole from Jericho, or David murdered Uriah. Why? They were all high handed sins which had no prescribed sacrifice (Heb 10:26) and were punished either by God Himself or the judges –not by the priests.

DG: In other words, when Jesus, our High Priest, offered up His blood for the forgiveness of sins, He did what no other High Priest was able to do, which was that He sat down.

RK: Yes, but, more than that, He did what no Judge could do –He could forgive presumptive sins of idolatry, parental abuse, Sabbath-breaking, murder and adultery.

DG: But the rest of the laws of the Old Testament, (with the exception of the civil laws that God gave to the Israelites that were entering into the Promised Land that were given to them to keep them from following the Canaanite culture and customs), are still there for us to follow.


  1. You don’t keep the Saturday Sabbath.
  2. You don’t follow circumcision which is Genesis 17.
  3. You don’t follow multiple wives.
  4. You don’t follow the unclean food laws.
  5. You don’t follow the tithing law of Numbers 18:20-28.
  6. You don’t endorse bestiality which is found in the judgments.
  7. You don’t endorse slavery which is nowhere condemned.
  8. You don’t force women to wear hats.

Again, you want to discard the Judgments as irrelevant. If you discard the Judgments, you discard the PENALTIES for presumptive sins and transgression of the first list of commandments to love God. Your concept of biblical law is greatly lacking.

DG: One of these laws is giving God the first fruits of everything that He blesses us with, including our finances.

RK: You keep returning to the firstfruits’ error. Where are your validating texts? For the eighth or ninth time, “firstfruits are never the same as tithes in God’s Word.” If you spend time to research it, you will discover that, like tithes, firstfruits were also ONLY food ONLY from inside HOLY Israel increased ONLY by God’s hand. They are not the increase of man’s hand or money. You have no texts.

DG: I am not intimidated with your Ph.D. as I have an earned Master of Divinity from Oral Roberts University, a Master of Arts in Teaching and have been accepted into both the Ph.D. programs and the Doctor of Ministry programs at several seminaries, including the AGTS in Springfield.

RK: I am not trying to intimidate anybody. Almost every adversarial tithing book on is written by less educated who often cannot defend their position well. Naturally, I am trying to get noticed to have an honest open debate. For over 15 years, this has only happened three times in outlets with large audiences — London’s Revelation TV, the Wall Street Journal and CBS Sunday Morning. If you really care for the Church as a whole, you will continue this dialog and I will continue to post it on my blog.

DG: I am well versed in the teachings of the “New Testament Church” along with the “Grace Only” movement, both which have been gaining in popularity in our churches and are heresies.

RK: I am an Independent Conservative Dispensational Baptist. Most of my brethren disagree with me on tithing.  I believe that God is using me to finish the Reformation and restore the final doctrine of grace-giving.

DG: I firmly stand upon the doctrines and teachings of the Assemblies of God, along with the Evangelical Statement of Faith. Therefore, let me go on record that your teachings, including your teaching on tithing, are false teachings that do not line up with the Word of God.

RK: And let me go on record that I totally disagree with your faulty hermeneutic of law and with your spiritualizing God’s literal unconditional promises to Israel.

Luke 1:32-33 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

  1. The throne of David does not reign over the Church.
  2. The house of David does not refer to the Church.

Matt 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

This is literal Israel; it is future; it does not refer to the Church.

Acts 1:6-7 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

Jesus did not correct His disciples about the literal kingdom to come.

2 Thess 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

This is not referring to the Church building or believers.

Jer 31:35-36 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me forever.

This is a literal prophecy about literal Israel.

Please explain these in context if you can.