₦airaland Forum

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
@pilgim.1
It is either you have deliberately refused to understand my post or my expression of the english language is not good enough, either way there is nothing to argue about.

There's no English that could be understood other than the express way you deliberately alleged a false statement against me. It is not a vice to admit your fault.

KunleOshob:
For clarities sake i never stated that you based your tithing on law any where on this thread.

Then what was the meaning of this statement from you:

[list][list]

KunleOshob:
The truth is that my dear sister(Pilgim.1) having long realized that tithing can never be justified based on law (even though she keeps refering to it) she had to look for another way to justify it hence the inferals to Melchizedek's priesthood and the one off free will, non obligatory, unsolicited and un commanded tithes which he received from Abraham.

[/list][/list]

How else would you have expected me to understand that statement against me directly and then come back to emphasise it yet again with: [list][list]

KunleOshob:
In other wards what i was saying basically is that you changed from tithing based on law because i suspect that like every other person it, was introduced to you based on law.

[/list][/list]

If what you were basically saying was directly stating that I had changed from tithing based on Law, could you tell me WHAT I changed from?!?

KunleOshob:
As far as hebrew 7 is concerned i woudn't even bother to clearify further because it is so glaring what was being talked about and the law clearly refered to in verse 5. Judging from the content of your posts i can safely conclude that you are a very intelligent young woman and it shouldn't be to difficult to understand the implication of that passage if you apply your mind to it

Please quote me the direct verse that condemned TITHES. I am begging you, lovable brother.

Shalom.

http://www.ptmin.org/

Malachi 3:

1 "See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty.

2 But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner's fire or a launderer's soap. 3 He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver. Then the LORD will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness, 4 and the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem will be acceptable to the LORD, as in days gone by, as in former years.

5 "So I will come near to you for judgment. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive aliens of justice, but do not fear me," says the LORD Almighty.

Robbing God
6 "I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. 7 Ever since the time of your forefathers you have turned away from my decrees and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you," says the LORD Almighty.
"But you ask, 'How are we to return?'
8 "Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me.
"But you ask, 'How do we rob you?'
"In tithes and offerings. 9 You are under a curse—the whole nation of you—because you are robbing me. 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. 11 I will prevent pests from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not cast their fruit," says the LORD Almighty. 12 "Then all the nations will call you blessed, for yours will be a delightful land," says the LORD Almighty.


The following are the words of Frank Viola, taken from the book on his website.

Is Tithing Biblical?

Thithing does appear in the bible, So yes, tithing is biblical. But it is not Christian. The tithes belong to ancient Israel. It was essentially their income tax.
Never do we find 1st century Christian tithin in the NT.

- -

- -

The Lord instituted 3 kinds of tithes for Israel as part of their taxation system (Lev 27: 30-33,
Deut 14: 22-27, Deut 14: 28-29, Deut 26: 12-13) Also see Stuart Murray Beyond Tithing and the
site generour giving.

1) A tithe of the produce of the land to support the Levites who had no inheritance in Canaan
2) A tithe to sponsor the religious festivals
3) A tithe every three years for the local Levites, orphans, strangers and widows.

That was the biblical tithes. God commanded Israel to give 23.3% of their income every year, not 10%. These tithes
consisted of produce of the land . . . . It was the product of the land NOT money.


-
-

With the dead of Jesus, all ceremonial codes that belonged to the Jews were nailed to the cross and buried, never to be used again to
condemn us. For this reason, we never see Christians tithing in the NT, just as we don't see them sacrificing
goats, bull to cover their sins.


-
-
-

This brings us back to the oft-quoted text in Malachi 3. What was god saying there? First, ths passage was
direct at ancient Israel when they were under the Mosaic law. . . .

Notice the context of Malachi 3: 8-10. In verse 5, the lord says that he will judge those who oppress the widow, the fatherless
and the stranger. He says "So I will come near to you for judgment. I will be quick to tectify against sorcerers,
adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the
fatherless and deprive aliens of justice, but do not fear me".

The widows, fatherless and strangers were the rightful recipients of the tithes . . .


The NT urges believers to give according to their abilities . . .

