«Home

What About First Fruit?

It is believed that the first income you get from your job belongs to God, though it appears to be a voluntary thing depending on your understanding and relationship with God.

My question is Must it be the first one? cant you split it between the first and second salaries? How about making it up much later in the future?

Please what do you people really think? I want to give God my first fruit, but the odds appear to be weighing heavily, because i really need enough things to do with the money, especially as it is my first salary, i'll need to get outfits and put my self together, unfortunately there seem not to be anywhere i could borrow from. What do i do?

Avatar
Newbie
30 answers

Fair enough, I take it back. My mistake may have been taken from your statement that -

"(we know this is the case of the law as a requirement towards our salvation or living the life within)". Apologies.

Okay. Let me leave it there with this subscript:

There are people who were never at any time given "the Law" - they didn't have "the Law" in order to have a knowledge or indication for the need for salvation. I have in mind just an example: Paul's preaching to the heathen. When he said that he "might preach [Christ] among the heathen" (Galatians 1:16), we know that he did not try bring a knowledge of the heathen's need for salvation from the Law. Rather, what he did was skillfully approach his subjects from the common experiences of those he preached to - such as the philosophers at Athens in Acts 17. Go through that chapter, and you won't find Paul trying to highlight their need for salvation from the Law.

But that's just where I should leave that matter on your last quote. However, I'll still look at the "abolish" issue. Thanks.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I never meant that the law was a requirement for salvation.What i meant to imply is that:

Without the law, there wouldn't have been any knowledge or indication for the need for salvation through Christ.

That's what it means by saying; the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ

0
Avatar
Newbie

Nice.

Obviously, I quoted the ESV on Matt. 5:17 - "I have not come to abolish them". However, your help in distinguishing between 'destroy' and 'abolish' is quite appreciated.

Now I may not know what meaning chukwudi meant for his bold statement that Jesus "abolished" the law. And if I take your meaning, it would seem queer to draw the inference you made; because I have not found anywhere in the Bible where the Law was given as a "requirement" in terms of our salvation. What then happens to those who were never given the Law in the first place? This is why it would be difficult for me to hold the view that the Law is "no longer" a standing requirement - because it was never that in the first place!

But thanks for your helpful inputs (it would make me search a bit more on the subject). However, all points considered, it appears that we're saying the same thing: Jesus did not come to 'destroy/abolish' the Law, quoting Him directly from Matthew 5:17.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Viaro,

Jesus didn't say,"I didn't come to abolish. . . ." .

Instead he said, "I didn't come to destroy. . . ."

Abolish in greek - καταργέω - katargeō

Destroy in greek - καταλύω - kataluō

They are two obviously different words with different meanings,although almost similar.

Abolish in the sense of what we're talking about would mean - making no longer a standing requirement towards a particular purpose (we know this is the case of the law as a requirement towards our salvation or living the life within).

Destroy in the sense of what we're talking about would mean - demolish,disintegrate (but we know this isn't the case of the law since it still serves it purpose to bring/point people to Christ).

0
Avatar
Newbie

How am I incredible, AIO? Did I not clearly state this: "I may agree that fulfillment could lead to the idea of discarding something"? Was that point not made in my reply above?

I'm sorry; perhaps you're arguing on personal grounds - and that's okay. However, I don't see how the Law is defective - which was why I quoted Romans 7 to show you the context of what I meant. If after seeing those verses and still maintain that you're directly against what they state, I can allow you to hold your ideas personally. No big deal to me. The problem is with man, not the Law - see again Romans 7:14 - "we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal".

You are not clear here. The word "holy" in my reply was pointing to the Law as being that categorically - "the law is holy" (v. 12). Now if you're saying that I should read "holy" as "complete", then where does that leave your assertion that the Law is "defective"? This was why I am asking that you carefully look at the context of what the references have stated - which I have variously pointed out.

If 'holy' = 'complete'; where then is your argument that the Law is 'defective' since the same Law is 'holy' (ie, 'complete')? Do you see where I'm coming from?

Oh, I see. In which case it's pointless trying to hold a discourse on such assumptions. Ciao.

0
Avatar
Newbie

You're quite incredible. Who has translated fulfillment to into discarding? 'fulfillment can lead to discarding' is what I said. Not the word fulfillment means discarding.

No, the law is defective. It is a poor attempt to instruct in righteousness. Without the Spirit to properly guide you in righteousness no codes or laws will do the job. No one is talking about discarding the purpose of the Law which is Righteousness. I am talking about the means to achieve righteousness and I say that as a means the law is defective. It is defective intrinsically and extrinsically. The problem is with the Law. It doesn't cut it.

