OLAADEGBU:

Let's go back to basics. Was tithes practical and applicable to Abraham when he gave his tithes to Melchizedec, the high priest of God?

Which tithes? Did he give tithes of his goats, sheep, cattle, etc? Or did he tithe spoils of war which were, in essence, never his in the first place?

debosky:

Which tithes? Did he give tithes of his goats, sheep, cattle, etc? Or did he tithe spoils of war which were, in essence, never his in the first place?

Spoils of war belong to the victor/conqueror as legally as your salary belongs to you though from another.

Image123:
Spoils of war belong to the victor/conqueror as legally as your salary belongs to you though from another.

No - the spoils of war are something forcefully take them from others, not in return for effort/work. They were never his in the first place. Abram himself denied ownership.

But Abram said to the king of Sodom, “With raised hand I have sworn an oath to the Lord, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth, 23 that I will accept nothing belonging to you, not even a thread or the strap of a sandal, so that you will never be able to say, ‘I made Abram rich.’

debosky:

No - the spoils of war are something forcefully take them from others, not in return for effort/work. They were never his in the first place. Abram himself denied ownership.

But Abram said to the king of Sodom, “With raised hand I have sworn an oath to the Lord, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth, 23 that I will accept nothing belonging to you, not even a thread or the strap of a sandal, so that you will never be able to say, ‘I made Abram rich.’

What do you mean by No. No as in, the spoils of war are not legal or what? Those are the rules of engagement in war. Look through history whether Bible or secular, the spoils belong to the victor, including Jesus. Your salary was not yours in the first place, until you worked for it.
Abraham never denied ownership of his spoils, the spoils were the booty he got from conquering 5 dominant and powerful kings. Lot and Sodom were by the way, and at the mercy of discretion.

Image123:
What do you mean by No. No as in, the spoils of war are not legal or what? Those are the rules of engagement in war. Look through history whether Bible or secular, the spoils belong to the victor, including Jesus. Your salary was not yours in the first place, until you worked for it.
Abraham never denied ownership of his spoils, the spoils were the booty he got from conquering 5 dominant and powerful kings. Lot and Sodom were by the way, and at the mercy of discretion.

Image123:
What do you mean by No. No as in, the spoils of war are not legal or what? Those are the rules of engagement in war. Look through history whether Bible or secular, the spoils belong to the victor, including Jesus. Your salary was not yours in the first place, until you worked for it.
Abraham never denied ownership of his spoils, the spoils were the booty he got from conquering 5 dominant and powerful kings. Lot and Sodom were by the way, and at the mercy of discretion.

No as in Abram described those spoils of war as belonging to the King of Sodom. I don't know about what you term 'legal' or otherwise, but what I do know is whatwas clearly stated by Abram: - I will accept nothing belonging to you.

Those words establish whose belongings they were - Abram never considered them his own. He never accepted them. My earlier statement is completely factual - at no point did Abram consider the spoils his - they were never his.

As for salary - it is given in exchange for labour/services rendered - this is completely and utterly different from spoils of war, where there is no exchange involved.

Image123:
What do you mean by No. No as in, the spoils of war are not legal or what? Those are the rules of engagement in war. Look through history whether Bible or secular, the spoils belong to the victor, including Jesus. Your salary was not yours in the first place, until you worked for it.
Abraham never denied ownership of his spoils, the spoils were the booty he got from conquering 5 dominant and powerful kings. Lot and Sodom were by the way, and at the mercy of discretion.

How can anybody in his right senses say Lot was by the way Lot was the primary reason Abraham went to battle in the first instance. This your eagerness to distort scripture to justify your filthy lucre is just too pathetic.

debosky:

No as in Abram described those spoils of war as belonging to the King of Sodom. I don't know about what you term 'legal' or otherwise, but what I do know is whatwas clearly stated by Abram: - I will accept nothing belonging to you.

Those words establish whose belongings they were - Abram never considered them his own. He never accepted them. My earlier statement is completely factual - at no point did Abram consider the spoils his - they were never his.

As for salary - it is given in exchange for labour/services rendered - this is completely and utterly different from spoils of war, where there is no exchange involved.