In the 3rd century, Cyprian of Cathage was the first Christian writer to mention the practice of financially
supporting the clergy. He argued that just as Levites were supported by the tithes, so the Christian clergy should
be supported by tithes. But this is misguided thinking. Today, the levitical system has been abolished. We are all
priests now. So if a priest demands a tithe, then all Christians should tithe to one another.


Cyprians plea was exceedingly rare for his time. It was neither picked up nor echoed by the Christian populace until much
later (Murray, Beyond Tithing). Other than Cyprian, no Christian writer before Constantine ever used OT references to
advocate tithing. It was not until the 4th century, 300 years after Christ, began to advocate tithing as a Christian practice to support
the clergy. But it did not become widespread amongst Christians until the 8th century. According to one scholar
"For the first 700 years they [tithes] are hardly ever mentioned (Hatch, Growth of Church Institutions, 102 - 112).

@ Gamine & Pilgrim.1,
I actually had typed my last post before seeing you guys had cleared d misunderstanding. Sorry for that too.

@ Pilgrim.1,

Anyway, how are you doing? Grace

Am good, and you? Hope you had a swell weekend.

@ Gamine

I'm saddened that We Christians love to argue

It's unfortunate though. But maybe that's why its a forum. However i'm convinced that one can't win arguments with others of opposite views when it appears to others that you've won. However, for minds that are not well grounded in God's word and that need to learn, they either learn from the arguments and take a stand (for or against), while others even get more confused with the whole thing. Bottomline is someone like KunleOshob cannot accept Pilgrim's stance on the topic, just as Pilgrim (and I) won't accept his stance, based on our knowledge and what we feel is right. So i think, i'd rather let sleeping dogs lie.

huxley:
Is Tithing Biblical?

Thithing does appear in the bible, So yes, tithing is biblical. But it is not Christian. The tithes belong to ancient Israel. It was essentially their income tax.

People can argue all they can as much as they want, no wahala. The person who argues this matter based only on "ancient Israel" only fulfills what I have been saying all along - they cannot see anything else than the LEVITICAL priesthood!

huxley:
That was the biblical tithes. God commanded Israel to give 23.3% of their income every year, not 10%.

>pilgrim.1 whistles gently as she waits for the arguments on tithe being ONLY 10%!! where are the takers in this forum for 23.3% as tithe?<

huxley:
With the dead of Jesus, . .

There is no "dead of Jesus". . it is the "death of Jesus" (and His resurrection).

huxley:
all ceremonial codes that belonged to the Jews were nailed to the cross and buried, never to be used again to
condemn us. For this reason, we never see Christians tithing in the NT, just as we don't see them sacrificing goats, bull to cover their sins.

[size=14pt]Hahaheehaw!![/size]    

This guy is the comedian of the year!  What have I been saying over and over again?!? Look away from the old covenant, brethren - it has never justified anybody - Old Testament or New Testament!! The tithes were never about JUSTIFICATION - and to keep our hearts so strung up on the "ceremonial codes" is to show how rigid people can think on very simple matters.

Well done!

Pilgrim
I already explaine dearlier that what i mean is that i assumed you learnt about tithing based on law(that is how most churches preach it Malachi 3:10) and you later changed your views on tithing when you saw it could not be justified based on law, that is not to say i inferred that you said so on this thread or on nairaland( i assume you have a life outside nairaland) my inferals were merely assumptions and not an express statement miss quoting you. I think this is a simple case of not understanding each other hence i said maybe i did not epress my english well.

pilgrim.1:
Please quote me the direct verse that condemned TITHES. I am begging you, lovable brother.

If it was just for you i won't bother answering this question cos you already know the answer even though you have made futile attempts to punch holes in the answer but for the benefi of others who are reading this thread i would repost so thy would know the bible's true position on tithes

5And(A) those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to take tithes from the people, that is, from their brothers,[a] though these also are descended from Abraham. 6But this man(B) who does not have his descent from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed(C) him who had the promises. 7It is beyond dispute that the inferior is blessed by the superior. 8In the one case tithes are received by mortal men, but in the other case, by one(D) of whom it is testified that(E) he lives. 9One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, 10for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.
Jesus Compared to Melchizedek
 

   11(F) Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? 12For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. 13For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. 14For it is evident that our Lord was descended(G) from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests.

   15This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, 16who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. 17For it is witnessed of him,

  (H) "You are a priest forever,
  after the order of Melchizedek."

   18For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside(I) because of its weakness and uselessness

If you read the highlighted parts from verse 5 to 18 it would be crystal clear to everyone that the law that was describd as weak and useless in verse 18 is the tithe law earlier stated in verse 5. For full understanding, i urge all to read the whole chapter.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
Pilgrim
I already explaine dearlier that what i mean is that i assumed you learnt about tithing based on law(that is how most churches preach it Malachi 3:10) and you later changed your views on tithing when you saw it could not be justified based on law, that is not to say i inferred that you said so on this thread or on nairaland( i assume you have a life outside nairaland) my inferals were merely assumptions and not an express statement miss quoting you. I think this is a simple case of not understanding each other hence i said maybe i did not epress my english well.

Lovable brother, let me allow the matter to rest. Regardless if what has happened, I just want those unbels who were affected negatively that inspite of opposing views, we can still find charity and peace among ourselves in Christ. Fair deal?

Same goes for Ovamboland - love, grace and peace to you so we can move forward, yes?

KunleOshob:
If it was just for you i won't bother answering this question because you already know the answer even though you have made futile attempts to punch holes in the answer but for the benefi of others who are reading this thread i would repost so thy would know the bible's true position on tithes

Well, I did not make any attempt to punch holes anywhere - that was why I had to go into detail to show repeatedly that "circumcision" was never treated in the same way as "tithes" in the NT. Not one time ever!

KunleOshob:
If you read the highlighted parts from verse 5 to 18 it would be crystal clear to everyone that the law that was describd as weak and useless in verse 18 is the tithe law earlier stated in verse 5. For full understanding, i urge all to read the whole chapter.

Let's get some things here clear:

(a) There was nothing in that chapter that says the "tithe law": so I can safely suppose you're dribbling it into that chapter to placate your own bias. What the chapter says is that the Levites had a commandment to take tithes of their brethren according to the Law - it does not say that they had "a Law to take tithes", but rather just "a commandment" to do so (verse 5).

(b) You cannot make "a commandment" (just one commandment) to be larger than it is - that singular commandment is not the same thing as the whole Law!

(c) The Law you are referring to here is the very same one that the people received under the Levitical priesthood according to verse 11 -

            If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood,
            (for under it the people received the law,)
            what further need was there that another priest should rise
            after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Now as such, you cannot assume that Abraham's tithes to Melchizedek fell under the Levitical order to pressume therefore that with the change of the Levitical priesthood, therefore the "law" has been changed and woosh! - no tithes! That is not what that chapter says at all.

(d) The tithes of Abraham to Melchizedek (verses 2, 4, 6) were never once based on any Law! Never!!!!!!!! It is for this reason that verse 8 makes clear that here men who die receive tithes - but THERE He receives them of whom it is testified that He LIVES PERPETUALLY!! How clear could that be, Kunle? Are you going to deny that very verse and allege that "no, he does not live perpetually and so does not receive them"?

When people quote Hebrews 7, they should be careful to keep the matters in their context - thank God you quoted it again, and even highlighting various words there did not show that tithe was once condemned - not a single time!

Now, let's look at them at your highlighted verses:

[list][list]

KunleOshob:
5And(A) those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to take tithes from the people, that is, from their brothers,[a] though these also are descended from Abraham.

[/list][/list]

[list][list]

KunleOshob:
12For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.

[/list][/list]

[list][list]

KunleOshob:
18For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside(I) because of its weakness and uselessness

[/list][/list]

None of those verses say that Tithes have been condemned, made redundant, set aside or destroyed. Otherwise, you would have to come back and explain this bit in verse 8 ---

              8Furthermore, here [in the Levitical priesthood]
              tithes are received by men who are subject to death;

              while there [in the case of Melchizedek],
              they are received by one of whom it is testified
              that he lives [perpetually].

Kunle lovable bros, don't ignore that verse! All careful scholars agree that the Greek tense in that verse for Melchizedek is not "past tense" - but rather points to the One who LIVES PERPETUALLY!

