Can You Suspend Tithing To Pay Off Your Debts?

@babygod
Point taken, i won't grudge you for tithing but i believe as christians we should diligently seek the true word of God and do his bidding. In my opinion i think a lot of things as gone wrong with today's church check out my thread about christianity being missing in the church http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-148850.0.html may be we could discuss on that.

WOW ! This issue of tithing has generated so much heat. I feel that as christians we should always endeavour to walk in love even when we're arguing. I have a few thoughts on tithing from the little I've seen in the Word.

1)It started before the mosaic law was given. The patriachs gave tithes in Genesis over 400 years before the law.
This, like circumcision, began before the law, continued through the time of the law and probably has some deeper significance beyond the physical act. Just like circumcision of the foreskin was meant to show a covenant with God by an inward circumcision of the heart , tithing acknowlegdes that all we have is from God and is symbolic of the fact that He is Lord over our finances and lives.

2)From the Gospels (esp. Matt. and Luke) Jesus never condemned the act of giving tithes unlike how he spoke out openly against some other activities of the Pharisees.

3)There is nowhere in the N.T.where it is stated categorically that tithes should be given(I stand to be corrected).However, we are admonished to give bountifully in several places. Jesus commended the widow for giving her mites whilst the rich young ruler was shown that he didn't have the possessions but the possessions HAD him.We are told to minister carnal things (ie cash & kind) to those that minister to us spiritually.

4)There is also nowhere in the N.T. (and in the Bible at that) where it is stated categorically that tithes should NOT be given. Or that it is a work of the law unlike circumcision which is now basically done (or not done) by choice.


5)Melchisedek was the high priest that Abraham gave tithes to in Gen. 14. A parallel is drawn between him and Christ. 
Jesus is a high priest forever after the order of Melchisedek (this fact is repeated for emphasis in Heb 5,6 & 7 )
Melchisedek was likened to the Son of God because he had no recorded genealogy. 

6)The basic thing Melchisedek did in his sole appearance in Gen. was:
 - he brought forth bread and wine which is reminiscent of the body and blood of Christ.
 - he blessed Abraham.
 - he collected tithes from him.

7)Hebrews 7:8
"And here men that die receive tithes; but there HE RECEIVES them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives."
Methinks this verse is contrasting the receiving of tithes by the Levitical priesthood with that of the Christ.
If so, may I submit as follows:
                  -The dispensation of the Levitical priesthood has been replaced by that of Christ, our Great High Priest
                    after the order of Melchisedek.
                  - Christ still receives [note the present tense used] our tithes because His own priesthood is forever unlike
                     the Levites who were a shadow of things to come.
                  -This implies that though you bring your tithes to the storehouse or local assembly (Mal 3:10), it is Christ
                    who receives them there in the heavenly tabernacle (Heb. Eight) which is still functional and of which the O.T.         
                    tabernacle was a replica.

    In conclusion, I think it stands to reason that a Christian should tithe if we have a High Priest that receives same. Of course blessings are attached to your giving ( Luke 6:38, Acts 10:4, 2Corinthians9:6 ), but if you give your tithes from a heart that loves God, then the specific blessings of tithing will be yours (Mal 3:10-12) .Please let us also remember that apart from giving and paying tithes, we should live in obedience to God in every aspect of our lives to be able to enjoy the fullness of what He’s planned for us.

      @KunleOshob,
Thanx Kunle. I’m just getting the opportunity today to reply. Firstly, I'm not a pastor but an "ordinary" christian like you who feels one should prove all things and hold fast that which is true (nothing wrong with being a pastor despite the fact that some have tried to drag that calling into the mud by being fake and deceiving people). Anything I hear, I judge by asking God and studying His Word because I know I'm personally responsible to God for my actions.


Concerning the points you made I think you are the one that has it all wrong.
 
     What this place is talking about is THE LAW OF MOSES as a whole and not tithing alone in itself.
The word "law" here is the Greek word "nomos" which generally means regulation and specifically means the law of Moses. I don't think it could be more specific because he keeps saying "THE" law (definitive article - "the").

       If we're to look @ the whole chapter in context, (as a matter of fact from Heb chapter 5 – chapter 10), the crux of the discussion is the change of priesthood from the Levitical Order to that of the Order of Melchisedek of which Jesus is the High Priest. And the logical sequence to a change of priesthood is a change of the law that established it

Heb 8:1 “Now of the things which we have spoken THIS IS THE SUM: We have such a high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens”
Heb 7:12 “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.”

        Definitely you will agree that it wasn't just tithing that established the priesthood of the Levites, it was the whole law of Moses that established it; so it wasn't just tithing that was the issue but the whole law.
Heb 7:19 “For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.”
         If he was talking only about tithes when he said law, then this verse would have a meaning to presuppose that there was a possibility of only tithes making someone perfect. It would have read -
" For the law(of tithes) made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did, "
         But we know it is not even remotely possible to suggest this, that only the law of tithes was what was put forth in the O.T. for an attempt at perfection. No. It was the WHOLE LAW OF MOSES. And that is the reason the whole law had to change because it could not bring about a perfection unlike Jesus did.
Heb 10:14 “For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.”