Debo, perhaps it will do you well to re-read Genesis 14. Jesus Himself spoiled His enemies, and the spoils belong to Him. It makes it legal. In war, the victor owns the spoils. he has the keys of hell and death, He has all power given unto Him.
Col 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

Abraham went to battle with five kings in order to get his nephew Lot. These five kings had armies and they had boot.y and possessions. They had stuff with them before they took Sodom and lot's stuff. It was the stuff they had with them that Abraham gave tithe of. The kings and their armies stuff did not belong to Sodom. They were in charge of that region and had oppressed everybody for over ten years. Do read Genesis 14.

debosky:

Which tithes? Did he give tithes of his goats, sheep, cattle, etc? Or did he tithe spoils of war which were, in essence, never his in the first place?

The question was did Abraham give tithes? The rest are details.

Image123:
Debo, perhaps it will do you well to re-read Genesis 14. Jesus Himself spoiled His enemies, and the spoils belong to Him. It makes it legal. In war, the victor owns the spoils. he has the keys of hell and death, He has all power given unto Him.
Col 2:15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

Jesus claimed possession of the spoils not so? Abram never claimed possession of the spoils, therefore they did not belong to him. He called them the belongings of the King of Sodom. He said the items belonged to the King of Sodom. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

Abraham went to battle with five kings in order to get his nephew Lot. These five kings had armies and they had boot.y and possessions. They had stuff with them before they took Sodom and lot's stuff. It was the stuff they had with them that Abraham gave tithe of. The kings and their armies stuff did not belong to Sodom. They were in charge of that region and had oppressed everybody for over ten years. Do read Genesis 14.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but what happened is clear - the Kings that Abram defeated had previously taken over the possessions of the King of Sodom (and others). Abram returned those possessions to the King of Sodom and never claimed ownership over them.

It is clear what Abram collected from the Kings he defeated: 16 He recovered all the goods and brought back his relative Lot and his possessions, together with the women and the other people.

It is clear - he collected what King Kedorlaomer and co had taken from the King of Sodom and others, and Lot. At no point did Abram claim any of these. The King of Sodom offered them to Abram, but he refused.

OLAADEGBU:

The question was did Abraham give tithes? The rest are details.

No the rest are not details - the so called details define the context of the tithe giving and whether it is equivalent to what is done today.

In this instance, tithes were given from spoils of war which Abram never claimed as his own, AFTER Abram was blessed (not before or in order for him to be blessed) by the Priest and after he had defeated his enemies. No tithes were recorded as given from his regular 'job' as it were - not from the livestock, silver and gold which he had been blessed with as recorded in Genesis 13:1.

debosky:

No the rest are not details - the so called details define the context of the tithe giving and whether it is equivalent to what is done today.

In this instance, tithes were given from spoils of war which Abram never claimed as his own, AFTER Abram was blessed (not before or in order for him to be blessed) by the Priest and after he had defeated his enemies. No tithes were recorded as given from his regular 'job' as it were - not from the livestock, silver and gold which he had been blessed with as recorded in Genesis 13:1.

The point is for you to go beyond the letter written in black ink and look at the spiritual principles behind everything written in the word of God.Whether you believe it,like it or not we are still in spiritual warfare against demonic strongholds that are well organized.The OT is written for our learning so we do not take the enemy for granted.The word of God is not just information nor bible stories,The key to decoding spiritual realities is wisdom.

Throughout the entire bible we see that the result of the battle was the taking of spoils and this is where the spiritual principle lies like image said,we don't want to know the details like olaadegbu rightly observed,If your still work your bones to death for 24hrs to earn a pittance like the gentiles of this world,then am afraid that you have not entered the inner technology of working sweatlessly to obtain your spoils with just little effort.You need to go back and study hard and pray hard my brother.

Bidam: The point is for you to go beyond the letter written in black ink and look at the spiritual principles behind everything written in the word of God.

I have no issue with this in general. However, where there is a clearly laid out instruction, I will question alleged ‘spiritual principles’ found elsewhere.

Whether you believe it,like it or not we are still in spiritual warfare against demonic strongholds that are well organized.The OT is written for our learning so we do not take the enemy for granted.The word of God is not just information nor bible stories,The key to decoding spiritual realities is wisdom.

Ok. . . I struggle with the relevance of the first line - I don’t recall denying existence/battle with demonic strongholds, nor see its relevance to the current discussion.