Now, please let us know - Who is the One who LIVES PERPETUALLY, KunleOshob?

[center][size=14pt]Just WHO is that?!?[/size][/center]

Anticipating an honest answer, thanks.

pilgrim.1:
People can argue all they can as much as they want, no wahala. The person who argues this matter based only on "ancient Israel" only fulfills what I have been saying all along - they cannot see anything else than the LEVITICAL priesthood!

>pilgrim.1 whistles gently as she waits for the arguments on tithe being ONLY 10%!! where are the takers in this forum for 23.3% as tithe?<

There is no "dead of Jesus". . it is the "death of Jesus" (and His resurrection).

[size=14pt]Hahaheehaw!![/size]

This guy is the comedian of the year! What have I been saying over and over again?!? Look away from the old covenant, brethren - it has never justified anybody - Old Testament or New Testament!! The tithes were never about JUSTIFICATION - and to keep our hearts so strung up on the "ceremonial codes" is to show how rigid people can think on very simple matters.

Well done!

I have not strong view on this as it does not matter to me either way. However, whose parents spent a huge part of my inheritance on tithes, I feel a bit miffed if they were conned into giving away so much money to the church.

Pilgrim, it is obvious that you are arguing a theological position. From a religious perspective, nothing wrong with that. However, is such theology founded on historical or factual evidence? If you are in favour of tithing, where do you get your support from?

1) Is there evidence that Jesus taught in favour of tithes

2) Is there evidence the early Christians practised tithings

3) Where are the NT doctrines that favour tithings

If your theology is founded on facts, then we would like to see them. If it is founded on re-interpretational inventions (in the manner of Apostle Paul's teaching) you should also make that clear.

@sleekmag,

Yes, I had a very good weekend indeed, thanks!

sleekymag:
@ Gamine & Pilgrim.1,
I actually had typed my last post before seeing you guys had cleared d misunderstanding. Sorry for that too.

No wahala - I guessed as much.

sleekymag:
However, for minds that are not well grounded in God's word and that need to learn, they either learn from the arguments and take a stand (for or against), while others even get more confused with the whole thing. Bottomline is someone like KunleOshob cannot accept Pilgrim's stance on the topic, just as Pilgrim (and I) won't accept his stance, based on our knowledge and what we feel is right. So i think, i'd rather let sleeping dogs lie.

True, we are all learning - and believe me I've gained so very much to strengthen my faith from all that have transpired. This is why our brethren who run to some encyclopedia and internt link describing tithes as "pagan" to argue that there was no verse at all in the NT that ever mentioned anything about tithes for Christians, I simply want to learn from them WHO is being spoken of in Hebrews 7:8 as receiving the tithes THERE. Why is it that we repeatedly see the highlight on verses 5, 12 and 18; but they are often shy of verse 8?!?

Let me help them quote it one more time from AMP:

            ●   ⁸[/b]Furthermore, [b]here [in the Levitical priesthood]
                 tithes are received by men who are subject to death;

                 while there [in the case of Melchizedek],
                 they are received by one of whom it is testified
                 that he lives [perpetually].   ~~~ AMP

Can these brethren tell me who is the One who receives tithes THERE because it is testified the HE LIVES PERPETUALLY?

                WHO is this ONE Who Lives PERPETUALLY?

I dey wait for their answers.

@huxley,

huxley:
I have not strong view on this as it does not matter to me either way.

I don't see how that should have bothered you to quote anyone's assumption as if that is what really matters, though. That is why (pardon me) I took the approach to show where some of these chaps have it all skewed altogether.

huxley:
However, whose parents spent a huge part of my inheritance on tithes, I feel a bit miffed if they were conned into giving away so much money to the church.

Tithes are not your problem; and that is why I don't entertain people who want to hang their misgivings on this subject as a platform to introduce what does not border on the subject. So many people are blaming their misgivings on tithe - in all honesty, that grievance is much misplaced.

huxley:
Pilgrim, it is obvious that you are arguing a theological position. From a religious perspective, nothing wrong with that. However, is such theology founded on historical or factual evidence?

My dear huxley, I do not look at a secular report in order to understand a Biblical subject! That is the mistake so many people have been making; and yet when I ask simple questions from the Bible, you see the same people scuttling frantically about, because they have been dyed hard on the musings of secularists than on the simple premise of the solid answers found in Scripture. If you want historical or factual evidence, I have been dealing with that from Scripture - and those who make so much noise from a secular slant to describe it as "pagan" and often resorting to extra-scriptural "evidence" (so-called) are themselves unable to deal with the simple questions offered them.

At least, some have tried - with a few others we have ironed out some variance of opinions: and we have done these discussions on the Bible. However, the one striking thing is that those who run to "pagan" sources to justify their positions have not been able to point directly to Scripture for what they even argue! Amazing! I don't mind people calling me names of all sorts - and the only time I would react is when that rascality is hurting others! Why then should I take anyone seriously who presses his views from an outside source in order to negate what they know is Biblical but just playing round the issue all along?

I could as well run to so many such sources to argue a position discrediting Christian convictions - and I have done so previously before I became a Christian! The sources I used at that time were so embarrassing to the Christians I argued with - very few of them who aspired to be pastors. Today, while regretting my actions back then, I am an unrepentant and unflinching believer who will take no nonsense from people using that same matrix to deride what they little have any clues to. Not that I project myself as a "great scholar" - not at all. But while I may be accommodating to differences of interpretations, it is of very little interest to me whatever anyone says but cannot show from Scripture.

huxley:
If you are in favour of tithing, where do you get your support from?

Why should I tell you that on a public forum? Am I accountable to you, huxley? Have I ever asked you about your personal details?

You see, dear huxley, this is the sort of hubris that I decline from people who push themselves beyond rational postures to overbearing and inordinate passions. However, I could answer that same question in two ways:

(a) I tithe from my own income, and not from anybody's pockets, arguments, or excuses from a "pagan" literature.

(b) Ask the same question to those who "just give"  -  I have never seen how those same people have been bold to reveal anything about their own lives; afterall, I did not shy away from sharing my persuasions for tithing - nor did I make my persuasions the standard LAW for anyone at all! Talk is cheap - it is easier to point fingers at others; but never so easy to take the bold step to show our own substance in reality.

So, I wonder why you would even be so disturbed as to push yourself this way? Since you don't tithe, how does another person's tithing become a worry to you personally? Pardon me if I get this wrong (and I do not mean here to be crude at all); but I don't get your purpose in that query.

huxley:
1) Is there evidence that Jesus taught in favour of tithes

Yes, Matthew 23:23 for example.

huxley:
2) Is there evidence the early Christians practised tithings

Yes; and I do not take the secularist report as confirmation to the same, either for or against. This is why I have asked questions specifically on Hebrews 7:8. care to make an exegesis on that yourself?

huxley:
3) Where are the NT doctrines that favour tithings

I have shared extensively on this matter - and apart from those two, just go back a couple of pages and you will see the details which up until now have not be countered sensibly by those who disagree.

huxley:
If your theology is founded on facts, then we would like to see them.

Which is why I have invited you to go visit those couple of pages back.

huxley:
If it is founded on re-interpretational inventions (in the manner of Apostle Paul's teaching) you should also make that clear.

If I have invented any interpretations at all, the one thing to do is go back and draw out those texts and show how such interpretations fall short of Biblical exegesis and deixis. It is easier to question the veracity of a conviction - but it is not as easy to betake one's heart and soul into an honest exegesis of Scripture. Constantly denying a text and querying it endlessly is not the same thing as rightly dividing the Word (2 Tim. 2:15).

Cheers.

@ KunleOshob

Well a lot lot of us(especially true christians who are under grace) are enjoying the blessings of God without tithing. And we are not under any imaginary curse

my dear brother i want to emulate you in this your blessing land. can you tell me how blessed you are and what blessings you are enjoying without tithing.

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

Why should I tell you that on a public forum? Am I accountable to you, huxley? Have I ever asked you about your personal details?

Am sorry if my poorly structured sentence caused you to misinterpret what I meant. I was not asking for how you support your tithing practices financially. I was asking how you support it biblically, which you have amply provided.

