MY OPPONENT'S ANSWER TO CROSS-EXAMINATIONS - TITHE MANDATE

Debate Preposition Title: "The mandate of God with regards to giving 10% can't longer be done in today’s time - specifically in the church governance."

Affirmative: Surewin Saul (fake name)
Negative: Carl C. Cortez

MY OPPONENT'S ANSWER TO CROSS-EXAMINATIONS - TITHE MANDATE

QUESTION 1

You have said Surewin Saul in your presentation that you will prove that the mandate of God with regards to giving 10% cannot be done as commanded by God in the Bible today's time specifically, in the church governance.

HERE IS MY 1ST QUESTION
HOW can you prove something which you can't find it existed written in the scriptures like this claims you made "I will prove that the mandate of God with regards to giving 10% cannot be done as commanded by God in the Bible in today’s time specifically, in the church governance"?

(Pls. show me 3 or more scriptures as to establish your claims agreeing each other by the context, not based on your own opinion,
AND
provide 3 or more credible references aside from the scriptures that should also agree with you, as you will try to prove yourself true to your claims.)

ANSWER TO QUESTION 
The scriptures;

“And the priest, the descendant of Aaron, shall be with the Levites when the Levites receive tithes; and the Levites shall bring up a tenth of the tithes to the house of our God, to the rooms of the storehouse.” Nehemiah‬ ‭10:38‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

“And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham;” Hebrews‬ ‭7:5‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

“Behold, I have given the children of Levi all the tithes in Israel as an inheritance in return for the work which they perform, the work of the tabernacle of meeting.”Numbers‬ ‭18:21‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

The above verses are saying that Levites was commanded to collect tithes, Nehemiah 10:38 says, it was Levites who shall bring the tithe to the storehouse; see Mal 3:10. The other 2 verses were instruction on WHOM the tithe shall be given. He is obviously not Levites, for that reason alone, I have no idea where he gets the courage and the FACE to collect what was not mandated for him to collect. And therefore, him collecting 10% as commanded in the bible shows only that he had bend the commandment about it because, it cannot be done as commanded in the bible, he is not a Levite after-all.

My credible References
1.) Brian K. Morley- which he used also as l his credible source says; “Nowhere does the New Testament require Christians to tithe in the sense of giving 10 percent” https://www.biblestudytools.com/.../tithe-tithing.html

2.) Andreas Köstenberger - “Where does that leave New Testament believers? We are not saying that it is okay to neglect giving. In fact, the New Testament contains sufficient guidance for our giving. Second Corinthians 8 tells us that our giving should be relationship-driven, grace-driven, and love-driven. However, nothing is mentioned regarding ten percent. 
Click here: https://www.biblicalfoundations.org/to-tithe-or-not-to.../

3.) Baker Robert A,[Baptist Seminary Textbook] A Summary of Christian History (Nashville: Broadman, 1959), 11, 43, 44. This Southern Baptist textbook states, "The leaders [before A.D. 100] usually worked with their hands for their material needs. There was no artificial distinction between clergy and laity." ... "The earliest bishops or presbyters engaged in secular labor to make their living and performed the duties of their church office when not at work." (Page 194 and 250 in Should the Church Teach Tithing?) 
See link: http://www.tithing-russkelly.com/id114.html

QUESTION 2

(Follow up question from A#1)

'Though Nehemiah and Paul in his epistles to the Hebrews never mentioned church but reiterating only the tithes mentioning highlighting to support the house of God and his servants who worked on it, the Levites, Brian K. Morley as well said that, 

"Nowhere does the New Testament require Christians to tithe in the sense of giving 10 percent, but it does reiterate many things associated with tithing: those who minister are entitled to receive support ( 1 Cor 9:14 );"

HERE IS MY QUESTION

Surewin Saul, WHAT have you understood Dr. Morley's word "nowhere does the New Testament require Christians to tithe in the sense of giving, BUT IT DOES REITERATE MANY THINGS ASSOCIATED WITH TITHING, those who minister are entitled to receive support", 

Would NOT those WHO minister are entitled to receive support as ASSOCIATED with TITHING as Dr. Morley expounded? 

YES or NO and pls. explain. Thanks.

ANSWER TO QUESTION 

Yes but, associated does no mean receiving support is EQUAL to receiving tithing or 10% otherwise, it would be contradicting when he said;

“Nowhere does the New Testament require Christians to tithe in the sense of giving 10 percent”.....Paul's vocabulary and teaching suggest that giving is voluntary and that there is no set percentage”

Beside, when he said entitled to receive support quoting 1 Cor 9:14. Morley did elaborate further what kind of support, was it financial or food based? 

Truth be told, when Paul said that God commanded preacher to live by the Gospel. It was based from the below verses:

…for a worker is worthy of his food.”Matthew‬ ‭10:10‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

…“for the laborer is worthy of his wages” Luke‬ ‭10:7‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

But then again, what is that wage Jesus is talking about? Is that money?

Prior to verse 7, verse 4 of Luke says;

“Carry neither money bag, knapsack, nor sandals; and greet no one along the road.”

They were not allowed to carry money bag so that when they enter the house, they did not accept the money because they were instructed to give freely as it was freely receive (Matt 10:8). So then, what was allowed for them to take? Verse 7 of Luke also says; “.. remain in the same house, eating and drinking. 

Yes! their wage refers to food, it cannot be money because they were not allowed to carry money in the first place. This was the support 1 Cor. 9:14 was talking about in parallelism with the old testament since the support that the Levites gets (tithes) was also food (Lev 27:30). But, even these support, Apostles wish not to accept it not that they don’t have the right but for followers to follow. 2 Thess‬ ‭3:7-10.