Throughout the entire bible we see that the result of the battle was the taking of spoils and this is where the spiritual principle lies like image said,we don't want to know the details like olaadegbu rightly observed,If your still work your bones to death for 24hrs to earn a pittance like the gentiles of this world,then am afraid that you have not entered the inner technology of working sweatlessly to obtain your spoils with just little effort.You need to go back and study hard and pray hard my brother.

Your comments are noted, but are wholly irrelevant to the current discussion. No one (as far as I know) involved in this discussion is talking about working bones to death or otherwise, nor the quantity of earnings in this particular instance.

An addendum to Image123.

The issue of whether the belongings ‘belonged’ to Abram is a distraction to be honest - the bible was clear he didn’t consider them his own and rejected them. If you’re arguing that he could have laid claim to them, that is a different matter altogether, but ultimately immaterial in this case.

What is up for debate is whether you can consider spoils of war as the same as salary. My assertion is that you cannot for the following reasons:

1. Abram was not a professional soldier. It may be argued that a soldier’s job was to fight and receive income through spoils as salary. Clearly this wasn’t Abram’s ‘day job’ or ‘occupation’.

2. Abram’s express intention of going to war was not to acquire property for himself, but to rescue Lot and recover Lot’s properties - the recovery of the King of Sodom’s goods was merely incidental and was never Abram’s concern, which is why he returned them to the rightful owner.

3. Abram’s occupation was rearing livestock. He did not go to war with his livestock, but only with his 318 fighting men, Also note that he did not tithe of the men of his household (basically his slaves and his possessions).

4. If the bible recorded that Abram tithed of his livestock, silver and gold referred to in Genesis 13:1, then we may be able to say Abram treated spoils of war no different from his salary. However, without this evidence you are purely speculating.

5. There are numerous passages in the bible showing God does not automatically consider spoils as things to be considered property - in many instances, God says destroy completely (1 Samuel 15) or destroy some, give some to my temple (not tithe to my temple) and stay away from others (Joshua 7) Therefore from biblical examples, unless God deems spoils as belonging to an individual, you cannot make that assertion. Abram certainly didn't consider them as belonging to him.

[quote author=debosky]
Ok. . . I struggle with the relevance of the first line - I don’t recall denying existence/battle with demonic strongholds, nor see its relevance to the current discussion.

The demonic strongholds i am referring to is a type of satan representing the 4 kings who stole Lot and his possessions.

Your comments are noted, but are wholly irrelevant to the current discussion. No one (as far as I know) involved in this discussion is talking about working bones to death or otherwise, nor the quantity of earnings in this particular instance.

It is relevant because Abraham obtained cheap and sweatless victory using 318 men against an army that has four kings.You can imagine the number of equipped well trained soldiers of a single king,they might be numbering to hundreds of thousands.The bible actually downplayed the account.Even if we are to go into details common logic dictates that it is practically an impossible feat to defeat a king with 318 men talk more of 4 kings.There was actually a factor that led him to defeat the kings.The God factor as eulogized by Melchizedek.And that was my analogy of using working 24hrs to your bones like gentiles that don't know God.For those who do know their God shall be strong and do exploit.

Bidam: The demonic strongholds i am referring to is a type of satan representing the 4 kings who stole Lot and his possessions.

Ok. Again, this is about tithes, not about demonic strongholds.

It is relevant because Abraham obtained cheap and sweatless victory using 318 men against an army that has four kings.You can imagine the number of equipped well trained soldiers of a single king,they might be numbering to hundreds of thousands.The bible actually downplayed the account.Even if we are to go into details common logic dictates that it is practically an impossible feat to defeat a king with 318 men talk more of 4 kings.There was actually a factor that led him to defeat the kings.The God factor as eulogized by Melchizedek.And that was my analogy of using working 24hrs to your bones like gentiles that don't know God.For those who do know their God shall be strong and do exploit.

Ok - like I said, this is a separate matter entirely not to do with tithes per se. There are other supernatural victories elsewhere that do not involve tithing.

If you want to discuss demonic attacks and 'sweatless' victories, that is a different topic of discussion, unless of course you are implying those are the two requirements before one can tithe.

debosky:

Jesus claimed possession of the spoils not so? Abram never claimed possession of the spoils, therefore they did not belong to him. He called them the belongings of the King of Sodom. He said the items belonged to the King of Sodom. It doesn't get any clearer than that.