What does Holy mean? It means complete. Whole. Without contamination. How do you fulfill something that is already Whole?

We should also consider the possibility that we are not talking about the same God or about the same spirit.

The marriage of a christian is not bound by legalities but by the spirit of God. Likewise the Love exhibited by a Christian is a spontaneous phenomenon the Christian is not forcing himself to adhere to a law that he read in a book. It is less a commandment and more a welling up from within.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Twerp, incase you are still scratching your dustbrain, I have not stolen money from you nor asked it from any of your miserable clowns. I entered this thread with a verse that speaks about the topic of the thread itself: firstfruits - see my post #6. And even in that post, I did not make it a "requirement". Mooncalves like you are too challenged to understand simple statements, so nothing new there. Next!

0
Avatar
Newbie

Okay, first let me apologise unreservedly - I might have misread your post. The part I took out for my explanations following was to make the point that both words do not mean the same thing, not even when carefully considered in contexts of the verses I already cited to the point. Sorry about that.

Well, I appreciate your point. What do I think? I may agree with you in some context - but not in the light of what we (chukwudi and I) have been considering. Outside of those verses, I may agree that fulfillment could lead to the idea of discarding something (and there are numerous examples, such as you had given).

But within the context of what Jesus said, 'fulfillment' would be hard to translate into 'discarding'. Especially in the example of "fulfilling all righteousness" - that would not give the sense at all of "discarding all righteousness", get my point?

This is quite a very simple matter; and one of the explanations may have been highlighted in your previous input:

That point resonates with me - the "purpose" of the Law. Without wanting to risk technicalities here, wouldn't it be true to say that the purpose of the Law is not discarded? If we have the idea that it should be thus discarded, we shall find huge and innumerable problems in our Christian faith. It could be argued one way or the other that the Law is defective - but I'm rather of the view that the Law itself (in its intinsic nature) is not defective: rather, the problem is with man. This is why the NT says that the Law is good, spiritual and holy (Rom. 7:12-16). That certainly does not mean that the Christian is under the Law in a literal sense.

Lol, I also find my guidance in righteousness from the Spirit of God. Dare I also observe that it is the same Spirit that shows us why we cannot discard the law completely? How? Tell me: what "law" is said to be hold in Christian marriages, such as 1 Corinthians 7:39? Tell me: what "law" is spoken of concerning loving our neighbour and loving God in Matthew 22:36-40? By just those two examples, should we maintain the idea that we discard the law "completely"? If that is so, then those verses ought not to be referred to in matters concerning Christian mariages and Christians loving God and neighbour - it does not matter any other claim that we are guided by the Spirit while completely discarding what the same Spirit shows us in the NT.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@pilgrim

This topc is about criminals like u trying to steal money from innocent victims based on the obsolete mosaic law

0
Avatar
Newbie

I didn't say they were the same thing. Did you read my post? What do you make of it? Fulfillment can lead to a discarding of it. That is my point. What do you think?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Dear Pastor AIO, thank you for your observations and contributions to this small matter. Just a small point, really. . and nothing personal. But here is essetially where you may have missed the point:

No, it is not the same thing - "fulfil" and "abolish" are not the same things at all. Not in the context of Matthew 5:17, nor of Matthew 3:15 I quoted earlier in post #26 to distinguish between them. If both words mean the same things, then the latter verse would be reading the same as "it becometh us to abolish all righteousness".

In all of this, whatever anyone may derive for the meanings of those words, it is clear they are NOT the same thing. Nada, zilch. You can see that in contexts of the verses themselves, it would be absolutely skewed to make them the same things; and yet to assert that Jesus abolished the mosaic law is a direct assertion against what He said in Matthew 5:17.

All I sought was for an explanation from chukwudi - not name-calling and all sorts. Incase he hadn't noticed, when people discuss free from such insolence, they won't find me returning any such to them. But if they like to do so as the highlight of their style of discussing, I'd oblige them just about the same.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Please o, just to get this point that seems a sticking point out of the way. What does it mean to fulfill the law? It can be referring to one of two things that I can think of. Either it is a reference to laws themselves or it is a reference to the purpose of the laws.

If something is unfulfilled then it is defective in some way or the other. Currently I have a defective keyboard that I play at home. As I don't have much money I cannot afford to buy a new one so I am managing it. If someone bought me a new one then I'll be able to discard it. Or if someone helped me fix it then it won't be defective anymore. Buying a new one is addressing the purpose of the keyboard. Fixing it is addressing the purpose too but by adjusting the keyboard itself.

