₦airaland Forum

There are a few things I'd like to point out in earlier replies:

TV01:
NT Christians give, nothing more and nothing less. It is always according to one’s hearts desire and expected as a normal part of the Christian life, particularly as one grows in grace. Giving is actually a spiritual grace in direct contradistinction to tithing, which is a work, based on the law of a fleshly commandment. 2 Corinthians 8-9 expounds this beautifully.

To state that "Christians give, nothing more and nothing less" makes even the giving as meaningless as a blank paper. The Bible takes seriously any type of "giving" by God's people, whether in the OT or NT, and there are lots of texts showing that there is a divine significance to whatever passes from our hands and hearts for the Lord's cause.

Tithing preceded "the Law of a fleshly commandment", and if it is disavowed by those who read it only in connection with the Mosaic Law, then even the NT "giving" is not a spiritual grace at all but also a work-based theology cloaked in the lingo of grace.

TV01:
I maintain my position that there are no “Messengers” of God within (running) the local assembly. The NT nowhere requires funds for the running of a church organisation. In scripture, money only ever moved  in response to physical need of the brethren. Nothing else.

It is not a concern for people's needs that primarily forms the basis of our giving - it is rather an act of worship springing from the heart that is the foundation of every type of giving expressed in the Bible. The needs of people are only secondary and do not take precedence over the act of worship. So, money does not only ever moved in response to physical need of the brethren. If that is all we see in the matter of Christian "giving" in the NT, then even giving in itself would be an empty ritual, a meaningless necessity, and a beggarly practice.


Now this is interesting:

TayoD:
There is no change of the Priesthood in this case. The Priesthood we have today is fashioned after the order of Melchizedek. So everything we see in the Priesthood of Melchizedek must necessarily be present today.

TV01:

TayoD link=topic=272.msg445075#msg445075 date=1150998772:
There is no change of the Priesthood in this case. The Priesthood we have today is fashioned after the order of Melchizedek. So everything we see in the Priesthood of Melchizedek must necessarily be present today.

Even in Hebrews, more space is devoted to the shadow pattern of the Aaronic priesthood.  Both Aaron & Melchizedek’s priesthoods are symbolic. So we differ from your opening sentence, the High Priesthood of The Lord is not fashioned after Melchizedek’s.

So, in summary:

TayoD:
The Priesthood we have today is fashioned after the order of Melchizedek.

TV01:
So we differ from your opening sentence, the High Priesthood of The Lord is not fashioned after Melchizedek’s.

Well, what I can say is, Yes indeed, the High Priesthood of the Lord IS fashioned/patterned after the order of Melchisedec according to the explicit declaration of Scripture! See the following:

"As he saith also in another place, Thou [i.e., Jesus Christ] art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec." (Heb. 5:6).

"Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec." (Heb. 5:10).

"Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec." (Heb. 6:20).

"And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec." (Heb. 7:15-17).

"For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec" (Heb 7:21).

The moment you take your eyes off the Scriptures, a fine argument will weave into a denial of what God's Word says. It always helps to stay with the express declaration in a text than what we think God is saying. I imagine that the reason for this inspired repetition and emphasis half a dozen times is so we don't miss the point that the Priesthood of the Lord Jesus is indeed fashioned after the order of Melchisedec!

TV01:
Abraham gave Melchizedek “a tenth of the spoils” on one occassion. There is nothing to suggest this was a recurring devotional practice. No mention of it in the life of the heirs with him (Isaac & Jacob) of the promise.

Even before the Mosaic Law, the fact that the patriarchs thought of tithes ("a tenth" in whatever form should make us understand that it was an act of devotion to God indeed. In Abraham's case it was said: "And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all." (Gen. 14:20). The first part of that verse (and reading from vs. 19) shows that there was a clear devotional portion involved. Abraham didn't just give tithes to Melchizedek, for the former gave the tithes only after the latter had pronounced the blessings/praise to God.

Not only that, but Levi who was yet in the loins of Abraham paid tithes as well through the patriarch: "And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him." (Heb 7:9-10).

Again, in Gen. 28:22 we read of Jacob's vow unto the LORD: "And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee." Notice that Jacob was in communion with God when he mentioned the vow of tithes (even though we don't read afterwards that he fulfilled his vow). The point is that tithing was a recognized act of devotion to the LORD in the lives and experiences of the patriarchs even before the Mosaic Law was enacted. The Law incorporated what preceded it and could not have nullified the practice afterwards when it was set aside for the Melchizedek/Melchisedec priesthood in Christ. Tithing preceded the Law, and it was recognized as a significant part of the devotion of the patriarchs in communion with God.

I'm fascinated by the proposal of tying "blessing" to the act of tithing in Heb 7:7-8: "And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better. And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth." That is significant, for indeed Abraham received blessing when he gave tithes to the Priest of the Most High God (Heb 7:6 - "But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises".

The whole argument that supposes that tithing was only connected with the Law is weak, because before the Law the practice of tithing was well known among the patriarchs and only came to be incorporated into the Law of Moses for Israel. Thus, it could not afterwards weaken this practice after it was set aside; and that is why to quote Heb. 7:12 ("For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law" as proof that tithing is no longer relevant is to miss the essence of what preceded the Law. Not everything begins and ends with the Law, and it should not be so used to hold down a devotional practice that preceded it.

Hi Syrup,

Good to hear from you. As ever your posts demand serious thought. In fact, there has been a part of this I've been grappling with which your post speaks to.

I'll respond to the first part immediately and hopefully others as time allows.

You said
To state that "Christians give, nothing more and nothing less" makes even the giving as meaningless as a blank paper. The Bible takes seriously any type of "giving" by God's people, whether in the OT or NT, and there are lots of texts showing that there is a divine significance to whatever passes from our hands and hearts for the Lord's cause.

My response (2 Corinthians 8:5-6, appended below)
Christians give. First themselves to God, and then by the will and grace of God, they give themselves (and of their substance) to others. Giving is a devotional act motivated by love, first for God and then as an outworking of this, love for others. What would prompt you to call "simple giving" meaningless? The only question I see is one of degrees (and attitude chapter 9:6-7, appended below), not types? To assign types to giving is to ritualise it. Do I read you correctly as implying “giving is an end in itself”? I fail to see why this would be necessary. Neither was I be implying that God does not take it seriously, just how simple and uncluttered the outworking of faith and love are.

Acts 17:24  God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.

I sure you are familiar with the scriptures that make it very clear that God’s primary concern is how we treat the poor, the needy and the oppressed. Unchanging in its emphasis though both the OT & NT. (So numerous, I won’t append any verses here unless you insist).

You further said
It is not a concern for people's needs that primarily forms the basis of our giving - it is rather an act of worship springing from the heart that is the foundation of every type of giving expressed in the Bible. The needs of people are only secondary and do not take precedence over the act of worship.

My response
Giving to the needy is the act of worship. I don’t see a distinction. And forgive me if I’m reading you incorrectly, but the way you’ve termed it makes it sound like a ritual sacrifice?

You said
Tithing preceded "the Law of a fleshly commandment", and if it is disavowed by those who read it only in connection with the Mosaic Law, then even the NT "giving" is not a spiritual grace at all but also a work-based theology cloaked in the lingo of grace.

My response
Both the Sabbath and circumcision predate the Law and where to be everlasting covenants. They where also incorporated into Mosaic law. But the NT makes it clear that such rituals avail nothing (Colossians 2:16, Galatians 5:6 & 6:15) as all these former practises prefigure (and are fulfilled in) Christ and are types/shadows of spiritual realities. I think I amply showed (or should I say that 2 Corinthians 8/9 does), that giving is a grace.