QUESTION 3

(Rephrased based now in my opponent's presentation) 

He said, 

"Let us first define mandate as I don’t understand why my opponent wants this word:

One meaning of mandate is, an authoritative order or command.

See here: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mandate

This QUESTION is to test if my opponent himself really understand properly the word MANDATE as how it is been used in connection to LAW, official or legal aspects, 

When I saw the link Surewin Saul you posted for the proper definition of the word MANDATE you want me to see PART OF YOUR PRESENTATION (attached pic),

Here is its complete definition from the link itself you want me to see:

MANDATE (proper definition)

noun

- a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue given by the electorate to its representative:

The president had a clear mandate to end the war.

- a command from a superior court or official to a lower one:

The appellate court resolved the appeal and issued a mandate to the district judge.

- an authoritative order or command:

a royal mandate.

(in the League of Nations) a commission given to a nation to administer the government and affairs of a former Turkish territory or German colony.

SEE MORE

verb (used with object), man·dat·ed, man·dat·ing.

- to authorize or decree (a particular action), as by the enactment of law:

The state legislature mandated an increase in the minimum wage.

HERE IS MY QUESTION

Based on your statement quoted above as manifesting your idea which seems cloudy to me pertaining to understanding the proper use of the word MANDATE as you remove the entire thought of the definition, much when tethering it to LAW or legal matters, like the LAWS of God and the LAWS of the land, 

ARE THE WORDS "authoritative order, command or commanding", CAN BE COMPLETE THOUGHTS where you selectively removed it from its proper legal terms as to define the word MANDATE when fettering it to LAW (concerning specifically to both Law of God and the Law of the land) or you are just injecting your own idea and removing the complete thoughts of its definition? 

(If your answer is YES, then show me your proof, it says or mentions "legal" or pertaining to legality.

If you answer is NO, then present your proof, it says or mentions "legal" or pertaining to legality.)

(from the link my opponent himself presented https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mandate)

ANSWER TO QUESTION 

Can the words “authoritative order, command" be a complete thought?

Yes. If by “complete thoughts” means must be used in legal terms. It can, you just need to put subject on it.

Mandate is a general term that can be used in legal terms or in the context of the Law. You just need to put proper subject on the meaning I used “authoritative order or command” to be within the proper legal terms of the law.

Example:
The Judge has an authoritative order or command to issue warrant of arrest.
Or, if I rephrase it;
The Judge has mandate to issue warrant of arrest.

So you see, I only put a subject “Judge” and used “authoritative order or command” then it becomes as he wanted, tethering it to LAW or legal matters.

In relation to our topic, God is that Judge, He is the one who mandate the 10% and in that mandate, he also said what and to whom it shall be given.

The one who can change the mandate is the one who mandated it. And, should that be the case, there has to be proper documents and proofs that the mandate or the Judge authoritative order was changed. If not, those who change it without prior approval or legal proof that the judge has changed his mandate, it will be classify as already a crime both under the law of the land and to God.

In relation to our topic, the legal proof pertains to the bible verses in the bible as proofs that God who mandated the 10% really had changed the mandate on what and to whom shall it be given. If this legal proof is not provided, the man who change it might be committing a crime.

QUESTION 4

Surewin Saul, in your presentation you said this:

"Now, let's check if the mandate of God in regards to giving 10% as commanded in the bible is really being followed by most church governance. Then, let's check if it can be done as commanded in today's time.

What was the mandate of God with regards to giving 10% as commanded in the bible? I repeat, IN THE BIBLE to press on that the topic requires that the mandate or commandment was to be from the bible." 

The reference you posted linking to the online dictionary where you draw the definition of the word MANDATE you used in your presentations showed it clear that you never used its proper meaning but you again build your assumption based on your understanding and opinion about it which you failed to understand its legal importance as removing or cutting off the proper definition given by dictionaries, where MANDATE is 

-------

NOUN

- a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue given by the electorate to its representative:

- a command from a superior court or official to a lower one:

- an authoritative order or command: a royal mandate.

- a commission given to a nation to administer the government and affairs of a former .. territory or ... colony.

VERB (used with object), man·dat·ed, man·dat·ing.

- to authorize or decree (a particular action), as by the enactment of law:

The state legislature mandated an increase in the minimum wage.

------

and never dictionaries mentioned God for God never had legislative body, officials, administers, commissioners who can vote and approve law, decrees, ordinance or statutes to be mandated, compared to your personal selective words of defining it based on your understanding only, 

HERE IS MY QUESTION

Is MANDATE and COMMANDMENT to you the same meaning and use?

If YES, pls. explain and show concrete proofs from at least 3 scriptures 3 reliable commentaries where the word "mandate" and "commandments of God" were used interchangeably. 

If NO, then tell me why with back up credible proofs to justify your personal ideas.

ANSWER TO QUESTION 

Yes and No. It depends on how you used in the sentence. 

The dictionary synonymize mandate to commands as attached.

synonym is meant to show what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action

Since mandate was synonymize to command then, it must mean, it’s a command or type of command.

It’s not for me to tell what it meant, the dictionary says it is, who am I to disagree and who are you to question it? 

On the proof he asked, dictionary is enough. 

The bible did not even used mandate on 10% rather, it was a commandment as the verse below. It was not part of the the 10 commandments but part of levitical priesthood commandment exclusively to Levites who were already changed to Jesus Christ. 

“And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham;” Hebrews‬ ‭7:5‬ ‭NKJV

QUESTION 5

Surewin Saul, in your presentation you attempted to use the word MANDATE based not from the dictionaries you presented but your own understanding as cutting it off from its original reference and you said this:

"Now, let's check if the mandate of God in regards to giving 10% as commanded in the bible is really being followed by most church governance. Then, let's check if it can be done as commanded in today's time.