The Law is defective. Otherwise it wouldn't need fulfilling. If you tell a yoruba man that ' ori e o pe', there is no way that he'll understand anything other than his life/destiny is defective. in other words his life can never better lai lai. it is the same thing 'pe' means to be complete/fulfilled.

Now if the law is defective and you want to fulfill it you can do so by addressing the law itself or rather the purpose to which the law is intended. If you address the law itself then you will either be adding laws to make it complete or remove such laws as are deemed defects. As far as I know the body of rules which is called the law in the bible has remained the same as it was prior to the coming of Jesus.

So we need to look at the purpose of the law. The law is there to guide us in righteousness. Yet it is defective. We are merely managing it for want of something better. If we can find another means to walk in righteousness then it is best to discard the law and go with the better means. I don't know about you but for me I find guidance in righteousness from the spirit of God. It is superior to anything in the law and therefore I have no qualms about discarding the law completely. I have got myself the upgrade. Where the law is the v.1 the Spirit is the V. 2000. The purpose of the law is thoroughly fulfilled and so the law can be discarded.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Em, dear girlie. . you have again made yourself a laff! Where's your answer to the simple question I asked you after twisting Jesus direct statement in Matthew 5:17? Is that up there the best shot you can give to that simple question? Huh?

Seeking to attack me is futile, haven't you noticed? No, you haven't - because braindumps like you are too zealous to defend your piously dubious cacophony than reading the text to see what Jesus said directly.

About Galatians 3:10, your argument that performing one "requirement" of the Law is even far more comical! On Nairaland in the other thread on tithes, I've made abundantly clear that my discussions are not based on seeing anything in this regard as a "requirement". You of all dunces would have ignored that fact while trying to misplace your duplicity here. I've said it before - you hardly know anything and are only very good at confirming tales harvested from hypocrites at askelm.com!

Now, now. . girlie. . if you're better than your last reply at spewing your verbose inanity, wake up and reconcile your cretin assertion with what Jesus directly stated in Matthew 5:17. I'll repeat it again for your ease:

           (a) you said:     "jesus christ abolished the mosaic law"

           (b) Jesus said:  "I have not come to abolish them"

At least I made a clear distinction between 'fulfil' and 'abolish' in direct response to your post #25. Now, you can either attempt to upgrade your dustbrain and seek intelligently to address your inanity in the face of those two direct statements (a) and (b), or just keep confirming the slowpoke you are.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Madam pilgrim,

so in essence what u re saying is that the law is till valid abi?

In that case we have to comply with[b] all[/b] the requirements of the law.

Trying to perform one requirement of the law while neglecting the other will attract the curse of the law as plainly stated in gal 3 :10

criminals like you and ur pastors have hypocritically discarde the unlucrative portions of the lawwhile at the same time twisting the law of tithing that was meant to be done once in three years and which never involved money to what is now being done daily,weekly and monthly.

You have not stoopped at that u have gone further to even further twist the scriopture by trying to stave ur ignorant and hypnotised victims of their entire earnings in the name of one obsolete jewish law called first friut.

The truth is that you will all bountifully receive ur reward,I am only fighting this because innocent victims are involved,I would have simply inored vagabond like you using the name of God to commit robbery.

You in particular you are worse than a hypocrite ,you are are chameleon,you just changed ur ID but your inner self remains unchanged.The number of atrocities you have committed on this side is second only to the devil

0
Avatar
Newbie

@pilrim1

you did not answer any of my questions,let me repeat them again

Do u mind telling me what it means to fulfil a law.

If the law has not being abolished how come other unlucraive parts of the law like burnt offering,and even the three important jewish festivals of passover ,shelters and unleavened bread has been discarded?

0
Avatar
Newbie

I left a postscript: "An explanation (not a quarrel or name-calling) is all I seek". Since you can't give that, you can only get the same treatment as you invite - so don't come back and complain.

However, whatever you may derive from 'answering a question with a question', I asked you to reconcile your statement with what Jesus Himself said in Matthew 5:17. You confirmed my presupposition that you'd try to duck that question and come back grumbling with your usual excuses. Here is a reminder of the contrast:

(a) you said:     "jesus christ abolished the mosaic law"

(b) Jesus said:  "I have not come to abolish them"

Could anything be simpler said? Whatever you may argue, it does not follow that He 'abolished' the Law by 'fulfilling' it - or you would have to find a cleverly dishonest way to twist what Jesus said. Your assertion is the direct opposite of what Jesus stated in that verse - please reconcile them, or just swallow your pride and zip up.