2 Corinthians 8:1 Moreover, brethren, we make known to you the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia: 2 that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded in the riches of their liberality. 3 For I bear witness that according to their ability, yes, and beyond their ability, they were freely willing, 4 imploring us with much urgency that we would receive* the gift and the fellowship of the ministering to the saints. 5 And not only as we had hoped, but they first gave themselves to the Lord, and then to us by the will of God. 6 So we urged Titus, that as he had begun, so he would also complete this grace in you as well. 7 But as you abound in everything--in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in all diligence, and in your love for us--see that you abound in this grace also. 8 I speak not by commandment but I am testing the sincerity of your love

2 Corinthians 9:6 But this I say: He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work. 9 As it is written: "He has dispersed abroad, He has given to the poor; His righteousness endures forever."* 10 Now may* He who supplies seed to the sower, and bread for food, supply and multiply the seed you have sown and increase the fruits of your righteousness, 11 while you are enriched in everything for all liberality, which causes thanksgiving through us to God. 12 For the administration of this service not only supplies the needs of the saints, but also is abounding through many thanksgivings to God, 13 while, through the proof of this ministry, they glorify God for the obedience of your confession to the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal sharing with them and all men,

Please read this in conjunction with John 1:16-17

John 1:16 And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

I was hoping that at some stage we would move on to discussing the outworking of Christian giving and tithing in this age. But one thing apparent, is that some see the tithe as a spiritual thing transcending the covenants, and it such it stands alone and is still in force. I for one find that hard to marry with what I see as NT practise. Maybe it would help is someone could show some other precept/principle which is similarly applicable/treated.

God bless

Hi All,

I have a few question and I'm hoping that if we can come to an agreement/concensus, we can progress this discussion and narrow the area of focus.

Question 1 ~ Are we all agreed that recourse to the Mosaic law can in no way be used to justify tithing in this present age?

Question 2 ~ If we are agreed on 1. above, would it be fair to say we are discussing the current validity of tithing based on it's being mentioned in the scriptural references to Melchizedek's Priesthood?

Thanks.

God bless

Good to read about your concerns as well, TV01. Yet let me point out a few things that you probably failed to see:

TV01:
What would prompt you to call "simple giving" meaningless? The only question I see is one of degrees (and attitude chapter 9:6-7, appended below), not types? To assign types to giving is to ritualise it. Do I read you correctly as implying “giving is an end in itself”? I fail to see why this would be necessary. Neither was I be implying that God does not take it seriously, just how simple and uncluttered the outworking of faith and love are.

First, my allusion to the meaninglessness of "simple giving" is in reference to your earlier quote that "Christians give, nothing more and nothing less." That sounds like divesting NT giving of its divine significance and almost makes no meaning of a matter of great import. Glad to read also that you recognise that giving is an act of worship; so then the talk of giving as merely nothing more and nothing is less is to sound like even that act of worship is meaningless. It were better to have recognised the significance of NT giving in its connection to worship and not to have sounded like it was just an empty exercise.

Second, to now refer to giving in the NT in terms of "degrees" and "attitude" is to confirm my point as that there are different "types" of NT giving. In fact, in this connection of the various types and contexts of giving, 4get_me has done a very good job earlier in his outline on this (preview by clicking here and scroll down to the 600th entry), and I agree with him on that. This is not to "ritualise" NT giving; and if anything at all, to see "degrees" of giving in the NT is to ritualise a simple act of worship in this connection as well. As surely as there are 'degrees' of giving, there are 'types' as well; and if the latter is a tendency to ritualise it, then the former is equally guilty of ritualising it as well.

Giving is not an end in itself - and my reply earlier didn't suggest that at all. It is connected with our act of worship, and that was the tenor of my piece. The ingredients of NT giving you mentioned ("simple and uncluttered the outworking of faith and love" were no less present in the OT. In both dispensations, whatever passed out of the hands and hearts of believers mattered to God and were regarded by Him as part of their worship - and in both eras they were carried out in simplicity, with faith and love. So, there's no ritual in that act of worship unless for the sake of argument you want to read that into it.

TV01:
Both the Sabbath and circumcision predate the Law and where to be everlasting covenants. They where also incorporated into Mosaic law. But the NT makes it clear that such rituals avail nothing (Colossians 2:16, Galatians 5:6 & 6:15) as all these former practises prefigure (and are fulfilled in) Christ and are types/shadows of spiritual realities. I think I amply showed (or should I say that 2 Corinthians 8/9 does), that giving is a grace.

If you'd carefully read your response in those lines it would be apparent to you that you didn't take anything away from my point. Tithes preceded and was later incorporated into the Law. My point: you cannot therefore use the Law as the prism for scrutinizing and nullifying what preceded it especially in regards to tithes. God nowhere mentioned tithes to Abraham as a law handed down to him; the patriarch spontaneously gave tithes of all to the priest of the Most High God after the latter pronounced the blessings and ascribed praise to God. Abraham's response to Melchizedek's pronouncements is an act of devotion by faith and love - yes?

Sabbath and circumcision - I knew you'd bring those up, but the issue is that you don't ignore their significance even in the NT. Notice that the practise of both injunctions were outward and formal as stipulated by the Law; but the intrinsic value of either seems to be lost in your argument.

God gave the circumcision to Abraham as a sign of practical obedience in connection to His covenant with him and his generation (Gen. 17:11-14). Later on it was incorporated into the Law (Lev. 12:3) and its meaning was hinted at in Deut. 10:16 - "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked." So, we see that an uncircumcised heart is a pointer to a a rebellious/stiffnecked heart.

Yet, even in the Law, God made sure that circumcision was not an end in itself, for it pointed to something that was much more than the mere outward practise which God Himself would perform in the hearts of believers: "And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live." (Deut. 30:6). Before even the New Covenant was ratified, every student of the OT scriptures knew that circumcision had a spiritual significance, and this is borne out in Rom. 2:28-29 - "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

Now, if the import of circumcision was properly one that was "of the heart, in the spirit" even under the Old Covenant, is that not the very thing that God accomplished in the NT? For in Col 2:11 we read - "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ." The question is: does circumcision hold true in the NC? I offer that it actually does - in its proper context and significance as long as the meaning is not lost. The only difference is that NT circumcision is "made without hands" and points to an inward operation - that of the heart and in the spirit. In any case, circumcision has its place in the NT - the outward practice avails nothing for those who seek it as a means to please God, while the NT significance qualifies what has been said in the OT (Deut. 10:16 & 30:6) as well as the NT (Rom. 2:28-29).

Pretty much the same thing can be advanced for the NT view of the Sabbath, which in summary is captured in Heb 4:4, 10 - "For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. . . For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his."

TV01:
I was hoping that at some stage we would move on to discussing the outworking of Christian giving and tithing in this age. But one thing apparent, is that some see the tithe as a spiritual thing transcending the covenants, and it such it stands alone and is still in force. I for one find that hard to marry with what I see as NT practise. Maybe it would help is someone could show some other precept/principle which is similarly applicable/treated.

Just like I said in one of my posts in this thread, you cannot legislate about the issue of tithes with an OT text where it is not expressly forbidden in the NT. At least, we are clear in the NT concerning the issue of the Sabbath and circumcision - they are not held to be outward practices today, but that does not mean that their significance should be ignored. Yet, you cannot treat tithing in just the same manner, for the simple reason that even in the texts you offered earlier (Col. 2:16; Gal. 5:6 & 6:15) you will not find it stated that "tithing availeth nothing". I offer that if God wanted to do away with tithes, then we would have seen that clearly stated, or at least alluded to in the NT. So, my question is: Where in the NT is tithing abrogated?

Regards.

Hi Syrup,

Greetings. Apologies, I was hoping to respond earlier, as ever it was a question of finding the time. Believe me, I missed all the footie on Monday and Tuesday.

I’ll start at the end.
Where in the NT is tithing abrogated?
Nowhere specifically. Why? Because nowhere in the OT is tithing given as a perpetual ordinance.

So let’s move on to some of your other points.

You wrote
First, my allusion to the meaninglessness of "simple giving" is in reference to your earlier quote that "Christians give, nothing more and nothing less." That sounds like divesting NT giving of its divine significance and almost makes no meaning of a matter of great import. Glad to read also that you recognise that giving is an act of worship; so then the talk of giving as merely nothing more and nothing is less is to sound like even that act of worship is meaningless. It were better to have recognised the significance of NT giving in its connection to worship and not to have sounded like it was just an empty exercise.

My response
I have repeatedly stated that Christians (simply) give. No more and no less. That is to emphasis the simplicity of it, not to deny it’s the response to a need, motivated by love and an act of worship.

You wrote
Second, to now refer to giving in the NT in terms of "degrees" and "attitude" is to confirm my point as that there are different "types" of NT giving. In fact, in this connection of the various types and contexts of giving, 4get_me has done a very good job earlier in his outline on this (preview by clicking here and scroll down to the 600th entry), and I agree with him on that. This is not to "ritualise" NT giving; and if anything at all, to see "degrees" of giving in the NT is to ritualise a simple act of worship in this connection as well. As surely as there are 'degrees' of giving, there are 'types' as well; and if the latter is a tendency to ritualise it, then the former is equally guilty of ritualising it as well.

My response
Degrees => Marked by the sacrifice required
Attitude => Marked by cheerfulness & liberality
Both referenced previously and clearly outlined in 2 Corinthians 8 & 9.

So, in stating my point regards degrees of and attitude too giving, I was not by design or default confirming your point about “types”. Personally, the closest I come to “types” is “reasons”.  To grade or categorise giving and then ascribe benefits to the various types is to my mind ritualising. I hope you see my distinction, although I appreciate you may not share it.

For the sake of completeness I re-visited 4get-Me’ “types of giving” outline. 
I don’t see how give/share/communicate/minister/sacrifice and other such terms can be read to imply categorisation. Only my simple reading,  but it seemed to be a play on nuance. In the “Benevolence to Poorer Folk” category,4get_me goes on to state “We are to give to everyone who has need, both collectively or individually”, which effectively remerges his previously made “type” distinctions.

In the forth category “tithes & Special Offerings” He opens by declaring them “personal”. How? Surely something that you insist is a non-negotiable divinely mandated imperative is not personal. If the law of circumcision had not been abrogated, would we consider this a personal matter? While the law was in force, was it? The Lord Himself born under the law, subjected himself to this ordinance.

After claiming that some term tithe “evil” or are “averse” to it, 4get_me goes on to say that he “takes it upon himself”. Anyone is free to do this, as Jacob also did. Which of course begs the question “Why did Jacob take a vow to tithe, if it was already a divine ordinance?

This may also be a good point to re-visit my reason for posting to this thread. Voluntarily deciding to give a tithe (10%), or a portion (any percentage) and refer to it as tithe, I have no issue with and is not my point of entry into this discussion. The issue under discussion is whether a tithe (10%) is divinely mandated?

Reading 1 Corinthians 16 clearly shows that the referred to collection was a collective response (Corinth) to a particular corporate need (Jerusalem). If an individual or assembly wish to adopt this practice, fine, who is to quibble?  4get_Me goes on to say “he does so at designated times, based on how God has prospered him”. That is not tithing as under discussion by any stretch of the imagination. And at best it’s more in the style of Jacob than Abraham.


Which brings me to this;

You wrote
If you'd carefully read your response in those lines it would be apparent to you that you didn't take anything away from my point. Tithes preceded and was later incorporated into the Law. My point: you cannot therefore use the Law as the prism for scrutinizing and nullifying what preceded it especially in regards to tithes. God nowhere mentioned tithes to Abraham as a law handed down to him; the patriarch spontaneously gave tithes of all to the priest of the Most High God after the latter pronounced the blessings and ascribed praise to God. Abraham's response to Melchizedek's pronouncements is an act of devotion by faith and love - yes?

Point taken about circumcision and the Sabbath. Divinely mandated ordinances, later incorporated into the law. Fulfilled in Christ and dispensed with by grace. Nothing of any real essence that I disagree with here.

So, as for tithing, you make the point for me by stating “God nowhere mentioned tithes to Abraham as a law handed down to him”. Simply put, nothing enacted means nothing to abrogate. doesn't that bring us full circle?

Briefly revisiting the point about priesthood, shadows, types and the like. Suffice to say, my point was that the High Priesthood of the Lord is akin to Melchizedek’s, in it’s being eternal. That I believe is the Bibles emphasis, along with distinguishing the superiority of this type over the Aaronic type. Attempting to read Abrahams one time act of thanksgiving/worship of tithing the spoils of victory (which was customary at the time), as a divine ordinance and incorporate it as an essential part of the Melchizedek type (albeit incumbent upon believers) is to me going beyond what is written. The significance of that act was to denote the superiority of Melchizedek’s priesthood over the Levitical one.

God bless

Hi there again, TV01.

I'll try to make this simple. It seems to me that you've read 4get_me out of context as you've done on several issues about my rejoinder.

#1. The essence of Christian giving.
In both the OT and NT, the giving of God's people is quite "simple" (if that's what you hold onto), and to see it any other way is to complicate issues. Look again at the ingredients you listed:

simplicity

response to a need

motivated by love

an act of worship.

Which type of "giving" did not have all of these things - the OT or the NT?

That's why my response stands as is: my allusion to the meaninglessness of "simple giving" is in reference to your earlier quote that "Christians give, nothing more and nothing less." You make it sound like the "simplicity" was absent in the OT. What you're emphasising and/or denying applies to either covenants, and it's of little consequence to see "simplicity" only in the NT without realising that the same thing applied in the OT. Now let me state it again: It is not a concern for people's needs that primarily forms the basis of our giving - it is rather an act of worship springing from the heart that is the foundation of every type of giving expressed in the Bible. The needs of people are only secondary and do not take precedence over the act of worship. If I got it wrong here, then show me from the Bible; there may be a few things that could be of mutual benefit to either of us.

#2. Degrees, Attitudes and Types in Giving
I didn't think you were actually agreeing with me about "types" of giving; yet, I'd offered that the "degree" you ascribed to giving falls in the same category of ritualizing it as you'd presumed with "types" of giving. If as you said, "Christians (simply) give. No more and no less", then what's the "degree" about the "simplicity" of the giving you're emphasizing? The very talk of "sacrifice" (which you alluded to as explaining the "degree" of giving) clearly brings about the various types of giving delineated in the NT among Christians. One should not need to see them as a "ritual" unless such a person is forcing that idea into the NT just because there are "types" of giving delineated there. So, I'd say that you shouldn't even have seen a "degree" of giving in the first place if you have a problem recognizing the "types" of giving outlined there.

#3. NT Types of Giving as Outlined in 4get_me's Post
When you click and take another look at 4get_me's helpful outline on the various types of giving in the NT, you'll find the essential thing is that he made reference to what was stated in the Bible and furnished his arguments with scripture text. You were more concerned about his personal views than what he pointed out from the Bible, which is a bit surprising to me. Question is: how do you fault his piece in reference to what he pointed out from the Scriptures? For example, in distinguishing one "type" of giving from another, would you say that "alms" [Gk. eleēmosunē - Matt. 6:3-4] is the very same thing as the Worship Collections/Offerings in I Cor. 16:2?

What 4get_me said is of great import to me, and that's why I agreed with him as far as his points were lucid and Scripturally valid. That he offered a "personal" touch to the issue of tithing in his post is a beautiful consistency you shouldn't have missed, because tithing or even other types of giving is not an issue one forces on others. Even 2 Cor. 9:7 does not enforce "giving" on anyone, and one can't fail to see the same touch of a personal commitment in what the apostle there said: "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver."

If you don't agree with 4get_me, that's quite another thing - but, at least, I expected you would have pointed out from the Bible itself how he got it mixed up. I didn't see that in your response, so I don't know what to make of your concern thereto.

#4 Style of Jacob Than Abraham
This is a mute point, but what exactly do you mean by this in your statement: "And at best it’s more in the style of Jacob than Abraham." If you're inferring that Abraham's heart-felt response to offer tithes was any different from Jacob's healt felt response to do the same, you've got a load of issues to resolve in the Genesis account. Forgive me if I read you wrong, but I don't see any point in such remarks.

#5 Full Circle With Tithe
Your Quote: Simply put, nothing enacted means nothing to abrogate. doesn't that bring us full circle?

I don't understand you. One minute you were up in arms against tithes, the next you're seeming to imply that it's not to be abrogated?? I don't think you come full circle with your statements.

#6 The Lord's Priesthood and Melchisedec
Now you have me more quizzed than ever. I'd have appreciated a simple: "Oh, yes - the High Priesthood of The Lord is fashioned after Melchizedek’s", and that would have said it all. But your recent statement even yet contradicts what you stated earlier after disagreeing with TayoD's. Compare:

TV01:
So we differ from your opening sentence, the High Priesthood of The Lord is not fashioned after Melchizedek’s.

. . . and just recently -

Suffice to say, my point was that the High Priesthood of the Lord is akin to Melchizedek’s, in it’s being eternal.

That being so, even if Abraham responded by faith in that act of offering tithes of all to Melchizedek without a divine ordinance, are we not to follow in his steps and emulate his example? I don't remember having used Abraham's act of offering tithes as a divine ordinance for NT believers in the matter of tithes, have I? My position has been: you cannot legislate about the issue of tithes with an OT text where it is not expressly forbidden in the NT. Using the Law of Moses as the rule for judging tithes in the NT misses the point.

Hi Syrup,

I trust all is well.

When contributing, I think it important not to drag the conversation away from the issue in question or allow it to morph into a totally different discussion. I realise that sometimes that cannot be helped and may even be essential for a more robust discussion and deeper understanding. It's also worth noting that individual participation can vary a great deal in regards to frequency, consistency, impact and other ways, most especially on long threads such as this one.

With that in mind, allow me to say a few things.

~ Tithing
The question at the heart of this thread being “Is it mandatory for NT Christians to tithe”? The discussion has raised many questions and touched on many aspects of the faith.

The arguments for the continuation of the practice has so far been based on two things
1. The codification of tithing within the Mosaic Law
2. Abraham’s tithe to Melchizedek

To me, point 1 above is a simple Law vs. Grace issue. The basis for point 2 is that As the High Priesthood of Jesus is fashioned after that of Melchizedek, our worship response should be fashioned after Abrahams.

~ Priesthood
When you joined/rejoined (although I realise you may have been an interested observer up until that point) the thread, TayoD had postulated point 2 as the basis for continuing the practice. This of course brought the priesthood in to focus.

TayoD said this – (664)
"There is no change of the Priesthood in this case.  The Priesthood we have today is fashioned after the order of Melchizedek.  So everything we see in the Priesthood of Melchizedek must necessarily be present today.

And I said this – (663)
The Lords Priesthood is “after the order of Melchizedek”  => Eternal.

And this – (665)
The main thrust of the symbolism of Melchizedek’s priesthood is it’s eternal nature. In almost all the references to Melchizedek’s priesthood, the qualifier is “Forever” speaking of the eternal (unchanging) nature, and/or “after the order of”, denoting it as a type, in the same way that the Aaronic priesthood was also a type.

So while I wholeheartedly agree that The High Priesthood of The Lord is patterned/based/fashioned/akin/in the likeness of Melchizedek’s, I don’t agree with TayoD’s point, which to my reading is claiming it to be identical, and in all ways the same, to the extent that a believers worship response must be identical to Abrahams to be valid. (Which under-girds point 2 of the argument for).

Our difference was a question of exactitude. I am in no way denying the typology or symbolism of Melchizedek’s priesthood.

Example ~ Man is made in the Similitude of God. That does not make us in all respects the same. Jesus is “in the form of God”, “the brightness of His glory”, “the express image of His Person” and “in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily”. An altogether different kind of likeness wouldn’t you agree?

Now, is tithing a bad practice? Not of itself, no. The basis is what we are discussing here. Voluntarily deciding to levy, contribute or tithe, be that collectively or individually is personal. However, preaching it as divinely mandated, robbing God and engendering a curse if one fails to do it religiously, is what I disagree with.

Neither do I subscribe to the arrogation of the “storehouse principle” or the introduction of the “set-man concept” into NT Christianity as a way to enforce what I believe to be a thoroughly unscriptural practice.

So I am not legislating against it, merely advancing my views as to the proper basis for it. 

As for “reasons to” as opposed to “types of” in regards to giving, viewed neutrally, it’s a matter of individual liberty. So re-reading that, but not as an argument for enforced tithing, means it’s a mute point.

Maybe we’ve been discussing at slightly odd-purposes, or with different qualifiers.
Yours being “tithing is allowed” mine being “tithing is not divinely mandated”, being the reason for my saying “nothing enacted means nothing to abrogate” in response to your saying “God nowhere mentioned tithes to Abraham as a law handed down to him”

Shall we at least clarify this before we proceed? Anyway, you know I enjoy and am always edified by your posts.

God bless

Hi TV01,

I enjoyed your last reply, believe me, and need hardly comment on them, except for a few things.

Point noted and appreciated as regards your opening paragraph beginning with "When contributing. . ." One can hardly avoid ancillary matters in any subject; but I'll try and maintain your erudite observation thereto in future posts.

“Is it mandatory for NT Christians to tithe”? My clear answer to that is "NO!", as long as the word there is "mandatory". Like I've tried to maintain, one cannot legislate against any type of giving, for that is "personal" between God and the giver in the NT. I'm glad to note you recognized that 'personal' aspect to it (unless I misread you):

TV01:
Now, is tithing a bad practice? Not of itself, no. The basis is what we are discussing here. Voluntarily deciding to levy, contribute or tithe, be that collectively or individually is personal. However, preaching it as divinely mandated, robbing God and engendering a curse if one fails to do it religiously, is what I disagree with.

So there - that's why I found 4get_me's entry quite helpful as earlier referred in pointing out that he saw it as "personal" rather than mandatory. And I also disagree with the preaching of any type of giving as "mandatory" - along with the attendant curse, blah-blah. To me, I don't see God cursing His children about a matter that is personally theirs.

TV01:
Example ~ Man is made in the Similitude of God. That does not make us in all respects the same. Jesus is “in the form of God”, “the brightness of His glory”, “the express image of His Person” and “in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily”. An altogether different kind of likeness wouldn’t you agree?

I'm not sure what you mean by that, so can't agree or disagree. Suffice to say that whatever those clauses, it doesn't make Jesus any less "God" - past, present, future. We can agree on that - yes?

TV01:
Maybe we’ve been discussing at slightly odd-purposes, or with different qualifiers.
Yours being “tithing is allowed” mine being “tithing is not divinely mandated”, being the reason for my saying “nothing enacted means nothing to abrogate” in response to your saying “God nowhere mentioned tithes to Abraham as a law handed down to him”

Okay - good point. 'Tithing is allowed' but not 'divinely mandated'. So, it's really a bit quizzical that people would like to legislate against it. Another way of looking at it is: "Tithing is allowed and encouraged, but not enforced or obligatory" in just the same way that no type of giving in the NT is enforced or obligatory.


Moving on to the Melchizedek issue:

TV01:
So while I wholeheartedly agree that The High Priesthood of The Lord is patterned/based/fashioned/akin/in the likeness of Melchizedek’s, I don’t agree with TayoD’s point, which to my reading is claiming it to be identical, and in all ways the same, to the extent that a believers worship response must be identical to Abrahams to be valid. (Which under-girds point 2 of the argument for).

That the priesthood of Jesus is after the order of Melchisedec is clearly identical; but I'm not sure it's in all ways the same to the extent that the Christian's worship must be identical to Abraham to be valid. Yes, indeed we could imitate the faith of Abraham - as the NT exhorts us; but even then, there are a few things that the patriarch could not have possibly entered into as being on the same basis as NT worship. Let me attempt to clarify this:

Melchizedek was the priest of the Most High God; but even so he was not operating the New and everlasting Covenant ratified by the Blood of Christ. The one thing (among several others) that Melchizedek could not do and could not have done in his high priestly office is to provide a way into the holy of holies (or the holiest of all) - for that alone waited for Christ to accomplish:

Heb 9:7-8  'But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing. . .

Heb 9:11-12 'But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.'

So, while Melchizedek was the priest of the Most High God in his day, isn't it remarkable that Abraham had direct access to God without having to gain that access through Melchzedek every time he communed with the LORD (apart from that one time we read of Melchizedek having met him in Genesis 14)? In fact, that is the only chapter in the entire OT where this priest is mentioned, and the other patriarchs had direct access to God up until the time of the Levitical priesthood for Israel. Point is that, no believer today has direct access to God as did Abraham; and every believer today has access to God through the high priesthood of Jesus alone:

Rom. 5:2  - By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Eph. 2:18 - For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

Eph. 3:12 - In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

Summary:
While there are some very interesting points in TayoD's post on this issue about Melchizedek, I'm not so sure as yet that everything in Melchizedek's priesthood has to stereotypically dictate that of Christ's priesthood. In the first place, we know very little about Melchizedek's priesthood and how it operated. All we can infer is that Christ's priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek's, but even more - it is superior in as much as Melchizedek's could not have perfected the conscience of the worshipper and could not lead such worshippers to into the most holy/holy of holies. Yes, we can imitate the faith of Abraham, but I'm not sure that the patriarch experienced NT worship in its rich essence as the Spirit conveys to us today.

In all, in as much as Abraham gave tithes (infact, the Bible says Levi, who was yet in his loins, "paid" tithes in Abraham - Heb. 7:9) of all, we could (not "must" imitate his faith thereto and enjoy the amazing grace of giving/paying tithes. I don't read in Scripture that tithes were encodified/incorporated into the Melchizedek priesthood; that's why I hitherto had not commented in substance on TayoD's post. But I trust that he meant well because he had earlier informed that most of what he posted were taken from Chris Okotie's book.

I enjoyed the challenges  in yours, TV01; and many blessings.

Syrup, TV01,

May I say that I have been immensely blessed by the knowledge and insights you two have brought to this discussion.  I have passively followed your discussions before now because I have been extremely busy.  However, I feel I need to respond to a common 'gray area' with respect to the codification of tithes into the New Testament, which seems open to so many interpretations.   

As a background, permit me to bring to your attention something which I believe you all know, and that is the fact that the Old Testament is a shadow and an adumbration of the New.  Every thing we see in the Old Testament (which is a shadow), must have it's reality in the New Testament.  With this in mind, the functions which the Priests carried out in the Old Testament (that is offering of gifts and sacrifices) must necessarily have its fulfillment in the New Testament.

We see a progressive revelation of the job of the Priest when Melchizedek stepped into the scene.  We see him receiving a 'tithe' of all the increase which Abram had.  The blood sacrifice was introduced in the levitical priesthood without the neglect of the tithe.  Both these Priesthood were shadows of the reality - the High priesthood of Jesus Christ which the Bible says is fashioned after the order of Melchizedek.

At this point, I feel I need to clarify TV01's concern about the fact that the emphasis in the new Testament is on the eternal nature of both priesthood (Jesus' and melchizedek's).  Please note that when the Bible talks about the "eternal"  aspect of both Priests, it is a reference to the nature of the priests (in Hebrews, the Bible talks about an endless life).  This has nothing to do with the functions of the Priests.

Jesus being a priest, must  necessarily offer 'gifts' and 'sacifices'.  The sacrifice was offered once and for all with, by and through His blood and this is fore-shadowed in the Old Testament by the blood of bulls and rams.  If the gift offered in the Old Testament was the tithe (and please note that this is consistent in both the levitical and melchizedek's priesthood), why would it be any diferent with the Priesthood of Jesus?

Now there are at least a few things you will need to clarify if you maintain a stand that the tithe is not the 'gift' that should be offered in the New Testament.

1.  The New Testament must reveal what the tithe foreshadows. 
2.  What exactly is the gift that Jesus offers today (and please, this is not to minimise the efficacy of His blood.  The sacrifice and the gifts are two different things altogether).
3.  If we see only the gift offered with melchizedek, and both gift and sacrifice offered in Levi, then why should Jesus offer only the blood and neglect the tithe which is the first revelation of the Priestly duties?  Logic and revelation dictates otherwise.

The above list is not by any means exhaustive, but I will like to get a feedback on them.

My best regards.

TayoD,

You've raised some very important points that would keep me busy for a while, as I have to very carefully consider them in light of important verses that come to mind as I read yours. These are especially in connection to the nature and function of the priests, the sacrifice and gifts offered by the Lord Jesus Christ, and the pictures of these issues in both dispensations of the OC and NC. I'll post my thoughts about them in due course, and thanks for your observations.

Everything we have belongs to God. The sons of Christ are free - only slaves pay taxes. God wants our talents and our skills and above all our hearts.

I always find it funny that Christians will tell you that based on Abraham's paying tithes out of Lot's and the other men's good, then this means that the tithe came before the Law and is legitimate for Christians.

Yet almost none of the same will say that about Dietary laws, even though Noah knowing what were clean and unclean animals were to take on the boat, clearly shows that the Dietary laws were on the books before the law came.

It is always just the Cash for preachers that people want to say still counts for Christians.

Drusilla,

I am not a Preacher and I find the need to pay tithe in the New Testament. Concerning the dietary laws, I will advice you go through the Gospels and find out what Jesus had to say about it. Till then, please try to provide biblical refernces to back up your claims. It appears your emotions have run ahead of you in this case.

Cheers.

TayoD:
Drusilla,

I am not a Preacher and I find the need to pay tithe in the New Testament. Concerning the dietary laws, I will advice you go through the Gospels and find out what Jesus had to say about it. Till then, please try to provide biblical refernces to back up your claims. It appears your emotions have run ahead of you in this case.

Cheers.

TayoD, are you seriously suggesting that there are NO dietary laws in the bible. Ok. . .I will provide a scripture here: Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. - Leviticus 19:19.

So, we don't follow this scripture now TayoD. So, why is it that we must tithe (as directed in the old testament) but we can wear clothing made of linen and wool? The new testament does not say that we should tithe, in fact, according to the new testament, the priesthood of old has been abolished. We no longer need priests as we can directly present our prayers to God. (If you need scripture backing of this, let me know).

Many times I see people attempt to say that pastors today are analagous to the priests of old. This demonstrates ignorance of many things, 1) What priests are and their role in society, 2) What pastors are and their role 3) What the bible says about the priesthood's influence in our lives after the death and resurrection of Jesus christ.

allonym:
Many times I see people attempt to say that pastors today are analagous to the priests of old. This demonstrates ignorance of many things, 1) What priests are and their role in society, 2) What pastors are and their role 3) What the bible says about the priesthood's influence in our lives after the death and resurrection of Jesus christ.

Could you explicate and/or delineate these issues a bit more from the Bible? It'd be much appreciated.

Hi Albion,

Hear, hear, Thanks.

Hi Drusilla,

Hope all is well with you. Say on.

Hi TayoD,

When one views the outworking of a "divinely mandated" tithe as detracting from the grace of our Lord and sullying the Glory of God, not to mention the bondage and suffering being caused to untold numbers of God fearing people, anyone with an ounce of reverence and compassion would be emotional. At the very least lets admit the issue is emotive. I think for the most part contributors have been judicious in their choice of words and at the same time accomodating of the "literary style" of others. Please go easy on Dru'.  Kindest regards.

Hi Allonym,

Thank you. Please, if you have time and the inclination, kindly show that not only are "Pastors" not like OT Priests, neither are they like the Apostle Paul (or Moses or David, etc, etc, ), or any of the other figures that some use to validate their claim to what is a totally man made mandate.

God bless us all.

@Drusilla,

I never intend to be harsh on you, and I am very sorry if my words were taken to be cruel.  Please accept my heart-felt apologies.

@alloynm

TayoD, are you seriously suggesting that there are NO dietary laws in the bible.  Ok. . .I will provide a scripture here:  Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. - Leviticus 19:19.
So, we don't follow this scripture now TayoD.  So, why is it that we must tithe (as directed in the old testament) but we can wear clothing made of linen and wool?  The new testament does not say that we should tithe, in fact, according to the new testament, the priesthood of old has been abolished.  We no longer need priests as we can directly present our prayers to God.  (If you need scripture backing of this, let me know).
Many times I see people attempt to say that pastors today are analagous to the priests of old.  This demonstrates ignorance of many things, 1) What priests are and their role in society, 2) What pastors are and their role  3) What the bible says about the priesthood's influence in our lives after the death and resurrection of Jesus christ.

I never suggested that there are no dietary laws in the Bible.  However, I have pointed out that everything we see in the O.T. is a shadow of what we have in the N.T.  For instance, Paul talking about compensation for men of God in the New Testamnet refered to a law written down in the Old Testament.  See 1 Corinthians 9: 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? 10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?.  Likewise, the issue of designating some foods clean and others unclean, and not mixing up wool and linen is just to point us to a reality in the New Testament, as exemplified by Paul's writings in 2 Corinthians 6: 14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? 16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.[/color][color=#990000][/color] If you read Romans 14, Paul said he is persuaded of the Lord that no food is unclean in itself, and he ended up saying the Kingdom of God is not about meat or drink, but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.

In addition to all these, please read what Jesus had to say in [color=#990000]Mark 7: 18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? 20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

Your response to the tithing issue suggests you have not read my arguments about tithing before now.  I have stated according to the Book of hebrews that a Priest has two functions: 1. To offer Gifts, and 2. to ofer sacrifices.  We see Melchizedek offer Gifts in the form of the tithe, and we see the Levitical priests offer gifts and sacrifices as well.  Jesus, being a Priest must necessarily offer gifts and sacrifices as well.  If the sacrifice He offered is His blood, which He did once and for all, what is the gift that He now offers?  If the gifts we see before and during the law (the tithe) were a tenth of an increase, why would it be different with the High Priesthood of our Lord today which the Bible says is after the order of Melchizedek?  I have plainly stated my positions based on scripture, and i'm yet to get a satisfying answer from anyone.  If you have any, please be kind to share it with me.

Maybe it's your experience, but I have never known anyone today comparing Pastors to the Priests in the Old Testament.  I hope you will explain this further.

@TV01,

Hi TayoD, When one views the outworking of a "divinely mandated" tithe as detracting from the grace of our Lord and sullying the Glory of God, not to mention the bondage and suffering being caused to untold numbers of God fearing people, anyone with an ounce of reverence and compassion would be emotional. At the very least lets admit the issue is emotive. I think for the most part contributors have been judicious in their choice of words and at the same time accomodating of the "literary style" of others. Please go easy on Dru'.  Kindest regards.

I have been immensely blessed by your scholarship on this forum.  However, I must say that I am a little dissapointed by the argument you put forth above.  How does tithing take away from the grace and glory of God?  Mind you, God only deals with every man on the medium of grace.  Even Abraham, paid his tithe through grace and I believe the same applies to the Believer today.  Your statement also suggests that it is always convenient to serve God, and anything that brings some suffering and sacrifice can't be of God.  I believe you know better than this, and you probably didn't weigh the full import of your statement when you wrote it.  So, I will not labour to refute that argument unless you insist that you are absolutely right.
As to Dru, I have mentioned that I didn't mean to offend her and I thank you for bringing my attention to that piece.  Thanks Bro.

TayoD:
Your response to the tithing issue suggests you have not read my arguments about tithing before now. I have stated according to the Book of hebrews that a Priest has two functions: 1. To offer Gifts, and 2. to ofer sacrifices. We see Melchizedek offer Gifts in the form of the tithe, and we see the Levitical priests offer gifts and sacrifices as well. Jesus, being a Priest must necessarily offer gifts and sacrifices as well. If the sacrifice He offered is His blood, which He did once and for all, what is the gift that He now offers? If the gifts we see before and during the law (the tithe) were a tenth of an increase, why would it be different with the High Priesthood of our Lord today which the Bible says is after the order of Melchizedek? I have plainly stated my positions based on scripture, and i'm yet to get a satisfying answer from anyone. If you have any, please be kind to share it with me.

Maybe it's your experience, but I have never known anyone today comparing Pastors to the Priests in the Old Testament. I hope you will explain this further.

Well, this alone illustrates an issue with your posts. On the one hand, you indicate that there is a currently a High Priesthood. Secondly, you say that the High Priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek. Thirdly, you point out that Melchizedek gave tithes and offerings unto God. So, the immediate implication of your words, whether this is what your meant or not, is that the High Priesthood is in the business of presenting BOTH tithes and offerings unto the Lord.

Now, what is the point of your making all of those statements? After all, if none of us humans are a part of this High Priesthood, then it is easy to demonstrate that tithing is not a required (albeit so far an implicit rather than explicit) requirement of our service to the Lord.

So, assuming that none of us are members of this High Prieshood (including our pastors), your post currently does not advocate the required paying of tithes.

This will fall in line with your assertation that you never meant that pastors of today were similar to pastors of the OT. Since you have already attempted to form a strong linkage between the High Prieshood and OT priesthood, this would also imply that you are saying that pastors of today are not of that high priesthood.
-----------------------------------------------------

This is the problem. One or more of those conclusions from your statement, I'm sure you disagree with. However, those are the conclusions I draw from what you've posted, and I'm sure, what many people also see from your post. I'd be interested in hearing where I may have gone wrong.


----------------------------------------------------
Now, for a slightly different issue: I have about 12 days to complete writing up my Master's thesis. So, while I'd enjoy going through and fulfilling some of the requests to give more discussion over the topics I presented in my previous post. . . they may be slow in coming.

allonym,

Please concentrate on your thesis for now. Nairaland will be here 12 days from today if Jesus tarries.

Honestly, I think you have muddled things up quite a bit. I only hope someone else can explain my position to you better than I do. However, let me try to explain once again.

First, I never said anything about out Pastors accepting tithes. The tithe is given to God through the agency of the Priesthood. This is seen in both the dispensations of the law and of Promise. According to at least 3 verses in the Book of Hebrews, a Priest must necessarily perform 2 functions: offer gifts and offer sacrifices. Jesus, it is witnessed is our High Priest today and the Bible says He already offered the sacrifice of His blood once and for all. My question is why would He offer a different gift (i.e. the tithe) which we see the Priesthood of Melchizedek and Levi offer?

Please be informed, I am not the one who states that Jesus' priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek, you will find that reference in the Book of Hebrews. Infact, I think you should go back and read my earlier submissions. Maybe that will clarify issues for you. In the mean time, I feel you do not understand what I have been saying and I think I am just repeating myself over and over agian.

Often, I see people lumping things together without carefully reading posts and making distinctions.

allonym:
Thirdly, you point out that Melchizedek gave tithes and offerings unto God. So, the immediate implication of your words, whether this is what your meant or not, is that the High Priesthood is in the business of presenting BOTH tithes and offerings unto the Lord.

But I observe:

TayoD:
@alloynm

Your response to the tithing issue suggests you have not read my arguments about tithing before now.  I have stated according to the Book of hebrews that a Priest has two functions: 1. To offer Gifts, and 2. to ofer sacrifices.  We see Melchizedek offer Gifts in the form of the tithe, and we see the Levitical priests offer gifts and sacrifices as well.  Jesus, being a Priest must necessarily offer gifts and sacrifices as well.  If the sacrifice He offered is His blood, which He did once and for all, what is the gift that He now offers?

. . . and further:

TayoD:
allonym,
Honestly, I think you have muddled things up quite a bit. I only hope someone else can explain my position to you better than I do. However, let me try to explain once again.

. . . According to at least 3 verses in the Book of Hebrews, a Priest must necessarily perform 2 functions: offer gifts and offer sacrifices. Jesus, it is witnessed is our High Priest today and the Bible says He already offered the sacrifice of His blood once and for all. My question is why would He offer a different gift (i.e. the tithe) which we see the Priesthood of Melchizedek and Levi offer?

Gifts and sacrifices are not the same. It helps to keep this distinction in view when replying to posts.

4get_me,

Thanks a bunch. I hope allom\nym sees this distinction and respond appropriately when he's done with his thesis.

Oh well, I was begining to get a bit worried that he was lumping them up - as so many of us often do; and perhaps that's why the difficulty in moving the discussion forward.

Hi TayoD,

As promised, a quick update on this as yet concluded discussion.
To be honest, I was waiting for Syrup & Allonym to update as promised.
I trust they'll be back and figure other considerations may at this time be more pressing.
Syrup, in your own time, you know we love to hear your thoughts. Allonym, how is/was the thesis? Hope all went well.

TayoD:
@TV01,I have been immensely blessed by your scholarship on this forum.  However, I must say that I am a little dissapointed by the argument you put forth above.  How does tithing take away from the grace and glory of God?  Mind you, God only deals with every man on the medium of grace.  Even Abraham, paid his tithe through grace and I believe the same applies to the Believer today.  Your statement also suggests that it is always convenient to serve God, and anything that brings some suffering and sacrifice can't be of God.  I believe you know better than this, and you probably didn't weigh the full import of your statement when you wrote it.  So, I will not labour to refute that argument unless you insist that you are absolutely right.
As to Dru, I have mentioned that I didn't mean to offend her and I thank you for bringing my attention to that piece.  Thanks Bro.

The above was your response to my post below;

TV01:
Hi TayoD,

When one views the outworking of a "divinely mandated" tithe as detracting from the grace of our Lord and sullying the Glory of God, not to mention the bondage and suffering being caused to untold numbers of God fearing people, anyone with an ounce of reverence and compassion would be emotional. At the very least lets admit the issue is emotive. I think for the most part contributors have been judicious in their choice of words and at the same time accomodating of the "literary style" of others. Please go easy on Dru'.  Kindest regards.

That is not an arguement. That essentially summarises what I believe to be the outworking of preaching a divinely mandated tithe. Like I said earlier, I am more than happy to discuss it from both ends, the scriptural basis or the practical outworking.

Now back to the issues I believe you are awaiting responses too, posed here;

TayoD:
Syrup, TV01,

May I say that I have been immensely blessed by the knowledge and insights you two have brought to this discussion.  I have passively followed your discussions before now because I have been extremely busy.  However, I feel I need to respond to a common 'gray area' with respect to the codification of tithes into the New Testament, which seems open to so many interpretations.   

As a background, permit me to bring to your attention something which I believe you all know, and that is the fact that the Old Testament is a shadow and an adumbration of the New.  Every thing we see in the Old Testament (which is a shadow), must have it's reality in the New Testament.  With this in mind, the functions which the Priests carried out in the Old Testament (that is offering of gifts and sacrifices) must necessarily have its fulfillment in the New Testament.

We see a progressive revelation of the job of the Priest when Melchizedek stepped into the scene.  We see him receiving a 'tithe' of all the increase which Abram had.  The blood sacrifice was introduced in the levitical priesthood without the neglect of the tithe.  Both these Priesthood were shadows of the reality - the High priesthood of Jesus Christ which the Bible says is fashioned after the order of Melchizedek.

At this point, I feel I need to clarify TV01's concern about the fact that the emphasis in the new Testament is on the eternal nature of both priesthood (Jesus' and melchizedek's).  Please note that when the Bible talks about the "eternal"  aspect of both Priests, it is a reference to the nature of the priests (in Hebrews, the Bible talks about an endless life).  This has nothing to do with the functions of the Priests.

Jesus being a priest, must  necessarily offer 'gifts' and 'sacifices'.  The sacrifice was offered once and for all with, by and through His blood and this is fore-shadowed in the Old Testament by the blood of bulls and rams.  If the gift offered in the Old Testament was the tithe (and please note that this is consistent in both the levitical and melchizedek's priesthood), why would it be any diferent with the Priesthood of Jesus?

Now there are at least a few things you will need to clarify if you maintain a stand that the tithe is not the 'gift' that should be offered in the New Testament.

1.  The New Testament must reveal what the tithe foreshadows. 
2.  What exactly is the gift that Jesus offers today (and please, this is not to minimise the efficacy of His blood.  The sacrifice and the gifts are two different things altogether).
3.  If we see only the gift offered with melchizedek, and both gift and sacrifice offered in Levi, then why should Jesus offer only the blood and neglect the tithe which is the first revelation of the Priestly duties?  Logic and revelation dictates otherwise.

The above list is not by any means exhaustive, but I will like to get a feedback on them.

My best regards.

I'll come back to you as time permits, but for now let me say this;

The basis of your arguement is that "A priest must offer gifts and sacrifices".
The sacrifice element having being satisfied by the "once for all time" offering of the Lord, that leaves ythe "gift" element. You then make the gift element synonymous with (and insist it forshadows) the tithe.

Like I said earlier, I was waiting for the others to post. But to be honest, I neither see nor agree with the connections you made between gifts and tithing.

I'll explore a bit further in my next post, hopefully soon.

God bless

forget the tithing issue for a second and enjoy this clip of a real brother who waited till the wedding nite.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFBHsuruA2c

Tithing is an honor. As a church treasurer I see the inside of what tithes do. When you go to the grocery store to buy food, you pay for it. The store can not give you the food without you paying for it or it would go out of business. The church is the same way, if you are getting fed from the word, you should contribute to pay the expenses of what it costs to run a church.
Our church runs about 300 people a week and it is not cheap. The electric, water, mortage, repairs, music equipment, and don't let me get started on insurance, they are not donated to the church for free. Lots of people want to come to church and enjoy the service, listen to the music, and enjoy the air conditioning while sitting in their cushioned seats but they turn their noses up to tithing. I have seen these same people demand hours on end of the pastorial staff but when there is a bbq or something being given away for free, they are first in line.
I believe if you are going to church and getting fed by the word, if you don't tithe, you are robbing God. I am not rich, sometimes I struggle and have to figure which bills I can wait on paying. Do I get discouraged awaiting those promised blessings, yes sometimes I do. Will I ever be rich and have that big house on the hill is not what matters. I tithes because I know that money can easily become an idol and if I can give God his portion and trust him, I am not putting anything before him.
Did Jesus say our debts have been paid thru him, YES. Tithing is not a debt as some ney sayers would argue. Tithing is paying for what you are being fed right now. If you don't go to church you are not obligated to pay tithes, but you are starving yourself of the word. If you listen to the word on tv or the radio that is where you are being fed and you should tithe toward those ministries.
Sometimes there are pastors or people in ministry that are not honest with church monies, God will deal with these people. Don't let that cause you to stumble in Gods word. He will deal with them justly, just wipe the dust of your feet and know that you are in God will and have followed his commandments.
If no one tithed there would be no church.
Blessings
Denise

hrvesthrt:
When you go to the grocery store to buy food, you pay for it. The store can not give you the food without you paying for it or it would go out of business. The church is the same way, if you are getting fed from the word, you should contribute to pay the expenses of what it costs to run a church.

I'm not one who's usually in the business of pointing out things, but as a Christian it becomes necessary to make inputs where I feel persuaded otherwise on issues like this. The church is not the same as any business outfit, and God's Word makes that clear. Sample -

". . . men who are corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth, who imagine that godliness or righteousness is a source of profit [a moneymaking business, a means of livelihood]. From such withdraw." (I Tim. 6:5 - Amp.).

hrvesthrt:
Our church runs about 300 people a week and it is not cheap. The electric, water, mortage, repairs, music equipment, and don't let me get started on insurance, they are not donated to the church for free. Lots of people want to come to church and enjoy the service, listen to the music, and enjoy the air conditioning while sitting in their cushioned seats but they turn their noses up to tithing. I have seen these same people demand hours on end of the pastorial staff but when there is a bbq or something being given away for free, they are first in line.

2 Cor. 11:7 - Have I committed an offence in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely?

hrvesthrt:
Tithing is paying for what you are being fed right now. If you don't go to church you are not obligated to pay tithes, but you are starving yourself of the word. If you listen to the word on tv or the radio that is where you are being fed and you should tithe toward those ministries.

Matt. 10:8 - Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

1 Cor. 9:18 - What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

Tithing was never meant in any way to be payment for services rendered.

Hi Hrvesthrt,

hrvesthrt:
Tithing is an honor.

If you think so.
But it is not however, a command, law or obligation for a disciple of Christ.

hrvesthrt:
As a church treasurer I see the inside of what tithes do.

I was also a church treasurer, and what tithes do is underpin a wholesale departure from core Christian doctrine, support heresies such as the clergy/laity split, focus on temples salaried service, celebrity ministry and emphasis on programs; in  a nutshell the wholesale incorporation of mammon and a rejection of the power of The Holy Spirit as the way to effect Gods will.

hrvesthrt:
If no one tithed there would be no church.

The above statement displays a singularly lack of understanding of what "the Church" truly is and means.

Overall your posts mostly draws from your personal experience and observations. Whilst I don't seek to belittle this, there are as many personal experiences and observations as there are believers. Let us prayerfully search the scriptures for insight and direction, and may The Holy Spirit lead us into all Truth.

God bless

Is there anything in the NT that sends out a negative message against tithing? Just curious!


Secondly, what did Christ mean when He said render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's. Does the tithe belong to God?

Thirdly, was the tithing system instituted and confined only to the Old Covenant, for the jews only, or was it meant to be a general measure of testing loyalty and faithfulness to God?

This is the biblica account of TITHE in OLD testament.

[b]Leviticus 27:30 " 'A tithe of everything from the land, whether grain from the soil or fruit from the trees, belongs to the LORD; it is holy to the LORD.


Leviticus 27:31 If a man redeems any of his tithe, he must add a fifth of the value to it.

Leviticus 27:32 The entire tithe of the herd and flock—every tenth animal that passes under the shepherd's rod—will be holy to the LORD.

Numbers 18:21"I give to the Levites all the tithes in Israel as their inheritance in return for the work they do while serving at the Tent of Meeting.

Numbers 18:24 Instead, I give to the Levites as their inheritance the tithes that the Israelites present as an offering to the LORD. That is why I said concerning them: 'They will have no inheritance among the Israelites.' "

Numbers 18:26 "Speak to the Levites and say to them: 'When you receive from the Israelites the tithe I give you as your inheritance, you must present a tenth of that tithe as the LORD's offering.

Numbers 18:28 In this way you also will present an offering to the LORD from all the tithes you receive from the Israelites. From these tithes you must give the LORD's portion to Aaron the priest.

Deuteronomy 12:6 there bring your burnt offerings and sacrifices, your tithes and special gifts, what you have vowed to give and your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks.

Deuteronomy 12:11 Then to the place the LORD your God will choose as a dwelling for his Name—there you are to bring everything I command you: your burnt offerings and sacrifices, your tithes and special gifts, and all the choice possessions you have vowed to the LORD.

Deuteronomy 12:17 You must not eat in your own towns the tithe of your grain and new wine and oil, or the firstborn of your herds and flocks, or whatever you have vowed to give, or your freewill offerings or special gifts.

Deuteronomy 14:22 [ Tithes ] Be sure to set aside a tenth of all that your fields produce each year.

Deuteronomy 14:23 Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the LORD your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere the LORD your God always.

Deuteronomy 14:24 But if that place is too distant and you have been blessed by the LORD your God and cannot carry your tithe (because the place where the LORD will choose to put his Name is so far away),

Deuteronomy 14:25then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the LORD your God will choose.

Deuteronomy 14:28 At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year's produce and store it in your towns,

Deuteronomy 26:1[ Firstfruits and Tithes ] When you have entered the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance and have taken possession of it and settled in it,

Deuteronomy 26:12 When you have finished setting aside a tenth of all your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, you shall give it to the Levite, the alien, the fatherless and the widow, so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied.

2 Chronicles 31:5 As soon as the order went out, the Israelites generously gave the firstfruits of their grain, new wine, oil and honey and all that the fields produced. They brought a great amount, a tithe of everything.

2 Chronicles 31:6 The men of Israel and Judah who lived in the towns of Judah also brought a tithe of their herds and flocks and a tithe of the holy things dedicated to the LORD their God, and they piled them in heaps.

2 Chronicles 31:12 Then they faithfully brought in the contributions, tithes and dedicated gifts. Conaniah, a Levite, was in charge of these things, and his brother Shimei was next in rank.

Nehemiah 10:37 "Moreover, we will bring to the storerooms of the house of our God, to the priests, the first of our ground meal, of our grain offerings, of the fruit of all our trees and of our new wine and oil. And we will bring a tithe of our crops to the Levites, for it is the Levites who collect the tithes in all the towns where we work.

Nehemiah 10:38 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 12:44 At that time men were appointed to be in charge of the storerooms for the contributions, firstfruits and tithes. From the fields around the towns they were to bring into the storerooms the portions required by the Law for the priests and the Levites, for Judah was pleased with the ministering priests and Levites.

Nehemiah 13:5 and he had provided him with a large room formerly used to store the grain offerings and incense and temple articles, and also the tithes of grain, new wine and oil prescribed for the Levites, singers and gatekeepers, as well as the contributions for the priests.

Nehemiah 13:12 All Judah brought the tithes of grain, new wine and oil into the storerooms.
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 12:44
At that time men were appointed to be in charge of the storerooms for the contributions, firstfruits and tithes. From the fields around the towns they were to bring into the storerooms the portions required by the Law for the priests and the Levites, for Judah was pleased with the ministering priests and Levites.

Amos 4:4 "Go to Bethel and sin; go to Gilgal and sin yet more. Bring your sacrifices every morning, your tithes every three years.

Malachi 3:8 "Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. "But you ask, 'How do we rob you?' "In tithes and offerings.

Malachi 3:10 Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.[/b]

If any christian wants to tithe as a religious obligation, go ahead and remember that there are several types of tithing.
Make sure to keep them all and all the laws associated.

But if saved by grace,the bible says give and it shall be given unto you good measure pressed down etc.
The bible also says that God loves a cheerful giver.

The law could not save so was done away with.Read your bible people,church doctrine will not save.
God does not require sacrifices after Christ.
We should give to the works of God generously and freely,not as an obligation or as obeying a law.

http://www.gotquestions.org/tithing-Christian.html

@babyosisi,

Perhaps you should go back and read my earlier posts. While you are done with that, please read through the book of Hebrews and discover for yourself the job description of a high Priest.

To make it simple for you, you will discover that a Priest is meant to offer both gifts and sacrifices. So please tell us, what is the sacrificial offering that Jesus as our High Priest is meant to offer, and what is/are the gifts He is meant to offer?

If you can give me a good answer based on the scripture that is different from the tithe, then I will be glad to say you are right and I am wrong. However, I guess you will not have the answer to this and will only side-step this request like others have done, and still maintain your stand about the tithing issue. I have noticed this amongst those of you who claim that the tithe is done away with in the New Testament.

Shalom

I personally believe that there are some good and sound principles from the OT that were carried over into the NT. One such is the tithing system. Giving monetary support to God's cause on earth should not be confined to OT or NT periods.

In fact the NT doesn't even mention much about tithing, but does it mean that because it originated in the OT, and not necessarily among the nation of Israel, that it doesn't have a place among modern-day christians?