I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but what happened is clear - the Kings that Abram defeated had previously taken over the possessions of the King of Sodom (and others). Abram returned those possessions to the King of Sodom and never claimed ownership over them.

It is clear what Abram collected from the Kings he defeated: 16 He recovered all the goods and brought back his relative Lot and his possessions, together with the women and the other people.

It is clear - he collected what King Kedorlaomer and co had taken from the King of Sodom and others, and Lot. At no point did Abram claim any of these. The King of Sodom offered them to Abram, but he refused.

Na you oh, if not, i wouldn't have to go do your reading for you.
In war, there is what is known as rules of engagement. Basically, the victor/conqueror takes the spoils of war as his. Spoils may include lands, livestock, precious metals, people(captives) etc. This is continuously repeated in both secular and Bible history. When armies go to fight, they go with a lot of possession, foodstuff, jewels etc. The victor takes all the stuff of the defeated and adds them to HIS. Like if Sodom had won the war, they will take the goods(spoil) of the five kings. Spoils are usually so much that they may feed a nation like recorded in the days of Elisha and the "we do not well" lepers. Spoils are automatically for the victors. God had to specifically order the Israelites not to take spoils in some of their battles because the default thing is for the victor to possess the goods of the defeated. Look at another instance with David and the Amalekites before i come back to Genesis 14.
1Sa 30:1 And it came to pass, when David and his men were come to Ziklag on the third day, that the Amalekites had invaded the south, and Ziklag, and smitten Ziklag, and burned it with fire;
1Sa 30:2 And had taken the women captives, that were therein: they slew not any, either great or small, but carried them away, and went on their way.

Here, the Amalakites took David's people as captives.

1Sa 30:8 And David inquired at the LORD, saying, Shall I pursue after this troop? shall I overtake them? And he answered him, Pursue: for thou shalt surely overtake them, and without fail recover all.
David's primary motive for pursuing the Amalekites was to recover his people. As we read on, we will see that he eventually defeated the Amalekites and spoiled them.


1Sa 30:9 So David went, he and the six hundred men that were with him, and came to the brook Besor, where those that were left behind stayed.
1Sa 30:11 And they found an Egyptian in the field, and brought him to David, and gave him bread, and he did eat; and they made him drink water;
1Sa 30:12 And they gave him a piece of a cake of figs, and two clusters of raisins: and when he had eaten, his spirit came again to him: for he had eaten no bread, nor drunk any water, three days and three nights.

He went with 600 men. These 600 men were not eating fruits on the way. They had food and water with them that can last them for days, they probably had money to buy some things if needed. This is how armies operate till date. They go with a lot of provision and boot.y. This is what all armies and even travellers do. We are not talking about armed robbers travelling light, we are talking about warriors. It does not have to be written for anyone to know that. It is common experience and sense. Anyway, this account has it written, and they were able to feed the Egyptian and treat him till he was strong. Some tired 200 soldiers of David waited by the way. You can be sure they were not fasting for those period of days.

1Sa 30:16 And when he had brought him down, behold, they were spread abroad upon all the earth, eating and drinking, and dancing, because of all the great spoil that they had taken out of the land of the Philistines, and out of the land of Judah.
See that has they came to the Amalekites, they were partying. BECAUSE of the great spoil they had taken. They had enough to party with.

1Sa 30:20 And David took all the flocks and the herds, which they drove before those other cattle, and said, This is David's spoil.
Then we see David defeat them and take His spoils. His spoils were not just his family and friends that he came to recover. His spoils were so much that he sent packages to well wishers all over the country. His possession that he went to recover are different, but he also spoiled the Amalekites.