What was the mandate of God with regards to giving 10% as commanded in the bible? I repeat, IN THE BIBLE to press on that the topic requires that the mandate or commandment was to be from the bible." 

As I asked you this if MANDATE and COMMANDMENT to you the same meaning and use, you clarified it not.

HERE IS MY QUESTION BASED ON HOW YOU UNDERSTAND THE WORD "MANDATE" in your presentation AS IF YOU THINK THIS WORD IS INTERCHANGEABLE TO THE WORD "COMMANDMENT OF GOD".

WHERE can you find, the government calls a decree, ordinances or rules from an approved resolution by its officials a COMMANDMENT? 

Pls. show me proof of copies, the government by any agencies submitted to the public as to disseminate information you can read an ordinance, decree, rules or statutes addressed as COMMANDMENT.

ANSWER TO QUESTION 

If I’m not mistaken as I’m not a legal expert, my opponent maybe correct that when government calls a decree, ordinances or rules from an approved resolution by its officials, it is called a mandate rather than commandment. Meaning, mandate maybe the most proper term when it comes to legal governance of men and I believe my opponent also has bearing when he seem to imply that the term mandate should never be linked to God. True enough, the reference I provided never linked ”mandate” to God. To this I say, my opponent is true to his observation, he has a keen eye indeed. 

Therefore, since my position is to prove the God’s MANDATE on 10% as commanded in the bible cannot be done. This is now even more vindicated since, mandate should not be linked to God as it is ONLY a proper term used for legal officials of the land of men. True enough, we can never found in the bible that God mandated the 10%. Mandate is not the proper term as explained above but “commandment”. The bible is clear that God did not mandate the 10% but, commanded it in the verse below:

“And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a 👉commandment👈 to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham;” Hebrews‬ ‭7:5‬ ‭NKJV

I admit, I did used mandate and commandment interchangeably. I am thanking my opponent that because of his proper word study, it seems the term mandate is only used when government of men calls a decree, ordinances or rules from an approved resolution by its officials meaning, this is a legal term that should not be linked to God. Apparently, our topic is for me to prove that the mandate of God about the 10% as commanded in the bible cannot be done. Applying my opponent proper word study, God actually did not mandate the 10% in the first place as He is not a governing body of officials.

So, I thank my opponent for his proper word study because it did prove that God did not EVEN mandate the 10%. The bible termed it actually as “commandment” as stated in the verse above. 

Never can you find in the bible that God MANDATED the 10% specifically using the word “mandated” in respect to 10%. Why? Because, my opponent knows the proper word study about the term mandate and it never linked to God as it is used ONLY when government of men calls a decree, ordinances or rules from an approved resolution.

QUESTION 6

Surewin Saul, you mentioned Deuteronomy and Leviticus 27:30 of course it has been referred to the laws of Moses entrusted to him by God to govern the house of God in the Old Testament with chosen servants, the sons of Aaron and the Levites. 

WHAT have you understood about the very context of Deuteronomy 14:24-26 in parallel to the house of God in the New Testament as if you think TITHE law here are the same with Leviticus 27:30? 

I am asking you to define specifically the very context of the passages given below of which you mentioned, in parallel to the house of God in New Testament:

1. Deuteronomy 14:24-26' context and its parallel to the house of God in modern times. 

2 Leviticus 27:30' context and its parallel to the house of God in modern times.

ANSWER TO QUESTION 

1.) (Deut. 14:22-26) this was referred to be the tithe of the feast, This tithe was to bring and eat in the temple where God chooses to abide. In parallelism today since we- who believe in Jesus Christ, our body becomes the temple of the holy spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19). To bring and eat this tithe in temple means, bring it to ourselves and eat it. It is kinda like a thanksgiving, a celebration to enjoy the blessings that God has given us.

2.) Leviticus 27:30- In this verse, God said that all the tithe of the Land whether the seed of the land or fruits of the trees is His. This tithe was in connection with Numbers 18:21, Mal. 3:10, Nehemiah 10:38. This is the tithe allotted for Levites support as commanded by God. This was not money as the verse in itself only gave 2 option on what to tithe.

1.) Seed of the land

2.) Fruits of the tree

Although in another verse (Lev 27:32) animals who passes under the shepherd’s rod is also tithe and is holy to the Lord, still money was not in the option. Remember, money was already in used at this time, yet it was not in the option of what to tithe.

Since in the context of the verse, it was connected to Num 18:21 to which was specifically instructed to be collected by Levites.

Should we parallel it in todays time whereby, the preachers became the spiritual Levites, it would follow that they are worthy of spiritual tithe also.

But, what is SPIRITUAL TITHES in parallel to Lev 27:30?

Spiritual tithes are when a person who respects a lot of respectable people consider you or acknowledge you to be one of them, this becomes your spiritual tithes - earning respect and acknowledgment from other people in respect to your function as the preacher of the word.

That is a spiritual tithe worthy to a true spiritual Levites.

QUESTION 7

From your statements copy/pasted below Surewin Saul you said this, 

"2.) Now, let's check on what God had MANDATED on to whom the tithe shall be given. 

“Behold, I have given the children of Levi all the tithes in Israel as an inheritance in return for the work which they perform, the work of the tabernacle of meeting.” Numbers 18:21 NKJV

“And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham;” Hebrews 7:5 NKJV

In the above verse, it is clear that the tithe as commanded by God in the bible was to be received by the Levites.

Now, was there any other MANDATED or commanded tithe in the bible other than what was written under the law?

Q: Was Abraham commanded or MANDATED to tithe?

A: No commandment or MANDATE was mentioned in the bible? Take note, the topic requires giving 10% as commanded in the bible.