(I almost forgot you're honestly an expert at 'confirming' silly tales without engaging your thinking faculty).

0
Avatar
Newbie

Clearly, these two things stand in contrast:

(a) you said: "jesus christ abolished the mosaic law"

(b) Jesus said: "I have not come to abolish them"[quote][/quote]

madam Pilgrim 1

Do u mind telling me what it means to[b] fulfi[/b]l a law.

If the law has not being abolished how come other unlucraive parts of the law like burnt offering,and even the three important jewish festivals of passover ,shelters and unleavened bread has been discarded

0
Avatar
Newbie

Yes, indeed, I sometimes wonder whether Jesus also abolished the law calling for parents to kill their disobedient children. My view is that he did not. In fact, Jesus explicitly reinforced that law in the New Testament.

0
Avatar
Newbie

The term 'first fruit' is used in Christianity - albeit in a different sense. Read Romans 8:23; 1 Corinthians 15:23 and James 1:18. You cannot argue that there is "nothing like first fruit".

Okay. I would like to know how that can be reconciled with what Jesus Himself said in Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (from the ESV).

Clearly, these two things stand in contrast:

(a) you said: "jesus christ abolished the mosaic law"

(b) Jesus said: "I have not come to abolish them"

An explanation (not a quarrel or name-calling) is all I seek; and that would be greatly appreciated.

0
Avatar
Newbie

God will definitely punish criminals who twist the scriptures to extort money from their congregation,imagine someone giving away his entire salary to one greedy,idiotic fool who calls himself a man of God.

@poster

there is nothing like first fruit under christianity,the bible clearly tells us that jesus christ abolished the mosaic law on the cross of calvarly,christians are enjoined to freely donate to his/her church as one purposes in his heart

check 2 cor 9:7

0
Avatar
Newbie

Topics like this [first fruit offerings] are one of the reasons apostle paul warned of of false teachers that would make up clever lies to get hold of our money. When someone is telling you first fruit = first salary you have a perfect example of a clever lie. Clever lies are adaptation of truth to make them have a semblance of truth in them. Another brilliant example of cleverlie popular in some christian sects today is mordern day adaptation of tithes whose practise as been significantly twisted and alien to the original form of tithing handed down to the jews.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ttts,

first salary". The firstfruit is a portion of something, not the whole of that thing. Perhaps you may have a different view, and it would be great to read.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Giving your first fruit or any offering to God is an act of your faith. Since the bible says the Just shall Live by faith, soit according to your faith. Its of benefit to you that you do it because the bible equally says "if the first fruit be holy the lump shall be also". So if you give Him the first salary of your new job or even the increase of your salary,if it is a promotion, God will certainly take care of the rest. That is to say He will guard your job so that the devourer has no chance of coming near your job or your finances.

The life of a Christian is a life of FAITH.

Pray this has helped you in a way.

Cheers.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I think we should discuss as ladies and gentlemen. Let us not forget the ladies in our midst. we don't want to be taken for sexist.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Guys, could I pick some of y'all brains on this subject a bit more? I'm not calling for fights, please - just let's talk about the topic as gentlemen.

What do you think about Proverbs 3:9 -

'Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase'

I understand the verse does not stand alone and could be better understood in light of its surrounding verses. However, just looking at that verse for now, are we to limit it to the 'rituals' of the Mosaic Law, or its holds a principle beyond that dispensation?

0
Avatar
Newbie

I have not come across where NT christians were commanded to particapate in such rituals.

Anybody with insight can please educate us

0
Avatar
Newbie

Hi @ Dearie,

Please do not worry yourself unduly about any monetary significance of "firstfruits", there isn't one, especially not in the NT dispensation.

Firstly, it has a deeper spiritual significance and refers more properly to the harvest of the people of God.

Secondly, along with the mis-interpretation and mis-application of the modern day "tithing" doctrine, is another instance of merchandisers twisting scripture to suit thier ill founded purposes.

God loves a cheerful giver. Give to the needy, not the greedy, and to your hearts content.

Hi @Dennylove,

In the first month, one would have to pay all the salary & a tithe. Totalling 110%

Please explain this apparent conundrum. Thanks.

God bless

0
Avatar
Newbie

seun,ofcourse it is!!!by the way, what can you say about FIRST FRUIT?OR TITHES.let me break it down for you,FIRST FRUIT,is when you give your first month salary,''the whole salary'' i mean evrything!!! no remove inside the salary.TITHES, is when you give your 1/10 of your salary.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Read To Tithe Or Not To Tithe. Those teachings are not compatible with the New Testament.

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.