1Sa 30:24 For who will hearken unto you in this matter? but as his part is that goeth down to the battle, so shall his part be that tarrieth by the stuff: they shall part alike.
1Sa 30:26 And when David came to Ziklag, he sent of the spoil unto the elders of Judah, even to his friends, saying, Behold a present for you of the spoil of the enemies of the LORD;
He also sent to them which were in Bethel, and to them which were in south Ramoth, and to them which were in Jattir, And to them which were in Aroer, and to them which were in Siphmoth, and to them which were in Eshtemoa, And to them which were in Rachal, and to them which were in the cities of the Jerahmeelites, and to them which were in the cities of the Kenites, And to them which were in Hormah, and to them which were in Chor-ashan, and to them which were in Athach, And to them which were in Hebron, and to all the places where David himself and his men were wont to haunt.
That was how big his spoils were. Now come to Genesis 14.
Gen 14:1 And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of nations;
Gen 14:2 That these made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar.
Here we see a bigger battle that involved about 9nations. We are told that the four were very strong and had oppressed the others for about 12years.
Gen 14:4 Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled.
Gen 14:5 And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims in Ham, and the Emims in Shaveh Kiriathaim,

The four powerful kings defeated other nations. The account gets zoomed on Sodom because of Abraham's dealing with Sodom, Lot and co. We know how earlier on Lot had moved to Sodom, and it is very likely that Abraham and Lot's families were still in communication as with the neighbouring nations. Anyway, Abraham got to hear about the outcomes of the battles and how Lot was taken captive.
Gen 14:11 And they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their victuals, and went their way.
Gen 14:12 And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.
The victors tool Sodom's goods, Gomorrah's goods, Lot's goods, other nations goods. They also had their own goods. Their being victors had made them the owners of all the goods. Someone else has to defeat them to become the owner of all the goods. If Sodom and its confederates had won, they would have taken Chedorlaomer and his powerful friend's goods. But they lost and lost their goods and victuals.

Gen 14:15 And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus.
Gen 14:16 And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.
Abraham pursued them and recovered everything, his primary reason for going to battle being Lot. This is just a summary telling us that he went and got the victory. Other details are not stated like how many people died etc. It is after Abraham came back victorious that Melchi and the king of Sodom and whoever else came to meet Abraham. Abraham using his discretion did not touch anything that initially belonged to Sodom or to Lot. But he gave a tithe of every other spoil. This he did on personal reasons/discretion, perhaps from past relationship with Lot and his landlord, and also knowing their wickedness and sinfulness.
Gen 13:13 But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.

The king of Sodom knew he had no legal right again over anything, he came to negotiate with Abraham. If Abraham had said no, there is nothing he could do. He was in the beggar's position perhaps with Lot's relationship to Abraham as some leverage.
Gen 14:21 And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.

We see that Abraham's decision was personal as he did not speak for the men that went with him. If those ones demanded a percentage, it will be well within their spoils right.
Gen 14:24 Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.

debosky:

An addendum to Image123.

The issue of whether the belongings ‘belonged’ to Abram is a distraction to be honest - the bible was clear he didn’t consider them his own and rejected them. If you’re arguing that he could have laid claim to them, that is a different matter altogether, but ultimately immaterial in this case.

What is up for debate is whether you can consider spoils of war as the same as salary. My assertion is that you cannot for the following reasons:

1. Abram was not a professional soldier. It may be argued that a soldier’s job was to fight and receive income through spoils as salary. Clearly this wasn’t Abram’s ‘day job’ or ‘occupation’.

2. Abram’s express intention of going to war was not to acquire property for himself, but to rescue Lot and recover Lot’s properties - the recovery of the King of Sodom’s goods was merely incidental and was never Abram’s concern, which is why he returned them to the rightful owner.

3. Abram’s occupation was rearing livestock. He did not go to war with his livestock, but only with his 318 fighting men, Also note that he did not tithe of the men of his household (basically his slaves and his possessions).

4. If the bible recorded that Abram tithed of his livestock, silver and gold referred to in Genesis 13:1, then we may be able to say Abram treated spoils of war no different from his salary. However, without this evidence you are purely speculating.

5. There are numerous passages in the bible showing God does not automatically consider spoils as things to be considered property - in many instances, God says destroy completely (1 Samuel 15) or destroy some, give some to my temple (not tithe to my temple) and stay away from others (Joshua 7) Therefore from biblical examples, unless God deems spoils as belonging to an individual, you cannot make that assertion. Abram certainly didn't consider them as belonging to him.

The issue of who the belongings were is pivotal because you are saying that Abraham tithed of what did not belong to him. He(abraham) had just defeated about four dominant nations.What is salary? Salary is income, addition. The spoils were an addition, an income to Abraham's wealth. The goods and victuals of at least four armies were now his. These are four armies that had oppressed the territory for over a decade BTW. It is pure speculation to say that Abraham never tithed at any other time using his other possessions. You have to be omniscient to say this. the Bible doesn't record this either.

Image123:
The issue of who the belongings were is pivotal because you are saying that Abraham tithed of what did not belong to him. He(abraham) had just defeated about four dominant nations.What is salary? Salary is income, addition. The spoils were an addition, an income to Abraham's wealth. The goods and victuals of at least four armies were now his.

Abram said they didn't belong to him - are you saying Abram was wrong in saying so? Why should you assert ownership for Abram when he disavowed ownership so clearly?

Salary is what you get in exchange for your labour - not simply income, else we can say if you go and steal, it is also income/addition not so?

One further note, the account in Genesis does not say that Abram took the belongings of those kings, it says he recovered what had been taken by those Kings:

Abram recovered all the goods that had been taken, and he brought back his nephew Lot with his possessions and all the women and other captives.

These are four armies that had oppressed the territory for over a decade BTW. It is pure speculation to say that Abraham never tithed at any other time using his other possessions. You have to be omniscient to say this. the Bible doesn't record this either.

I am not speculating and my post is very clear - I said it is not recorded that Abram tithed of his other belongings to Melchisedek (as those belongings were not with him when he went to war - only the 318 men of his house), therefore it cannot be used as evidence for or against.

We have to stick to what is written, and it is written that Abram said the goods belonged to the King of Sodom and not to him. If Abram NEVER considered those goods as an addition/income to him, then they did not belong to him regardless of what you think is 'legal'.

Image123:
Na you oh, if not, i wouldn't have to go do your reading for you.
In war, there is what is known as rules of engagement. Basically, the victor/conqueror takes the spoils of war as his. Spoils may include lands, livestock, precious metals, people(captives) etc. This is continuously repeated in both secular and Bible history. When armies go to fight, they go with a lot of possession, foodstuff, jewels etc. The victor takes all the stuff of the defeated and adds them to HIS.

No - when it comes to God, He gives instructions as to what happens to spoils - they do not automatically become the victor's with God. Common practice is not equal to legality, neither is it justification to accept such as valid behaviour. In any case, we have the definitive record of what Abram did, so no need to waste time describing what you consider 'legal' it is irrelevant.

When Achan took the part of the spoils he wasn't supposed to, why didn't he assert they are 'legally his' through so called 'rules of engagement'?

God had to specifically order the Israelites not to take spoils in some of their battles because the default thing is for the victor to possess the goods of the defeated.

So if God's instruction is different from the default, are we to take the 'default' or look at what happens in a specific instance?

We see that Abraham's decision was personal as he did not speak for the men that went with him. If those ones demanded a percentage, it will be well within their spoils right.
Gen 14:24 Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.

Stop twisting and turning sir - whether as a personal decision or otherwise, Abram never asserted ownership, therefore they were never his. What you think could/could not have happened is irrelevant. Abram said - I will never take a thing - they are your belongings. Simple.

debosky:

Abram said they didn't belong to him - are you saying Abram was wrong in saying so? Why should you assert ownership for Abram when he disavowed ownership so clearly?

Salary is what you get in exchange for your labour - not simply income, else we can say if you go and steal, it is also income/addition not so?

One further note, the account in Genesis does not say that Abram took the belongings of those kings, it says he recovered what had been taken by those Kings:

Abram recovered all the goods that had been taken, and he brought back his nephew Lot with his possessions and all the women and other captives.

Abraham NEVER said that the spoils belonged to the king of Sodom, neither did he ever say that the spoils did not belong to him. Here is what he said.
Gen 14:23 That I will not take from a thread even to to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:

It is evident that the king of Sodom came to bargain for his goods which were taken away. It is not only his goods that were taken away, there were five kings. Abraham brought back more than just the goods of the king of Sodom.
Gen 14:16 And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.
Gen 14:11 And they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their victuals, and went their way.
It says Abraham brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and etc. It doesn't say that Abraham brought back ONLY Sodom's goods. It clearly wasn't only Sodom's goods. Lot's goods were there, and other goods must have been there. It was of the other goods that he gave a tenth. As for Sodom's goods, he would not touch a thread, not to mention ten percent.
Gen 14:23 That I will not take from a thread even to to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine.

Salary is income, it is as simple as that. If you go to steal, that is illegitimate income. It has come in, it has become yours albeit illegally. Abraham must have taken spoils of the kings he defeated, otherwise there will be no point or business of his in paying tithes. You don't pay tithes of other people's property. He did not take ten percent of Sodom's goods, no, he did not even take a shoe lace.

I am not speculating and my post is very clear - I said it is not recorded that Abram tithed of his other belongings to Melchisedek (as those belongings were not with him when he went to war - only the 318 men of his house), therefore it cannot be used as evidence for or against.

We have to stick to what is written, and it is written that Abram said the goods belonged to the King of Sodom and not to him. If Abram NEVER considered those goods as an addition/income to him, then they did not belong to him regardless of what you think is 'legal'.

Whether you said it or not, i maintain that "It is pure speculation to say that Abraham never tithed at any other time using his other possessions. You have to be omniscient to say this."
i'm addressing every reader as well as i have read something like that in the past.

debosky:
No - when it comes to God, He gives instructions as to what happens to spoils - they do not automatically become the victor's with God. Common practice is not equal to legality, neither is it justification to accept such as valid behaviour. In any case, we have the definitive record of what Abram did, so no need to waste time describing what you consider 'legal' it is irrelevant.

Actually, this is wrong. All the battles that God's people fought and won, they took the spoils. They had to be specifically instructed if they were not to take the spoils, and i remember only three instances in the Bible where they were told not to take the spoils. They were told ahead of the battle BTW. Taking the spoils was so legal and commonplace it was considered as some form of blessing.
Exo 3:22 But every woman shall borrow of her neighbor, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians.
Gen 49:27 Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf: in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil.
It was even a law. Here it is,
Deu 20:1 When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the LORD thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
Deu 20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

These are the general instructions given, this was what happened to spoils generally. This was their rules of engagement. It was only against the Amalekites and the seven countries that they were to possess their Canaanland(among which was jericho) that God specifically said not to take the spoils to themselves.

When Achan took the part of the spoils he wasn't supposed to, why didn't he assert they are 'legally his' through so called 'rules of engagement'?

Because he had been told previously not to take the spoils. they were not legally his, you can read up their rules of engagement in Deuteronomy 20.

So if God's instruction is different from the default, are we to take the 'default' or look at what happens in a specific instance?

In this case, God's instructions were not different from the default, else he would have specifically instructed. It was legal both societally, culturally and biblically for God's people to take the spoils in a battle.

Stop twisting and turning sir - whether as a personal decision or otherwise, Abram never asserted ownership, therefore they were never his. What you think could/could not have happened is irrelevant. Abram said - I will never take a thing - they are your belongings. Simple.

no, Abraham did not say that I will never take a thing - they are your belongings. He said " I will not take from a thread even to to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine" I will not take a thread nor a shoe-latchet nor anything that is yours. The goods of the four defeated kings were not Sodom's, the goods of Lot were not for the king of Sodom either. And it was so clear that it was a personal decision as he did not speak for the men that went with him.
Gen 14:24 Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.
The men of Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre, let them take their portion. If the men of Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre wanted to take a portion, they could, it was their spoil too but Abraham did not touch anything from Sodom's goods when the spoils were being divided. It was of his portion that he gave a tenth. This is so straight i'm surprised you don't get it.

^

Question for you @ Image123,

Are items recovered from war acceptable under the law as tithe?

Goshen360: ^

Question for you @ Image123,

Are items recovered from war acceptable under the law as tithe?

Why are you fixated on tithes under the law? Don't you see that we are addressing tithes before the law?

OLAADEGBU:

Why are you fixated on tithes under the law? Don't you see that we are addressing tithes before the law?

Exactly what I'm driving at!!! That is, you people, tithe teachers say tithe existed BEFORE the law and turn around to quote Malachi and its curse on Christians which is of the law plus Matthew 23:23 etc. Therefore, you people using lies and hypocrisy to handle the word of truth, telling people lies tithe was before the but teaching tithe according TO THE LAW.

Please, answer the question (with bible reference) if you can.

Goshen360: ^

Question for you @ Image123,

Are items recovered from war acceptable under the law as tithe?

[size=32pt]NO![/size]

Items obtained as spoils could not be tithed before the law, during the law and after the law.

Therefore, the example of Abraham tithing, in which he gave a tenth of war spoils to Melchizedek, is not an example for believers. It was a pagan practice, that was in keeping with the culture of that time and such are not recommended for Christians today.

Colosians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. 18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. 20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, 21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22 Which all are to perish with the using a[b]fter the commandments and doctrines of men[/b]? 23 Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

DrummaBoy:

Therefore, the example of Abraham tithing, in which he gave a tenth of war spoils to Melchizedek, is not an example for believers. It was a pagan practice, that was in keeping with the culture of that time and such are not recommended for Christians today.

I have seen a lot of heresies on Nairaland but for an acclaimed Christian just because he hates tithe to say this action of the patriach of faith to a great man (Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God) is a pagan practice is just the height of it.
This is an act that Paul explained in Hebrews 7:


1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.
6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.
7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.
9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

even showing the spiritual link that the Levites also paid tithes through Abraham, who had the promises, that Melchizedek received and Christ is after the same order of and Jesus Himself affirmed tithing. Now someone who knows 'better' than the bible has called this a pagan practice not for believers who are the children of Abraham as well!

In other words He has just said Abraham the father of faith carried out a pagan practice with the same priesthood Jesus is after the order of, and that priesthood accepted it!

Anyone who tithes and wants to go on arguing especially with this kind of statement and lose the Rhema of the message can go on.
This is a real smh.

@Alwaystrue
But this same Hebrews 7 you are attempting to misrepresent to support tithing goes on to anull the very act of tithing in verse 11 that you deliberately omitted, states in verse 12 that even Jesus is not eligible to collect tithes becos he is from the tribe of Judea and ends up describing tithing as a weak, useless and unprofitable law in verse 18.

No matter what spin you put to it, tithes for christians can NEVER be justified from scriptures except you twist it or quote it out of context like you have done.

@Alwaystrue

In the same breadth in which I described Abraham tithing as pagan, I said it was in keeping with their culture. Abram, came from a pagan background and they had their culture which was not necessarily sinful but could not be described as a religion of God.

Also, the Hebrew 7 scripture is not a justification for tithing today. It was simply showing the greatness of Melchizedek's priesthood - a priesthood that could be compared to Christ'. Remember 'Consider how great this Melchizedek was...' Hebrew 7 does not say Melchizedek is Christ.

I don't hate tithe or tithers. I hate duplicity: using scripture to say what the bible never said. Like Ihedinobi admitted on a recent thread he opened, U cannot look at all the arguments for and against tithing and still argue for tithing, except you choose to be adamantly prejudiced.

There is nowhere in all scriptures anyone paid a tithe on an income and the tithing that is practised today is fraud: that is the kindest way I can describe it.

I care not much for your views except it is backed by the word of God. What you said above has no scriptural backing and all you have done is bring in your own prejudice.

DrummaBoy: Like Ihedinobi admitted on a recent thread he opened, U cannot look at all the arguments for and against tithing and still argue for tithing, except you choose to be adamantly prejudiced.

Sorry, Ihedinobi did not say that. He said he considered both camps right in their own right and whatever anyone did was 'their own business'. See....you are reading meaning to what He did not say but why should I be surprised anyway. No scripture in the bible is against tithing.

DrummaBoy: ...Like Ihedinobi admitted on a recent thread he opened, U cannot look at all the arguments for and against tithing and still argue for tithing, except you choose to be adamantly prejudiced...

I said that?

Alwaystrue:

[b[size=15pt]]No scripture in the bible is against tithing.[/size][/b]

Even after showing you scriptures, you will never agree neither will you believe. You are tied to tithe and think it's how God blesses or "open the windows of heaven".

The scripture you requested is same Hebrews 7:

Levites HAVE THE COMMANDMENTS TO RECEIVE TITHE ACCORDING TO THE LAW.

When the same levites and their office was abolished, the "COMMANDMENTS TO RECEIVE TITHE ACCORDING TI THE LAW" that goes with the priesthood was also ABOLISHED.

Therefore, if you insist or argue the tithe remains, but the priesthood of Levi abolished, you have the right to show from scriptures WHERE GOD TRANSFERED THE COMMANDMENTS TO RECEIVE OR CONTINUE TO RECEIVE TITHE" to another tribe or to the ministry gifts or to the church.