Q: Was Melchizedek commanded or MANDATED to collect tithe? 

A: No commandment or MANDATE was mentioned in the bible also. Take note, the topic requires giving 10% as commanded in the bible.

Q: Where can we find the commandment or MANDATE to give 10%? 

A: We can find it under the law apparently, in the MANDATE to give 10%, God also MANDATED it to be 1.) agricultural and 2.) was to be receive by the Levites." 

HERE IS MY QUESTION

HOW will you rephrase now all the words "MANDATED" (capslock mine) you mentioned in your statements as admitting you were thankful of knowing now that mandate's proper definition refers to laws that can be amended done by the board, elders, leaders, or by legislative procedures unlike the word "commandments" that cannot, of which bible dictionaries, encyclopedias, bible commentaries refers to the ten commandments of God, the reason you admitted as well that mandate and commandments isn't interchangeable?

I want you to retain your exact words presented except for the word MANDATE which I ask you to rephrase it. 

(Take note: Hebrew 7:5 "commandment" NKJV rendition has its interlinear proper word study in 1785 [e] entolēn - "ἐντολὴν". (Strong's Concordance) 

Definition: an injunction, order, command

Usage: an ordinance, injunction, command, law.

ANSWER TO QUESTION 

Here is how I will rephrased it if I go along with his proper word study whereby, he implied that the term “mandated” should not be linked to God since God is not a board of elders or leaders. 

I would simply remove the “mandated” term and replace it with commandment since in his proper word study, it would follow that God did not even mandate the 10% rather, God commanded it (Hebrews 7:5). Apparently, the topic is about “God’s mandate on 10%” which follows that, by the proper word study of my opponent, God did not at all mandate the 10% to begin with rather, God commanded it. 

So, since I’m here to prove that God mandate (not command) on 10% as commanded in the bible cannot be done. Well, my opponent actually helped me to prove my case since God cannot mandate the 10% for after all He is not an Elders or officials of a legal governing body.

QUESTION 8

Surewin Saul, you said (based from your direct answer from your presentation that needs cross-examination now)

“Nowhere does the New Testament require Christians to tithe in the sense of giving 10 percent”.....Paul's vocabulary and teaching suggest that giving is voluntary and that there is no set percentage”

Beside, when he said entitled to receive support quoting 1 Cor 9:14. Morley did elaborate further what kind of support, was it financial or food based? 

Truth be told, when Paul said that God commanded preacher to live by the Gospel. It was based from the below verses:

…for a worker is worthy of his food.”Matthew‬ ‭10:10‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

…“for the laborer is worthy of his wages” Luke‬ ‭10:7‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

But then again, what is that wage Jesus is talking about? Is that money?"

As I noticed, the passages you presented mentioned WORKERS, LABORERS that also equate the so-called "five fold ministry" and one among them are PASTORS as Paul said, "to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up" (Eph. 4:12) and you never mentioned PASTORS but PREACHERS. 

HERE IS MY QUESTION

WHY emphasize PREACHERS and not PASTORS as the workers and laborers? Pls. explain it in exegetical manner, not from your opinion. 

Thank you.

ANSWER TO QUESTION 

Let this be on record that the above question is not based on my presentation per se but based on my answer to his Q2. Rule 12 says, question only based on the presentation, he keep saying that I violated rule 12 but lo, he is actually the one doing it. 

Nonetheless, I will answer it.

Why Emphasise PREACHERS? Because in 1 Cor 9:14, it used the term “Preacher” not Pastor. I simply use the term since it was the one used in 1 Cor 9:14. 

Preachers and or Pastors can be one and the same, they both serve God and when they serve, they are considered labourers of the word of God. Their wage as explained in my answer 2 is food in parallelism with the old testament where tithes was given in the currency of food even though at that time, money was already in used. 

(Just a heads up, he might again accused me of violating rule 12 because I did not answer based on my presentation but then again, how could I? His question is not from my presentation to begin with but based on my answer 2.)

==========================================

Clarifications:  The rule of the debate clearly emphasizes that questions (cross examination) should be taken directly from the opponent's argument presentations to avoid of course misrepresentation.  A follow up question based on the answers of the opponent never can misled or misrepresents an opponent's argument or position.  

==========================================

QUESTION 9

Surewin Saul, in your presentation your said, 

"In this presentation, I will prove that the mandate of God with regards to giving 10% cannot be done as commanded by God in the Bible in today’s time specifically, in the church governance."

HERE IS MY direct QUESTION

WHAT have you understood about church "GOVERNANCE" as applying it in today's time?

Note: Pls. give me prior example of a set of church governance based on its proper definition applying it in today's time providing credible proof from reliable references.

ANSWER TO QUESTION 

Church governance in today’s times should not be modeled from theocracy or the Levitical system. This system is as good as only if the leadership is not corruptible and not subject to death. The theocracy system in the old lead by Levitical priest was placed by God to show us that it was not really effective since the one who manages it was simply humans who were corruptible and mortal. In one generation the system may run perfectly because the leader is good but, once the leader dies the next in line might manage differently. This was exactly what happened in the old, through times, the very leaders of the theocracy system who were Levites caused people to stumble in the law as we read below:

“For the lips of a priest ought to preserve knowledge, because he is the messenger of the Lord Almighty and people seek instruction from his mouth. But you have turned from the way and by your teaching have caused many to stumble; you have violated the covenant with Levi,” says the Lord Almighty. “So I have caused you to be despised and humiliated before all the people because you have not followed my ways but have shown partiality in matters of the law.”Malachi ‭2:7-9‬ ‭NIV‬

One of the reasons Jesus came was to change the leadership to Himself who is not corruptible and not mortal as we read below:

“If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar.” Hebrews ‭7:11-13‬ ‭NIV‬

With all the reason above, we should realize and treat the church, not in parallelism with the theocracy system of the old. If we still adopt the very system that Jesus change, we defeat the very reason why Jesus had to change it. 

True Church governance in today’s time is lead by Jesus Christ who up to until now is still living hence, His way of management should still be the same from the moment He was officiated as the New High priest to date. Under the leadership of Jesus Christ, we are adopted as sons as the verse below:

“having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,” Ephesians ‭1:5‬ ‭NKJV‬

Therefore, since we are adopted as sons, church governance should be treated and understood as like a family not kinda like a government and businesses where we pay taxes and charged us for the services rendered. No father in a family will charge his own sons or daughter for taxes. Neither will sons/daughter who had shown love or was taught love will not voluntarily render help or support to their parents or any member of the family. Every believer of Christ is part of the family in Christ and, like the king on earth who does not charge taxes within his own family, our Father in heaven also does not charge taxes in a form of tithing on His own children in Christ.

The Bible Said:

“He said, “Yes.” And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?” Peter said to Him, “From strangers.” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free.” Matthew 17:25-26 NKJV

Imposing and Mandating its constituents to pay up 10% from their income for the support of the Preacher’s/Pastor alike are not a family system. This is again going back to the old system to which God himself showed to be not effective since it caused more harm than good. It was shown to us for the purpose of learning from it not adopting it.

For this question, my credible proof and reliable source are non-other but the bible.

QUESTION 10

Surewin Saul, from your presentation you said:

"Church governance is bound with the word of God. They should not impose rules within the church that breaks the mandate of God..."

HERE IS MY QUESTION

WHO do you think are the members of the church governance or governing body of the organization whom you called "THEY" that impose rules or policies to be mandated by its constituents in the church?

TAKE NOTE: (Don't invent your own interpretations)

"GOVERNANCE" by proper definition: 

by Wikipedia Dictionary 

Governance is the way rules, norms and actions are structured, sustained, regulated and held accountable. 

The degree of formality depends on the internal rules of a given organization and, externally, with its business partners. As such, governance may take many forms, driven by many different motivations and with many different results.

by The Free Dictionary

Noun: 1. governance - the persons (or committees or departments etc.) who make up a body for the purpose of administering something;

by Cambridge English Dictionary 

1. the way that organizations or countries are managed at the highest level, and the systems for doing this: 

2. the activity of governing something: 

3. the way in which an organization is managed at the highest level, and the systems for doing this:

Pattern for Church Governance as how they defines it! 

Church Governance: Our Leadership & Direction | Willow Creek

- The church is to be led by a plurality of godly leaders. By relying on consensual agreement of godly Elders selected from the congregation, the church creates a healthy checks-and-balances of leadership direction, financial accountability, spiritual guidance, and ministry implementation.

ANSWER TO QUESTION 

“They” refers to the elders of the church, as elders in the church, the way they manage (refer to definition 3 by Cambridge English dictionary) should not transgress the commandment of God.

QUESTION 11

Surewin Saul, from your presentation you showed me your questions that you also was the one answering it, you said:

"Q: Was Abraham commanded or mandated to tithe?

A: No commandment or mandate was mentioned in the bible? Take note, the topic requires giving 10% as commanded in the bible.

Q: Was Melchizedek commanded or mandated to collect tithe? 

A: No commandment or mandate was mentioned in the bible also. Take note, the topic requires giving 10% as commanded in the bible.

Q: Where can we find the commandment or mandate to give 10%? 

A: We can find it under the law apparently, in the mandate to give 10%, God also mandated it to be 1.) agricultural and 2.) was to be receive by the Levites.

Q: Can it be done?

A: Number 1 can still be done because crops are still available to date."

HERE'S MY QUESTION

WHAT do you think was the primary purpose of TITHING in the Old Testament as far as the house of God and the servants of the house of God are concerned where it was also been mentioned in Mal. 3:10?

ANSWER TO QUESTION 

The primary purpose of the tithing in the Old Testament is the verse below:

“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.”

Numbers ‭18:21‬ ‭NIV‬.

As per the above, it was a support for the Levites work while serving at the tent of meeting. 

There were 2 kinds of Levites. 

1.) The brothers of Aaron and their sons (Priests helper)

2.) Aaron and his sons (Priests)

“Give the Levites to Aaron and his sons; they are the Israelites who are to be given wholly to him. Appoint Aaron and his sons to serve as priests; anyone else who approaches the sanctuary is to be put to death.”

‭Numbers‬ ‭3:9-10‬ ‭NIV‬

The brothers of Aaron and their sons were to serve the priests who were in the lineage of Aaron.

The 10% produce of Israel was commanded to be received by Levites (1).

The 10% of the 10% that the Levites

(1) received was to be an offering to the Lord through the Priests 

(2)- Num 18:26. This was the tithe mentioned in Mal 3:10, this verse did not say WHO shall collect the tithe, it was only clarified below on to who shall receive it and who shall bring it to the storehouse.

“A priest descended from Aaron is to accompany the Levites when they receive the tithes, and the Levites are to bring a tenth of the tithes up to the house of our God, to the storerooms of the treasury.” Nehemiah ‭10:38‬ ‭NIV‬

So you see, not anyone can receive it under the law. It was for the Levites to collect as they were the one commanded to collect it (Heb 7:5). These Levites were changed already to Jesus Christ in Heb 7:11-12 and since they were changed, all the perks of being the Levites were revoked and of course, this includes the receiving of tithes. Therefore, the one who affiliates themselves still to Levites in today’s time to justify receiving tithes are more so not qualified to collect it since even the actual Levites already had no right to collect it. 