       Like I said earlier, if we took the whole discourse in context from Heb chapter 5 to chapter 10 it is supporting rather than abolishing the practice of tithing within the framework of the High Priestly role of Jesus.

Heb 8:6-7 “But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.”

   Now then there is a new priesthood with a better covenant based on better promises. The old one has been replaced. But the question is , "why is the new High Priest still patterned after the Order of Melchisedek?" The same Melchisedek that - ( yeah, you got it )- COLLECTED TITHES !!! The way I see it he's trying to buttress the fact that this issue of tithing still exists. Or why didn’t God create a new order entirely if He wanted a departure from the tithe-collecting Melchisedek. But he keeps saying “ after the order of Melchisedek” with this same phrase repeated 7 times between Heb 5 and Heb 7.
.
          Another question is this in Heb 7:8 “And here men that die receive tithes; but there he RECEIVES them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives.”
Where is “there”? – In the heavenly tabernacle.
Who is “he”? – Our Lord Jesus Christ, High Priest after the Order of Melchisedek.
Why use present tense and say Jesus “RECEIVES” if tithes have been done away with?
Because we’re still to GIVE if He RECEIVES!!!
 

@KunleOshob
I never said it was abolished, rather it has been replaced by a new dispensation which did away with many of the Levitical practices but in which the High Priest still receives tithes.
      And then, although Jesus is not a Levite yet He was made High priest who we are told RECEIVES the tithes(Heb 7:8 ). This would not have been possible in the old dispensation which shows that in this new dispensation one who is not a Levite is now permitted to take the tithes.
       And please don't say Melchisedek is irrelevant because the Word of God is never frivolous. If there was nothing to Melchisedek the Bible wouldn't have kept talking about him. Heaven and earth will pass away but not a jot or tittle of the Word will be unfulfilled. It is the principle of types and shadows that is being highlighted by the comparison between Jesus and Melchisedek. 
       Freewill or not, did you ever wonder why Abraham decided to give a tithe? Why not one-twentieth  or one-fiftieth? I'm telling you, bro, there is something significant about it. Nothing mischievous about God's Word. Everything God means He says and everything He says He means.

        I think you need to see the big picture in this issue. You mentioned the books of the Pentateuch that talk about tithes under the old Levitical order (ie Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deut.) but didn't consider the "law of first mention" ie the fact that the issue began in Genesis, the first book of the Pentateuch. This was hundreds of years before Aaron and the first Levite. And then again also the fact that a new dispensation is being patterned after the one mentioned in Genesis? This is surely not happenstance.
        Also let me say that our discussion was not a waste of time. Thanx for helping me
 to review the book of Hebrews which I haven’t done in a while.
       It seems to me that we're not going to agree on this. But, hey, not to worry. It's not tithing that gets us into heaven. So rest assured Kunle, when we get there we'll go ask the Lord more about this.
       God bless!!

   @KunleOshob

     I sure hope you're not jumping to conclusions about me as I have not said anything remotely linked to christianity being all about getting to heaven.
     Pls try and believe the best of me.
1Cor. 13:7 -"(Love) Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things."
     And sure, I agree with you that charity (love) is the greatest. 1Cor 13:13.

My dear grand jedi,

Did you say you have been studying Hebrews?
When Paul said in Hebrews 7 verse 12 that:

For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law
What law specifically do you think he was referring to
You will have to read the same Hebrews 7 verses 1-11 to understand.
I wish you a blessed study.

yes especially when we allow foot our kingdom bills

^^^I like your style, dskj56. . . especially on the point that both tithe and debt are important issues to be dealt with. What I am not sure about, however, is the idea that tithe comes first and then debt. I think that both can be managed with a balance that separates them distinctly without confusing them for their varied importance.

There are many people who have managed their debts while still tithing. The ones I know of did not have to choose between debt and tithing - they rather made a budget that they tried to discipline themselves to, maintaining the importance of either matter while suspending other expenditure that they could without until another time. One such person called her creditors and arranged to pay a particular amount each month; and then she didn't have to bother so much about the question of whether to tithe or not - she found it easier to do so. And she came off clean, while increasing her giving in other areas.

I'm of the opinion that people should not confuse these matters in such a polarised manner. They can be managed in a sensible way, instead of the oft-repeated "tithe first before debt".

That's fine as long as you want to forever believe that. However, the law was never killed - it is not 'somebody' that you put to death. If we go by Scripture, it was you and me who were put to death and became dead, not the Law.

But who has been arguing that they are trying to be justified by the Mosaic Law in this thread, chukwudi? Who is being cut off from the grace of Christ because of your wrong interpretations? Please show me where the Bible specifically teaches that the Law was killed or died on the cross, please. I would like to read it, thank you. Remember your quote: