₦airaland Forum

Whistling past, checked the 1st post, what? Since 2005!  47 pages!! 1501 posts!!! 21000+ views !!!! And still no clear understanding? Then shakes head, strolling away and humming. . .

. . .remembering something, comes back, pausing for a while, okay dropping a line. . .

Blessings to everyone here.  Thanks for the debates and insights.

Pilgrim.1:
As anyone wishes. I have said again and again since last year that I don't argue tithes based on the LAW. Do I post you the several links to show how many times I have said so?

Pilgrim is very correct here.  She has always maintained that:

- Tithe precedes the Law.
- It is God-ordained but not mandatory.

The 2nd should not be too difficult to grasp as TV01 suggested, seeing they don't mean the same thing.  For example, marriage is God-ordained, but not mandatory.  Paul also chose not to marry but did not condemn those that did.  Does marriage have its blessings?  YES!!!  Are those who refuse to marry cursed?  NO!!  I hope this clears the seeming contradiction in that statement.

As TV01 puts it, if this is a christian liberty, let everyman be persuaded then.  If you choose to exercise this liberty to tithe, do it as unto the Lord.  If you will rather give other than tithe, do it also as unto the Lord.

Bless y'all.

. . . still humming, slowly walks away. . .

---

TV01, how are you?  See you are back. Still awaiting some lessons from your retreat.  Bless you.

sarmy:
Reason why I said it seems like a revelation, one can not support this DIRECTLY from the scriptures but if one adds some scriptures together like you did, it’s possible to see beyong ordinary/letters and see this as NT concept of tithe.

That is what we call wuruwuru to the answer. Translated to english meaning working towards a predetermined goal. Or in this case the gospel according to pilgrim.1 anyway my dear sister nothing personal i see you are already getting pissed off judging by your response to my last post.
_{PS: You still didn't remember to state your definition of tithes( in one sentence)}

The fact that Abraham gave tithes before the law does not mean that God instructed or Ordained Abraham's tithe you guys should stop twisting scipture. Abraham gave tithes of his own free will ( not under any obligation or influence) that does not translate in to God ordaining it. Besides Abraham's one -off tithes as no semblance to the charade going on in churchestoday in the name of tithes. Also abraham had already been richly blessed before he gave that tithe to melchizedek, so people should stop equating Abraham's tithes to his blessings.

Dear sarmy,

Thank you for again calmly bringing our the essential points that underscore your concerns. Although indeed they have been addressed earlier, what draws my interest is the way you invite a discussion in simple terms. Let me as simply reason along yours:

sarmy:
Please correct any of them if assumed wrongly or add more if needed, I don’t have all the passages to support them but I think at one time or the other you have done that.

I'll be glad to share them again where necessary - that's not a tedious thing for me to do. But let me show you what was being pointed out between the "meaning" and mere "definition" of the term tithe.

    (a) the definition of tithe is 10% of a particular aggregate:

          It is in this sense that we have been looing at what is 10% of 10% etc.
          As such, when that is the only thing that occupies our focus, we shall
          remain stuck on seeing just 10% every single time, even though from all else,
          we know that "the tithe of the tithes" (10% of 10%) is simply 1%.
          Please do the simple maths and see for yourself that in Nehemiah 10:38,
          it was not treated as "relative", but rather in absolute terms from the
          total value of Israel's tithes in that case.


    (b) the meaning of tithe is its singnificance:

          Here we are looking beyond the mere definition of tithes as 10% or 1%
          and seeking the real significance behind the subject of tithing itself.
          When I give my tithes, what in effect am I saying to God Himself?
          My tithes are not valued by man's estimations; rather, God Himself said that
          the real significance HE places on it is what counts - which was why I shared
          that He is not looking at calculated figures in income, for even the Levites who
          gave their own tithes had no income!


I do hope that will help now; and the difference between those two points seems to be what has proven difficult for many people hitherto.

Now, do I have direct scripture references for both the meaning and definition of tithes (whether 10%, or 1%, or yet the "significance"? I believe so - and that is what I have often shared all along:

       ~ the definition: (a) the tenth part is the tithe - [Hebrews 7:2, 4 & 6]

       ~ the figures: (b) tithe of tithes = 10% of 10% = 1% [Nehemiah 10:38]

       ~ the significance" (c) God Himself places the value, not man - [Num. 18:21 & Lev. 27:30 & 31]

            For example: Num. 18:29 -
                   'Out of all your gifts ye shall offer every heave offering of the LORD,
                    of all the best thereof, even the hallowed part thereof out of it.'

That is the significance of my tithes - it does not mean that I don't have other gifts among my giving. However, my principle is that for me to understand the significance that my tithes point to, God is the One who says that "out of all my gifts", there's that part which He deems the 'hallowed part', or the 'best part'.

Here is the problem for many: since pilgrim.1 says that she does not argue tithes based upon the LAW, why is she quoting the same LAW? I have my reasons, defined in only one word - PRINCIPLES.

It is not by coincidence that the apostle Paul quotes the same LAW in Numbers 18 when discussing this ministry in 1 Corinthians 9:13-14. He does not say that we should apply the law in a legalistic manner; but he draws from it a principle and concludes with these words: "EVEN SO. . ".

Secondly, the argument many people make about the LAW of tithing is that we are not under the Law, but under grace. Granted. My question is simple - our friends should please explain where Paul was quoting from when he says in 1 Cor. 9:8 - "Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?"

Thirdly, when I say that I do not base my discussion of the tithes upon the LAW, what I mean is this: I am not at any time seeking to "justify" the veracity of tithing as a Christian from the LAW. That is why I have often looked outside the Law and intoned that tithing came before the LAW. What the Law did not originate, it cannot abrogate in this case.

Fourthly, I have called attention to another point: the real issue of the LAW is founded on one thing: "justification". No one is justified by the works of the LAW - as is clear in the NT (Romans 3:20, 28 and Galatians 2:16). That being so, I am not seeking a justification from the LAW if I applied its principles in order to understand the significance of tithing. Tithes did not justify anybody in the OT; nor does it justify anybody in the NT.

Fifth, because tithes are not a matter of justifying anybody, I don't see the panic among those who have been screaming it that it is "dangerous" to give tithes under the LAW - when infact I am not giving tithes based upon the LAW?

You see, I could go on and discuss the LAW for another 15 points that will make Christians who argue anyhow to deeply think before they hastily draw conclusions. If people are only stuck on 10% every single time they see the word "tithe", I am not one of those - and I have shown that "the tithe of tithes" is not 10% but 1%. Go and calculate it simply and come back showing that 10% of 10% = 10%!

Well, I thought it might be helpful to see these issues again, even though I have repeatedly stated them in the past; just so that you understand where I am coming from when I mention the meaning of the tithes. All I ask is simple: if the verses I quoted and the points I raised did not say any of those things I highlighted, all anyone could help us do is quote the verse and show us that I inserted words that are not there.


The other parts of your queries will be answered soon - I have never ducked any question from anyone.

Shalom.

@Analytical,

How body? Lol, no mind me. . . I saw ur request about the YIM thingy; but I will find time to concentrate on yours when those "friends" go to sleep for a while.

Analytical:
Pilgrim is very correct here. She has always maintained that:

- Tithe precedes the Law.
- It is God-ordained but not mandatory.

Well, lol. . . I may be wrong all the same - and I say this humbly. That is why I am seeking as many questions that people may have, so that as I address them, those who may not have grasped it may understand why I have been stating these issues. Thankfully, you brought out another very fine point that helps us illustrate what I have been saying - here:

Analytical:
The 2nd should not be too difficult to grasp as TV01 suggested, seeing they don't mean the same thing. For example, marriage is God-ordained, but not mandatory. Paul also chose not to marry but did not condemn those that did. Does marriage have its blessings? YES!!! Are those who refuse to marry cursed? NO!! I hope this clears the seeming contradiction in that statement.

You are a wonderful teacher! Bless!

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
That is what we call wuruwuru to the answer. Translated to english meaning working towards a predetermined goal. Or in this case the gospel according to pilgrim.1 anyway my dear sister nothing personal i see you are already getting pissed off judging by your response to my last post.

Hehe. .  lovable brother! Sorry naw. .  I no vex! True, I no vex. I was getting really bored from being teased with the endless repetitions. No wuruwuru intended in mine O!

KunleOshob:
PS: You still didn't remember to state your definition of tithes( in one sentence)

Ok, I have done so above. As I said, I was definitely coming back to answer that question; but I wanted us to go back and see if indeed I never once touched on it. Now that I have wrapped it neatly as distinct from its meaning, am I still under arrest?

_{I dey come for you. . . just wait there!}

@anonimi,

anonimi:
It seems you are the one missing the point all this while and that explains why you have been going on & on saying the same thing over and over again.
Go through all the posts of those of us opposed to preachers (in partcular) and others in general who tell those they are in a position to influence that tithes are compulsory/obligatory/required/obedience to God/carries a curse if not done (or blessing if done).
Without mincing words and with all seriousness, any preacher who says such a thing is a fraudulent person, no matter how many miracles he claims to perform in Christ's name.
I hope the distinction is clear enough for you now.

I wasn't missing anything - unless you want me to bore you with the links where I made the case lucid. You guys started out by directly referring to tithes as a 'lie', 'false doctrine', and a 'fraud'. I asked simply that we look away from those who have abused it and encourage ourselves to look into the Word to see what it says. Did you ever oblige that? What was your response to that other than come back reposting Yomisays and his ungodly attack and pretentions of Adeboye? I asked you directly if Yomisays represented your views - you have forever ducked that one and now claiming I was not paying attention all along. What is your question again, dear brother?

For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the Law, to perform them” (Galatians 3:10). It is actually the opposite, if you tithe by obligation then you are bound by all the law. Galatians 5:4 explains “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace[quote][/quote]quote From Chrisd

To pay or not to pay?

@Ovamboland,

Ovamboland:
For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the Law, to perform them” (Galatians 3:10). It is actually the opposite, if you tithe by obligation then you are bound by all the law. Galatians 5:4 explains “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace

Can I ask you: WHERE are people tithing by OBLIGATION in recent discussions in this thread?

FifiO:
@JeSoul

I'm doing just fine, &you?

Actually, all that I have tried to do is to grapple with some points raised at some earlier part of this thread, the way I see it now.I think I skimmed over those to arrive at my first conclusion. The point being that those who wish "to tithe" must not make a discretion call.
I see I am on my own now,  no offence taken though.
Maybe at anor time, in anor place, put differently you may see it too? or not?
Learning is a continous thing.

And I'm glad I got you in the midst of the storm, ah ah

Lol . . .    it's been a very animated 'storm' to say the least   . . . somehow I can envision you as a trouble maker when you were a kid    abi na lie?  

 and sista you are not on your own   I am here for moral support    . You are right about "learning" my dad always says "no knowledge is ever wasted".
 Anyways I am fine jare, thanks to God, I have a huge presentation to make & impress all the phD's in attendance . . . nervous to the bone, but confident in God, so if you have a minute, pray for me! Godblesha girl!

@Jesoul,

How body?

JeSoul:
Anyways I am fine jare, thanks to God, I have a huge presentation to make & impress all the phD's in attendance . . . nervous to the bone, but confident in God, so if you have a minute, pray for me!

Go in His favour - you're both blessed and covered. Jesus is Lord.

If tithing is not of the law fine and if it originated from Abraham fine but please answer following questions:

Did Genesis state Abraham was rich before he paid tithe to Melckisedek?

Can you state a bible verse saying he was blessed because of the tithe of spoils toMelckisedek?

Can you quote verses to show Abraham paid tithes to anyone after the tenth of spoils he gave Melckisedek?

If tithing is ordained of God how come Abraham did not teach his children and grandchildren to tithe?

Why did Jacob have to make a fresh deal with God 'if ye bless me, i will give, ' if he was taugt to tithe his income?

Quote a verse recorded were Jacob redeemed the tithe pledge or where he regularly practised it or taught his children how crucial a practise tithing is.

What was the objective of Paul for writing Hebrew Chapter 7 (1- end)? How wonderful it is to tithe spoils or explanation of the priesthood of Christ?

Pilgrim 1,

The point is God is not moved by your tithe, He never demanded it whether by compulsion, obligation or voluntarily, if you give in support of church activities as laid in your heart fine. Don't call it tithe.
Your giving is unto need not as a mantra or doctrine to be taught to others in order to get returns on investment ROI

@sarmy,

Now to the other points you raised:

sarmy:
Please correct any of them if assumed wrongly or add more if needed, I don’t have all the passages to support them but I think at one time or the other you have done that.

1. Tithe was ordained by God pre-mosaic law (Abraham tithed)

No, I'm not inclined as such. God did not "ordain" prior to the LAW. Abraham was moved by faith to give tithes unto Melchizedek (see Galatians 3:7 on the principle of his faith).

sarmy:
2. To be given to those that minister to God or for God’s word propagation (Melkizedek)

Melchizedek did not have such a need - which is why I have often said that this tithe issue is not always a matter of "need-driven". What "need" did a King have - when his name was "King of righteousness" and "king of peace" (Hebrews 7:2)?

sarmy:
3. Beyond the law, designed as a mystery so God can bless His people (Melkizedek blessed Abraham)

God blesses those who tithe - He also blesses those who give other types of giving. Is it a mystery? Yes it is. How? We shall subsequently come to that.

sarmy:
4. Not compulsory, but whoever needs God’s divine blessing can tap into it (Abraham / Jacob did)

Not exactly. The tithe is not a "formula" for tapping into for any kind of blessings - unfortunately, that is how it has bene presented by some televangelists and the reason why many have become bitter about tithes and call it all sorts of derogatory terms. However, those who tithe look beyond what they can get from God: they are making a statement of thankfulness to the One who values their recognition of His Lordship over their lives. It is more a matter of worship than of "receiving"; although the worshipper is definitely blessed when he/she does so.

sarmy:
5. Not necessarily 10% exactly or the percentage that matters, but quality of the proportion (the best part)

It is not even the 'quality of the proportion' - please see above about the significance. It is not man who estimates the tithes; rather, it is God Himself Who places the value on it as He sees it [Num. 18:21 & Lev. 27:30 & 31].

sarmy:
6. Other giving accepted by God but Tithe is primarily ordained by God to sustain His work and for Him to keep releasing His blessing (OT/NT alike)

That's deep. I'm not sure that God's purpose in ordaining tithes was so that He might keep releasing His blessings. Certainly, He blesses when tithers are faithful; but He did not present it as a "formula" for His blessings.

sarmy:
7. Those who are not tithing will not be punished but they are not connected to the mystery

I may say so - without risking being blunt. Those who do not want to tithe should not feel squeezed somewhere as if they should then feel compelled to do so. What I observe is that God draws the heart of the believer by faith to see what He has ordained for them.

sarmy:
Reason why I said it seems like a revelation, one can not support this DIRECTLY from the scriptures but if one adds some scriptures together like you did, it’s possible to see beyong ordinary/letters and see this as NT concept of tithe.

That's okay - I've never been shy of saying simply that I believe the Scripture can be understood by exegesis and not eisegesis. The principle of comparing Scripture with scripture is not lost on us when we read 2 Peter 1:20 -

          _____________________________________________________________

      Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
          _____________________________________________________________

sarmy:
Not many will agree with this concept and for the fact that none of the early churches directly used the word TITHE to represent any of the giving; one may assume this is another ploy to make children of God give more than ordinary just ‘giving’

The suspicion does not deter tithers who know what it means. Do I suspect that from the many arguments against tithing, the one issue responsible is human disinclination to be faithful givers? I'll come back to this point later.

sarmy:
I don't have any problem with this concept, since it's giving by His grace not by a do or die. Most children of God will give their best to God to show His love and goodness.

No worries - they may not call it any name or measure out a % anyhow; but I have said that the name itself should not scare anyone who loves to tithe.

Bless.

@Ovamboland,

Ovamboland:
Pilgrim 1,

The point is God is not moved by your tithe, He never demanded it whether by compulsion, obligation or voluntarily, if you give in support of church activities as laid in your heart fine. Don't call it tithe.
Your giving is unto need not as a mantra or doctrine to be taught to others in order to get returns on investment ROI

I think you are actually making a big mistake here and I don't want to scream in big fonts at you. Please kindly go back and read issues before you assume to drive a wedge where it is unnecessary. For the umpteenth time: NOBODY in our arguments is making tithes compulsory - and if you fear to use the term "tithes" in this discussion, please dress warm, because I will spare nothing when I take you to task thereto. Let me repeat it again and again and again and again. . 


                 ____________________________________________________________

                  'I don't think you have noticed how many people ackowledge that tithes
                  have nothing to do with the idea of ~

                            DEMAND,
                            COERSION,
                            COMPULSION,
                            FORCE,
                            CAJOLING,
                            MANIPULATION,
                            INDOCTRINATION,

                            . . . or [size=14pt]any other ONOMATOMANIA[/size]!!
                 ____________________________________________________________

I said it since and repeated it several times. . .

        (1) here

        (2) and again

        (3) and here!

. . and I'm repeating it here in this reposte for your blessing.

Shalom.

@Pilgrim.1
Given that you have giving us your definition of tithes and the meaning and you emphasized that it is not compulsary neither must it be ten per cnet, how the do you deifferentiate tithes from Offerings.

I'D so sooo love to be gone from here, at least for a while. However-
@Pilgrim.1

Why did I do so? Because in absolute terms, the Levites had no income, and that which they offered was merely 1% of the value of Israel's heave offering (both Israel and Levi had heave offering - and the part that was Israel's was simply 1% when it was waved, and not 10%).

Understand this, the Levites were obligated to pay a tithe out of their "income". Only, their "income" was the tithes of the Isrealites.
please look at this:

Numbers 18:26-27 Thus speak unto the Levites, and say unto them, when ye take of the children of Isreal the tithes which I have given you from them for your inheritance then ye shall offer up an heave offering of it for the Lord, even a tenth part of the tithe 27 And this your heave offering shall be reckoned unto you, as though it were the corn of the threshing floor, and as the fulness of the wine press.

Nehemiah 10:38-39 And the priest the son of Aaron shall be with the Levites, when the levites take tithes: and the Levites shall bring up the tithe of the tithes unto the house of our God,to the chambers, into the treasure house.39 For the children of Isreal AND the children of Levi shall bring the offering of the corn, of the new wine, and the oil, unto the chambers-
Levites never offered 1%, what they offered was 10% of the 10% they recieved from the Isrealites ( being their own income, so to speak)
Do you see that?
I think am gwanna takei that brakk naw.
Wisdom to all minds.

@JeSoul,

lol,    discussions are good for your spiritual health. Doctor's orders!

Anyways I am fine jare, thanks to God, I have a huge presentation to make & impress all the phD's in attendance . . . nervous to the bone, but confident in God, so if you have a minute, pray for me!

Dear, you have an excellent spirit, not the spirit of fear,- but of a sound mind.
So, just do it.
Praying for you too.

Blessings!

KunleOshob:
@Pilgrim.1
Given that you have giving us your definition of tithes and the meaning and you emphasized that it is not compulsary neither must it be ten per cnet, how the do you deifferentiate tithes from Offerings.

Very good question, Kunle - and I was coming to that sometime yet. Infact, TV01 has asked the same by inference, and I noted that occasion will serve us to discuss that point. For now, I would like to address the queries one after the other before moving on to other concerns - just like I pormised sarmy, I will keep my word to you.

pilgrim.1:
@Jesoul,

How body?

Go in His favour - you're both blessed and covered. Jesus is Lord.

I dey oh my sista thank you for the prayer cos Lord knows I need it! I will testify of His goodness in this land of the living! God is good as always and I pray He will continue to keep and bless you according to His perfect will. Amen!  

FifiO:
@JeSoul,

lol, :Ddiscussions are good for your spiritual health. Doctor's orders!
Dear, you an excellent spirit, not the spirit of fear,- but of a sound mind.
So, just do it.
Praying for you too.

Blessings!

Yes maam! . Thanks also for the words of encouragement n prayers! You are too kind . Stay blessed and don't be gone for too long

Pilgrim.1:
@Analytical,

How body? Lol, no mind me. . . I saw ur request about the YIM thingy; but I will find time to concentrate on yours when those "friends" go to sleep for a while.

No qualms. Will expect. I commend the 'new' pilgrim.

---

JeSoul, go with the wisdom of the Lord.

@FifiO,

FifiO:
I'D so sooo love to be gone from here, at least for a while. However-

me sef, I don dey itch since to vamoose!

FifiO:
Understand this, the Levites were obligated to pay a tithe out of their "income". Only, their "income" was the tithes of the Isrealites.

If I was the one that said the above, the house would come crashing on me. Sista, the Levites had no income whatsoever! How many times did God emphasize that very point, lest we run ahead of ourselves? Here are examples:

         Numbers 18:20
         Numbers 18:23 & 24
         Deuteronomy 14:27

If they had no inheritance among the children of Israel, from where do we suppose their "income" to be got? If they labour for wages in the temple, they would not need to take anything from the children of Israel in that case. Yes, they lived off the service of the temple (see 1 Cor. 9:13); but that is not what Scripture regards as "income", unless for the sake of argument we just want to read it so. The problems will surface later if we do.

FifiO:
please look at this:

Numbers 18:26-27 Thus speak unto the Levites, and say unto them, when ye take of the children of Isreal the tithes which I have given you from them for your inheritance then ye shall offer up an heave offering of it for the Lord, even a tenth part of the tithe 27 And this your heave offering shall be reckoned unto you, as though it were the corn of the threshing floor, and as the fulness of the wine press.

Nehemiah 10:38-39 And the priest the son of Aaron shall be with the Levites, when the levites take tithes: and the Levites shall bring up the tithe of the tithes unto the house of our God,to the chambers, into the treasure house.39 For the children of Isreal AND the children of Levi shall bring the offering of the corn, of the new wine, and the oil, unto the chambers-

I've looked at the above; and will subsequently bring out a few things:

FifiO:
Levites never offered 1%, what they offered was 10% of the 10% they recieved from the Isrealites ( being their own income, so to speak)

I'm sorry, it does not say so. Shal we quote it again and see?

             Nehemiah 10:38_________________________________

             And the priest the son of Aaron shall be with the Levites,
             when the Levites take tithes: and the Levites shall bring
             up the tithe of the tithes unto the house of our God,
             to the chambers, into the treasure house
             ______________________________________________

The "tithe of the tithes" was not pointing to the Levites own offering - no. The whole passage shows that it was the "tithe of the tithes" of all Israel that the Levites took into the treasure house. Please read it yet again. .  slowly, and you will see it. If I miss it yet, I'll be glad to consider it. When you read verse 39, what you are mistaking there for tithes are the "offerings" - please see it. The point is that the tithe of the tithes was simply "10% of 10%"  of that which Israel gave - it was that very portion that the Levites carried into the treasure house, instead of eating it there in the presence of the priest.

Shalom.

pilgrim.1:
@FifiO,
If they had no inheritance among the children of Israel, from where do we suppose their "income" to be got? If they labour for wages in the temple, they would not need to take anything from the children of Israel in that case. Yes, they lived off the service of the temple (see 1 Cor. 9:13); but that is not what Scripture regards as "income", unless for the sake of argument we just want to read it so. The problems will surface later if we do.

I would keep on reminding you that biblical tithes as ordained by God had absolutely nothing to do with income or wages it was always strictly edible items meant to be eaten it God's presence. Income / wages tithes is a mordern day unscriptural fabrication.

pilgrim.1:
@anonimi,

I wasn't missing anything - unless you want me to bore you with the links where I made the case lucid. You guys started out by directly referring to tithes as a 'lie', 'false doctrine', and a 'fraud'. I asked simply that we look away from those who have abused it and encourage ourselves to look into the Word to see what it says. Did you ever oblige that? What was your response to that other than come back reposting Yomisays and his ungodly attack and pretentions of Adeboye? I asked you directly if Yomisays represented your views - you have forever ducked that one and now claiming I was not paying attention all along. What is your question again, dear brother?

It seems you missed my response eons ago here

pilgrim.1:
@FifiO,
Sista, the Levites had no income whatsoever! How many times did God emphasize that very point, lest we run ahead of ourselves? Here are examples:

          Numbers 18:20
          Numbers 18:23 & 24
          Deuteronomy 14:27

If they had no inheritance among the children of Israel, from where do we suppose their "income" to be got? If they labour for wages in the temple, they would not need to take anything from the children of Israel in that case. Yes, they lived off the service of the temple (see 1 Cor. 9:13); but that is not what Scripture regards as "income", unless for the sake of argument we just want to read it so. The problems will surface later if we do.

Can you check out the difference between assets and income?
Fifio clearly stated that the tithes paid by the Israelites to the levites could be considered as income for the purpose of their (levites) tithe payment. Apparently the levites were not payying their tithes properly hence the curse on them in Malachi starting from chapter 1.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
I would keep on reminding you that biblical tithes as ordained by God had absolutely nothing to do with income or wages it was always strictly edible items meant to be eaten it God's presence. Income / wages tithes is a mordern day unscriptural fabrication.

I did not ignore your reminders - and we shall get there subsequently. For now, could you point us where money was specifically mentioned in the type of giving that God ordained for you in the NT?

pilgrim.1:
@KunleOshob,

I did not ignore your reminders - and we shall get there subsequently. For now, could you point us where money was specifically mentioned in the type of giving that God ordained for you in the NT?

Tithes were clearly defined in the old testament (compulsory ten per cent of the produce of the land) whilst new testament giving is freelly given meaning as i so desire or i as i purposeth in my heart, not subject to rules. so i don't need any set of guide lines or ordination to give as a christian, i am free to give freelly as i purposeth in my heart.

@anonimi,

anonimi:
It seems you missed my response eons ago here

Thanks - and that was why I pointed out this also, from where Yomi got his thoughts from.

anonimi:
Can you check out the difference between assets and income?
Fifio clearly stated that the tithes paid by the Israelites to the levites could be considered as income for the purpose of their (levites) tithe payment.

Are we now basing our thoughts on what suppositions or precisely what is stated? If I were the one making these assumptions, I know what inundations would have ensued. Nonetheless, if you argue that the tithes that the Levites got from Israel could be considered their "income", what is the argument you have against those who receive tithes as their own "income"? If the former case was just perfect for you, what problem do you have with the latter - especially when the apostle Paul clearly made reference to that same case of the Levites in 1 Corinthians 9:13-14?

anonimi:
Apparently the levites were not payying their tithes properly hence the curse on them in Malachi starting from chapter 1.

Em, sorry O. . . no vex. Malachi 3 was not about the Levites - please see those who were involved in verse 9: "Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation." You can't miss that and assume that the curse was on the Levites because they were not paying their tithes properly!

Which even brings another question - if the Levites had any "income", would they not have been paying their tithes from such "income"? Are you simply ignoring what the Word says where I pointed out that they had no inheritance and so could not be seen to have any "income" from which to pay the tithes you are blaming them for not paying?

For brotherly love sake, I am willing for the sake of argument to consider it so. But I warn already that as we progress, you guys will run into a huge problem on this point O. . . please go back and read that passage again carefully, and the point will become easy to see.

God bless.

KunleOshob:
Tithes were clearly defined in the old testament (compulsory ten per cent of the produce of the land) whilst new testament giving is freelly given meaning as i so desire or i as i purposeth in my heart, not subject to rules. so i don't need any set of guide lines or ordination to give as a christian, i am free to give freelly as i purposeth in my heart.

Brotherly. . Kunle! Kunle!! KunleOshob!!! How many times I call you so?

I only asked you one kweshun:
___________________________________________________

"could you point us where money was specifically mentioned in
the type of giving that God ordained for you in the NT"
___________________________________________________

You guys are funny! You have problem with money in the OT - but you no fit tell me where you see the same "money" for your own bias in the NT! Na kweshun I ask o. . me I never see am na i[color=Black]m[/color] make me dey ask. You see, I keep saying this: what you accuse others of should not become tyrannical to you when asked to show your own case. That is the principle I always live by. If I can't showcase my convictions without bias and naivety, then I would not be driven to shlepp and harp at others about the same thing.

I don't mean to be tedious, lovable brother. . . but just help us see "money" in your NT "freewill", and I go hear!

@Pilgrim
Thanks for responding to those clarifications, though I'll like to comment on few of them while awating more response from you. Peace

pilgrim.1:
1. God did not "ordain" tithe prior to the LAW. Abraham was moved by faith to give tithes unto Melchizedek (see Galatians 3:7 on the principle of his faith).

I thought you said God ordained tithe prior to Law, which is the reason why even though we are no longer under the law we can still observe it. (no probs)

4. ,  those who tithe look beyond what they can get from God: they are making a statement of thankfulness to the One who values their recognition of His Lordship over their lives. It is more a matter of worship than of "receiving"; although the worshipper is definitely blessed when he/she does so.

Likewise, christians giving/offering under NT is in worship of God, how is tithe then different from the other Offerings under NT?

And if there is mystery to the name TITHE beyond the ordinary, what about the fact that none of the early churches directly used the word TITHE to represent any of their 'GIVING'

And none of the apostles instructed the early church to classify their offerings into TITHE and others

Many Thanks

@sarmy,

sarmy:
I thought you said God ordained tithe prior to Law, which is the reason why even though we are no longer under the law we can still observe it. (no probs)

Well, I may be mistaken, but I don't remember saying so precisely. I highlighted the ministry as found in 1 Cor. 9:13-14 and observed that the apostle pointed out that the Lord had 'ordained' it so - but he was not point to Abraham's case, but rather to Numbers 18. Could we still observe it? I believe so - but not legalistically as based upon the stipulations of the Law, because neither in the OT or in the NT does the Law justify anyone.

sarmy:
Likewise, christians giving/offering under NT is in worship of God, how is tithe then different from the other Offerings under NT?

I will come back to this point in detail, and I ask your forgiveness that the question would not be tailored in just two sentences. However, suffice to say that the reason why I have been waiting all this while is to help us clear this misconception of basing our thoughts every single time on "money". Earlier on, sleekmag, JJYOU and others had cautioned that we be careful to note that our giving is not all about money - but it seems that so many people missed that, and that is why they are still expressing some concern about "money" etc. I will touch on that issue and deal in detail soonest. For now, please understand that not all "giving" in the NT is treated the same.

sarmy:
And if there is mystery to the name TITHE beyond the ordinary, what about the fact that none of the early churches directly used the word TITHE to represent any of their 'GIVING'

For two reasons, as I already shared:

(a) because they (IMHO) were not focusing on a percentage (%). This is why I keep saying that as long as we remain on %, we will keep confusing oursleves and keep haggling on this issue. In the same way, what did they call it in the NT - "freewill offering"? Where? If they never called it a name, why is it that TITHE is the one thing people are so scared of?

(b) they (IMHO) were more concerned about the "principles" than on a legalistic application of tithes. Thus in every mention of it in the NT, not in one instance would you find a condemnation of tithe. NOT ONE. People hastily condemn what they have not studied, but I don't take that approach.

sarmy:
And none of the apostles instructed the early church to classify their offerings into TITHE and others

That is why I kept saying that nothing is made compulsory to the believer under the new covenant. The problem here that I want to help deal with first is this issue of why people are so disturbed about the term TITHE. If it is the money issue, I am waiting to see where "money" was ever mentioned as part of our "giving" in the NT. If money was not mentioned and we are all too happy to assume it is "money", doesn't that already highlight that we have more problems on our hands than this issue of tithes?

Best.

Hi pilgrim.1 & all,

@ pilgrim

I'm sorry, it does not say so. Shal we quote it again and see?

             Nehemiah 10:38_________________________________

             And the priest the son of Aaron shall be with the Levites,
             when the Levites take tithes: and the Levites shall bring
             up the tithe of the tithes unto the house of our God,
             to the chambers, into the treasure house
             ______________________________________________

The "tithe of the tithes" was not pointing to the Levites own offering - no. The whole passage shows that it was the "tithe of the tithes" of all Israel that the Levites took into the treasure house. Please read it yet again. .  slowly, and you will see it. If I miss it yet, I'll be glad to consider it. When you read verse 39, what you are mistaking there for tithes are the "offerings" - please see it. The point is that the tithe of the tithes was simply "10% of 10%"  of that which Israel gave - it was that very portion that the Levites carried into the treasure house, instead of eating it there in the presence of the priest.

Why i'm on pilgrim.1's side cos i agree tithing shouldn't be made mandatory; it is not mandatory in the NT, but is God's mystery for prosperity. If you can claim all the blessings in the OT by obeying God's word, as well as the 10 commandments, then following the tithing commandment according to the melchizedek law (which abraham partook of) and whose order Jesus is (Jesus is a priest after the order of Melchizedek) shouldn't be seen by any1 as outdated.

However my point of disagreement with you pilgrim.1 still centers on the 10% or 1% issue. Tithe is strictly 10%. No more, no less.

Neh 10:38
38 And the priest the son of Aaron shall be with the Levites, when the Levites take tithes: and the Levites shall bring up the tithe of the tithes unto the house of our God, to the chambers, into the treasure house. (KJV)

It's called the tithe of tithes cos the levites themselves had no inheritance. It was what they got from the children of Israel that they gave the tithes out of. In essence, they were also paying their own tithes, which was 10% of their allotment from the children of Israel. If 1% were the case, as in tithe of tithes, we would have had at least a scenario wherein the children of Israel brought their 1% directly to the high priest (since they could give 1% - the hallowed part, in your terms). But no, they always had to give 10%, and that was to the levites, then the levites gave 10% of that (their own tithes) to the priest. Cos the priest also was of the levite tribe.

Adam's Clark Commentary put it this way:
Verse 38.   [Tithe of the tithes]  The tithes of all the produce of the fields were brought to the Levites; out of these a tenth part was given to the priests.  This is what is called the tithe of the tithes.  The law for this is found, Nu 18:26.


Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary also put it this way:
38. the priest the son of Aaron shall be with the Levites, when the Levites take tithes--This was a prudential arrangement. The presence of a dignified priest would ensure the peaceful delivery of the tithes; at least his superintendence and influence would tend to prevent the commission of any wrong in the transaction, by the people deceiving the Levites, or the Levites defrauding the priests.

   the tithe of the tithes--The Levites, having received a tenth of all land produce, were required to give a tenth of this to the priests. The Levites were charged with the additional obligation to carry the tithes when received, and deposit them in the temple stores, for the use of the priests.

Can someone help me here?

1. If tithes were strictly farm produce, and the levites had no inheritance (and no income), and what they kept receiving was always farm produce (their portion of the tithes), how were they then able to get money to take care of their basic needs (as man cannot live by bread alone), clothes to wear, taking care of their household, things to buy etc. Or did they have other jobs too?

2. As time went on, the children of Israel certainly multiplied, but land is a fixed asset and doesn't multiply. At some point, so many people of the other 11 tribes wouldn't have had direct access to lands but they'll have had vocations. Are you saying these ones were not meant to pay their tithes, since they had no access to farm produce?

3. Also the levites themselves multiplied over the years (from generation to generation), with the fixed land, it means the tithes from farm produce would at some point have been inadequate, how would they have coped?

Hi sleekmag,

Thanks for your comments.

sleekymag:
Why i'm on pilgrim.1's side because i agree tithing shouldn't be made mandatory; it is not mandatory in the NT, but is God's mystery for prosperity. If you can claim all the blessings in the OT by obeying God's word, as well as the 10 commandments, then following the tithing commandment according to the melchizedek law (which abraham partook of) and whose order Jesus is (Jesus is a priest after the order of Melchizedek) shouldn't be seen by anyone as outdated.

Well, you have touched on something that so many people have been missing hitherto - that was why I have been holding back and not even going there for now at all until the basic issues have been settled, whether or not we agreed/disagreed on that. Albeit, I touched on that when I discussed that "(B) The basis of Christian tithing is the Melchizedek Priesthood", but it seemed that I was running ahead of the questions people were asking and had to slow down and wait for us to clear them before proceeding.

sleekymag:
However my point of disagreement with you pilgrim.1 still centers on the 10% or 1% issue.

I am so grateful that at least a few people could disagree with my submissions, and you do it so gracefully - thank you.

sleekymag:
Tithe is strictly 10%. No more, no less.

Neh 10:38
38 And the priest the son of Aaron shall be with the Levites, when the Levites take tithes: and the Levites shall bring up the tithe of the tithes unto the house of our God, to the chambers, into the treasure house. (KJV)

It's called the tithe of tithes because the levites themselves had no inheritance. It was what they got from the children of Israel that they gave the tithes out of. In essence, they were also paying their own tithes, which was 10% of their allotment from the children of Israel. If 1% were the case, as in tithe of tithes, we would have had at least a scenario wherein the children of Israel brought their 1% directly to the high priest (since they could give 1% - the hallowed part, in your terms). But no, they always had to give 10%, and that was to the levites, then the levites gave 10% of that (their own tithes) to the priest. because the priest also was of the levite tribe.

Two things to note here:

(a) The children of Israel handed the tithes in this case directly to the Levites, and not to the highpriest. First, God stated that everything that was devoted in Israel was Aaron's, and not rather belonging to the Levites (Num. 18:14). However, it was not handed over to him directly, but rather had to pass through the Levites to Aaron, for it was called the "All the heave offerings of the holy things, which the children of Israel offer unto the LORD" (Num. 18:19). Of course, the Levites took part of their own and gave unto Aaron as well (Num. 18:28).

(b) Now, when the Levites offered Israel's heave offering to Aaron, it was the 10% they offered, not their own 1% of the total value of Israel's heave offering. But when we come to the ingathering of tithes for the nation as a whole, Nehemiah 10:38 shows that it was the total tithes set apart that was taken into the treasure house - not the Levites tithes. I know a lot of commentators have mistaken that for the Levites' heave offering, but they were wrong - because they had largely ignored the preceding verses, which I should highlight in a moment.

Nehemiah 10:37-38

     ~ verse 37 distingusihes the "tithes" and "offerings"
     ~ verse 38 shows that the tithe of the tithes were
         the collective tithes of Israel, and not that of the Levites
~ we can see how these are not confused when we come
to Malachi 3:8 - "In tithes and offerings."


Now, ask yourself if Nehemiah 10:38 is what was happening in Numbers 18? Here:

     ~ 'and the Levites shall bring up the tithe of the tithes
         unto the house of our God, to the chambers, into the treasure house.'

Where do we find this in the LAW? If you can find this, you will see what the commentators missed.

sleekymag:
the tithe of the tithes--The Levites, having received a tenth of all land produce, were required to give a tenth of this to the priests. The Levites were charged with the additional obligation to carry the tithes when received, and deposit them in the temple stores, for the use of the priests.

Now, where did James Fausset get that idea from - that the Levites were to give a tenth to the pries[b]ts[/b] (plural)? What happened to giving the tithes to Aaron?

Please carefully go through, and you will see what those godly men missed out. We cannot just jump at their ideas and keep promoting them, even when they happen to be incorrect.

Cheers.