Yet, for some reason, some people still collect tithe using the commandment which was not addressed to them and who was already changed. Moreover, not only they are collecting without them being authorized, they also counterfeited it by changing what was commanded to tithe. 

One might ask since this is the case, who really is being robbed? 

- The congregants who give their 10% but receive by someone who uses commandment that was not addressed to them?

- God who said in Lev 27:30 that the tithe belongs to Him and who also said to give the 10% to the Levites as their support yet, being collected by someone whom God did not command to collect?

And, who is the robber?

- The one who implied giving 10% using a commandment which was not given to them?

QUESTION 12

From your presentation you said:
"Q: Where can we find the commandment or mandate to give 10%?
A: We can find it under the law apparently, in the mandate to give 10%, God also mandated it to be 1.) agricultural and 2.) was to be receive by the Levites.
Q: Can it be done?
A: Number 1 can still be done because crops are still available to date.
Number 2, it cannot be done unless we bend the commandment because Levites were already change.

HERE IS MY QUESTION
You mentioned that God's tithe mandate under the law to be "agricultural and was to be received by the Levites" can still be done up to date, which means you agreed that the mandate of God to tithe is still available today BUT by crops, suggesting that for if crops shall be substituted by other means, to you it's bending the commandment to tithe mandate for Levites already changed.

WHAT then to you is the ECONOMIC VALUE of crops today to sustain the house of God and God's servant serving in the house of God of which you said the commandment of God's tithe mandate are still available up to date by crops and can't be bended or can't be substituted by any other means?

ANSWER TO QUESTION 

In today’s time, the economic value of crops if sold is of course money. It is actually the same in the old, the tithe which was food can be redeemed with additional 20% of it’s value. 

“If someone wishes to buy back part of their tenth-part gift, they must add one-fifth to it.” Leviticus 27:31 CEB

It cannot be money because, it won’t make sense in buy-back option as according to Lev 27:31 instruction.

Imagine, suppose you earned 1000php, 100php is the 10%. So, you give this as your tithe but, what if you want to redeem it for some reason? So, following Lev 27:31 instruction, you buy back the 100php yet, you pay back 100php + (1/5)x100php = 120php. So, why would you buy back your 100php tithe only to give 120php, an additional of 20php? 

Buy back option of tithe is only sensible if it was food based. Imagine, suppose you tithed a crop worth 100php but, for some reason you want to redeem it perhaps because the market place is too far. So, following the Lev 27:31 instruction, you go to the levites, buy it back by paying 100php (the value of the crops) + (1/5) x 100php = 120php. So now, you buy it back for a price that is 1/5 higher than the original value then, you have a redeemed tithe of crops. 

So therefore, in the old it was strictly not money even though money was already available at that time in fact, it was the currency used should one wish to redeem it. Even Pharisee who were not even farmers complied to this, they tithed mint, dill and cumin (Matt‬ ‭23:23‬). 

There were other offering which was money for the maintenance of the temple and it was called temple tax based on Exodus 30:13 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_tax 

People who does not follow what has been commanded on what to tithe are even worst than the Pharisee, at least Pharisee in Matt 23:23 tithed accordingly. 

Actually, in today’s time, people will not be able to fully comply the tithe requirement as commanded. On what to tithe, this maybe still possible but, on to who shall you give it or to who shall collect it is impossible to comply unless, you bend the commandment in regards to 10% transgressing it.

The bible clearly says;

“Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” 1 John‬ ‭3:4‬ ‭KJV‬‬

QUESTION 13

Surewin Saul, in your presentation you said: 

"So, since tithes as according to Numbers 18:21 was given in return for the work which they perform i.e burnt offering, peace offering, etc. And, this work is no more, it would follow that the 10% is also no more. Why would they still receive compensation when they were already changed to Jesus Christ, Him who is not bound with the Levitical priesthood Law since He came from Judah?

“For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.” Hebrews 7:14 NKJV

Therefore, should you claim that you are a spiritual Levite hence, entitled to collect tithes, you then just affiliated yourself to those who are not entitled to it anymore. 

So, are you giving 10% as commanded by God in the bible? Ask yourself, can it be done as commanded without breaking the mandate about it? Do you know any Levites? Obviously none. 

Q: So, how can the commandment to give 10% be done without changing it forcefully or unknowingly?

A: It cannot be done."

HERE IS MY QUESTION (Hope you'll answer it this time)

WHERE in the scriptures you can read or find support, your supposition of establishing your assumption using this word "spiritual Levites" 

(which can be referred to spiritual leaders of our time as/in the house of God (1 Tim. 3:15) governing, monitoring, imposing rules to be mandated, etc. in "church governance" - that should make their living for the gospel. (1 Cor. 9:14))

THAT are not entitled to collect tithe or earn a living from preaching the gospel?

(Note: attached are different Bible versions of 1 Cor. 9:14 where it says the same thing about make a living by preaching the gospel)

New American Standard Bible 

So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel.

King James Bible

Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

Christian Standard Bible

In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should earn their living by the gospel.

Contemporary English Version

In the same way, the Lord wants everyone who preaches the good news to make a living from preaching this message. 

Good News Translation

In the same way, the Lord has ordered that those who preach the gospel should get their living from it.

ANSWER TO QUESTION 

WHERE in the scriptures you can read or find the spiritual Levites?

Actually, there is none, in my presentation I said; 

“Therefore, SHOULD you claim that you are a spiritual Levite”.

I said this because there are some people who claim to be spiritual Levites to justify collecting tithes when in fact, there is no such thing biblically as spiritual Levites but, SHOULD someone claim it anyway, he/she are still not entitled to it because even the actual Levites becomes not entitled to it anymore when they were changed. 

The spiritual leaders you referred to are not in the lineage of Levi so, they should not collect what is not for them to collect, the owner of the tithe who is God is still alive to this very date, it is His right and His right alone to say who shall collect in behalf of Him and, biblically, only Levites obtained that permission to collect (Hebrews 7:5). One might be accused of stealing if that someone is collecting a property of someone who in the first place did not obtained authorisation to collect.

In 1 Cor 9:14 as explained in my answer 2. This commandment of the Lord for preachers to live from the Gospel which seems to imply that they should get their support from the gospel is from the verses below, this is the “commandment” that Paul was referring to in 1 Cor 9:14.

…for a worker is worthy of his food.”Matthew ‭10:10‬ ‭NKJV‬

…“for the laborer is worthy of his wages” Luke ‭10:7‬ ‭NKJV‬

But then again, what is that wage Jesus is talking about? Is that money?

Prior to verse 7, verse 4 of Luke says;

“Carry neither money bag, knapsack, nor sandals; and greet no one along the road.”

They were not allowed to carry money bag so that when they enter the house, they did not accept the money because they were instructed to give freely as it was freely received (Matt 10:8). So then, what was allowed for them to take? Verse 7 of Luke also says; “.. remain in the same house, eating and drinking. 

Yes! their wage refers to food, it cannot be money because they were not allowed to carry money in the first place. This was the support 1 Cor. 9:14 was talking about in parallelism with the old testament since the support that the Levites gets (tithes) was also food (Lev 27:30). But, even these support, Apostles wish not to accept it not that they don’t have the right but for followers to follow. 

“For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”2 Thessalonians ‭3:7-10‬ ‭NIV‬

Even just before and after 1 Cor 9:14, it says;

“But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me, for I would rather die than allow anyone to deprive me of this boast. For when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, since I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make full use of my rights as a preacher of the gospel.” 1 Corinthians ‭9:15-18‬ ‭NIV‬

“If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more? But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ.” 1 Corinthians ‭9:11-12‬ ‭NIV‬

Indeed they are entitled to it but, the apostles have raised the standard of servitude to the word of God to a level that you should not monetize it. 

Actually, those who do not seem to follow the apostles in this regard even though apostles clearly said to imitate them reminds me of Gehazi in 2 Kings 5. When Naaman offered gifts to Elisha, he was indeed entitled to it nonetheless, Elisha chooses not to accept it but this Gehazi did see through it. Instead of following Elisha wish, he chases Naaman to collect the gifts because why not? Elisha was entitled to it anyway, right? But, read happen.

QUESTION 14

Surewin Saul, you said in your presentation that, 

"Though tithe can be converted to money due to distance, when they reach the place which the Lord has chosen, they shall spend that money not give the money for whatever their heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires. 

Now, how is it different from last time to today's time? Money was also available at that time but, under the commandment or mandate of God, it was not tithable. Does the church follow this? 

But, at least this can still be followed since crops are still available.

“But if the journey is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, or if the place where the LORD your God chooses to put His name is too far from you, when the LORD your God has blessed you, then you shall exchange it for money, take the money in your hand, and go to the place which the LORD your God chooses. And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household.” Deuteronomy 14:24-26 NKJV"

HERE IS MY QUESTION

WHAT TYPE OF OT TITHE DO YOU THINK was mentioned in Deuteronomy 14:24-26 refers to, that was commanded to be converted to money only as well its purpose as far as the 3 types of TITHE in OT is concerned , where you were generalizing and implying that as well that crops can be followed since crops are still available and money is not at present times, but you also said money is the economic value of tithe to this date as to sustain and provide the needs of the house of God and the servants of the house of God as well?

ANSWER TO QUESTION 

Deuteronomy 14:24-26, this is the 2nd type of tithe. The purpose of this tithe was kinda like a thanksgiving for the blessing that one receives, this was to be brought and eat in the temple where God chooses to abide. If the place is too far though, for convenience sake, It can be converted to money but, should that person reach the place where God chooses to abide, he shall spend the money for food then eat it there before the Lord. It is kinda like a Thanksgiving, a treat to self for the blessing the God had bestowed. Since today we- who believe in Jesus Christ, our body becomes the temple of the holy spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19). To bring and eat this tithe in temple means, bring it to ourselves and eat it. The principle is the same as Thanksgiving, a celebration to enjoy the blessings that God has given us.

Actually, Yes, there were 3 types of tithe

1. The Levitical or sacred tithe (Num. 18: 21, 24, Mal 3:10)-This tithes become impossible to comply when Jesus Christ steps in as the high priest replacing the Levitical priest. Here, even a real Levites lose the privilege to collect it, how much more those who claim to be affiliated with them. 

2. The tithe of the feasts (Deut. 14:22-27) as per the above question.

3. The tithe for the poor (Deut. 14:28, 29)-The principle of this tithe is still implied in the new testament church, only that it doesn’t matter anymore if we give less than 10% or more than 10% as long as able, willing, cheerful. One can give less 10% yet give all that he/she has and one can give 90% percent yet did not give anything. It all comes down to the purpose of the heart.

All of the tithes above involves Levites, the first one was solely for the Levites.

The 2nd as read in Deut 14: 27, though it was primarily for the giver of the tithe, kinda like a Thanksgiving, it also involves Levites.

The 3rd also was the same as the 1st and 2nd, though it involves other recipients such as foreigners, the fatherless and the widows, read (Deuteronomy ‭14:28-2). It also involves the Levites.‬

So, to recap, the 1st tithe recipient was Levites only. The 2nd tithe recipient was the giver itself and the Levites. The 3rd tithe recipient was the fatherless, widows and Levites. 

What changes to this commandment is not the commandment per se but the recipient of it. On all those types of tithe, the Levites were changed to Jesus Christ losing their privilege to receive it. Hence, the type 1 tithe to which Mal 3:10 is connected cannot be done. Type 2 can still be done minus the Levites. Type 3 can still be done minus the Levites. But, type 2 and 3 involves the giver and the needy. This is the principle that passes through in the new testament, not the type 1 since apostles had shown an example that though they have the right for support, they did not claim it for followers to imitate (2 Thessalonians 3:7-10). Their sacrifice would be wasted if followers do not want to follow them in this regard.

All of this tithe regardless of type was given in the currency of food because that was the instruction as according to Lev 27:30, 32.

“And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD’s. It is holy to the LORD.” Leviticus ‭27:30‬ ‭NKJV‬

There were 2 option if the tithe came from the land:

1.) The seed of the land (crops) 

2.) fruits of the tree 

If it was animals, Lev 27:32 says, “and concerning the tithe of the herd or the flock, of whatever passes under the rod, the tenth one shall be holy to the LORD.”

To clarify, what I said was, since crops are still available, the commandment on WHAT to tithe can at least be done but, though it can be done, the commandment on to WHOM shall it be given in respect to type 1 tithe is impossible to do. Money was already available at that time yet, it was commanded to be given in food-based currency. The people then did not make a fuss on why can it be money since money was already in used at that time. 

I did not say the following below, it is his misunderstood statement of mine.

“but you also said money is the economic value of tithe to this date as to sustain and provide the needs of the house of God and the servants of the house of God as well”

To clarify, as per my A12 to his Q12. I said, even in the old the economic value of tithe was money since it can be redeemed but +20% of its value as according to instruction in Lev 27:31. But, as I explained, one cannot give money directly as tithe because it won’t make sense if one wishes to redeem it. It was still food based but can be redeemed or buy back although +20 of its value.

QUESTION 15

Surewin Saul, in your presentation you said that,

"What was the mandate of God with regards to giving 10% as commanded in the bible? I repeat, IN THE BIBLE to press on that the topic requires that the mandate or commandment was to be from the bible. 

1.) Let’s check on WHAT was the tithable item as commanded in the bible. 

All tenth-part gifts from the land, whether of seed from the ground or fruit from the trees, belong to the LORD; they are holy to the LORD. Leviticus 27:30 CEB

In the above verse, the Lord mandated that the tithe was to be of the seed from the ground or fruit from the tree, money was not in the option. 

Remember, money was already available at that time. In fact, we read below;"

In your direct answers to my direct questions to you, you never denied that the economic value of the OT type of Tithes (crops) were converted into money (cash) as to sustain the house of God's needs and its servants to this date. 

HERE IS NOW MY LAST QUESTION as to cross examine your answers to direct questions to validate if you really understood well what you are previously were saying.

WHAT are the big difference of 

(a) OT servants of the house of God compared to 

(b) servants in the house of God doing full time (24 hours by 7 days a week - conducting Bible studies, holding prayer meetings, meditating and praying at dawn, fasting, community service, jail visitations, preaching, etc) in the present times IN TERMS OF economic needs or as far as basic needs is concerned as of food, clothing and shelter (and education for their children)? 

(Take NOTE: Full time in the ministry means working 8 hours in the fields conducting Bible studies, evangelism, doing community services, spending other extra time in prayers and meditating as practiced especially for missionaries in the pioneering stage (common to what Bible school has directed).

ANSWER TO QUESTION 

The big difference of (a) OT servants of the house of God compared to (b) servants in the house of God doing full time (24 hours by 7 days a week is, the latter ones are not Levites, they did not received the authorisation to collect what does not belong to them. 

As far as the bible is concern, it says;

“And indeed those who are of the 👉sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes👈 from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham;” Hebrews‬ ‭7:5‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

They were so far the only mortal men in the bible that receive an authorisation from God to collect what does not belong to them which is God’s tithes. You might be accused of stealing if you take someone’s property which you have not obtain an authorisation to collect. 

I get it, they are conducting Bible studies, holding prayer meetings, meditating and praying at dawn, fasting, community service, jail visitations, preaching, etc. But, are the services they offered greater than healing the sick, cleansing the lepers, raising the dead, cast out demons to which was instructed by Jesus Christ to give freely as it was freely receive (Matt 10:8)? Is the services of the these preaches so daunting than raising the dead that they should receive salary in terms of 10% of congregants income while raising the dead was for free?

Beside, as the saying says, the end does not justify the means. I get that the services they offered are noble and good and consume a lot of time but if it is being supported by resources that was obtained by breaking the commandment of God. The service that seem so noble is tainted and don’t think that there is no repercussion to it when judgment comes worst, the teaching and the wrong practice will be passed on to those who will believe you binding them that can cause harm spiritually. 

The bible says;

“There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.”Proverbs‬ ‭14:12‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Since we are being biblical here, there should be no excuse in following what apostles had wished which was to imitate them in regards to what they have done to their right for support: (II Thessalonians‬ ‭3:6-9).

Check this link for my Constructive Argument or Negative Presentation:

https://church-matters.blogspot.com/2019/06/my-constructive-argument-tithe-mandate.html

Check this link for my Answers to Cross-Examination:

https://church-matters.blogspot.com/2019/06/my-answers-to-cross-examination-tithe.html

Check this link for my Opponent's Answers to my Cross-examination:

https://church-matters.blogspot.com/2019/07/my-opponents-answer-to-cross.html

Debate Controversial Bias and Collaborations:
https://church-matters.blogspot.com/2019/06/lack-of-knowledge-arrogance-and-pride.html