Like I said, I could not care less. I was only after how it could be defended (supported) biblically.

By the way, I was quoting from a book by people (Frank Viola & George Barna considered as respectable Christian scholars. None of the words and ideas there was mine. I am sure you would have been familiar with some of these discussion already, so what I posted would have been nothing new to you.

From a bible perspective, I and convinced that the NT as it is today appear to clearly favour tithing. For me, this raises two questions;

1) IS the tithing in the NT the same practice as described and mandated in the OT?

2) Given that it is accepted amongst many Christian and secular bible scholars that many parts of the NT are interpolations, made to pursue certain theological agenda, it could be that those NT references to tithing were additions made many years after the books were originally written.

If Viola & Barne's account are anything near correct (ie that earlier church history does not show it practicing tithing), then it is conceivable that the redactors of the NT might have inserted text to present tithing in a favourable light, in view of the considerable percuniary implication it would have had for the church coffers.

If the following has already been posted, I apologise. Taken from here


Was the biblical tithe only 10%, or could it have been as much as 23 1/3%? Was there one tithe, two tithes, or three? A discussion of these questions was not originally part of this book until it became evident why only one answer is
acceptable to most who teach New Covenant tithing.

Most casual readers of the Old Testament will conclude that there were at least two, and perhaps three, separate tithes, averaging either twenty or twenty three and one third percent (23 1/3%) per year, instead of only one ten (10%) percent tithe. For two thousand years theologians have been split over whether these were all separate tithes or somehow merged into either one or two tithes. The "multiple tithe" position is held by Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, Matthew Henry, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, Bruce Metzger, Charles Ryrie, the Jewish Talmud and most Jewish writers, like Josephus.

Charles Ryrie combines the second and third tithe into one. "Two tithes were required: an annual tithe for the maintenance of the Levites (Lev. 27:30; Num. 18:21) and a second tithe brought to Jerusalem for the Lord’s feasts (Deut. 14:22). Every third year, however, the second tithe was kept at home for the poor (Deut. 14:28)." The McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia, tithe, Section I, last paragraph, also concludes that only two tithes existed. My only objection is that, if this were true, then we would have to conclude that there were no feasts every third year if there were no food brought.

For those, like the author, who believe that New Covenant giving under principles of grace replaces the entire tithing system, there is no reason to be dogmatic about which position is correct. However, for those who believe that tithing is also expected from the New Covenant Christian, the ONE tithe of ten percent can be the ONLY true and acceptable explanation. This position is for very obvious reasons! While it is difficult enough to ask average church members for ten percent, it would be much more difficult to ask them for twenty or even twenty three and one third percent!

Therefore, those who defend exact tithing have often placed themselves into a no-compromise position which concludes that the Old Covenant only taught one tithe of ten percent. Notice the tone of Eklund’s remarks, "The notion of three separate tithes has been circulated among commentators for a long time. Nevertheless, we must remain true to Scripture and not the traditions of biblical interpreters. Some have used the idea of three distinct tithes as a means of rendering tithing an obsolete doctrine, not valid for the New Covenant believers. This is done by rendering the Levite tithe as government taxation, the festival tithe as antiquated ritual, and the welfare tithe as giving to the poor. Since taxes and welfare funding are levied by the government, it is assumed that the tithe is no longer necessary."

In reply to Eklund, first, it is unprofessional to attack those who disagree by accusing them of following the "traditions of biblical interpreters" and accusing them of not remaining "true to Scripture." Such superior attitude simply will not convince scholars to concede their own researched positions. Second, many of Eklund’s own denomination’s seminary scholars and textbooks hold the opposite position which he criticizes. When he says "we," he errs in thinking that his own denomination totally agrees with him. Third, his discussion hints at an ulterior motive for insisting on only one tithe.

The First Yearly (Levitical) Tithe, Numbers 18: For Levitical Inheritance

Num. 18:20 You shall have no inheritance in their land, neither shall you have any part among them; I am your part and your inheritance among the children of Israel.

Num. 18:21 And, behold, I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance, for their service. . . .

This tithe has already been discussed in detail in previous chapters. Unlike the second and third tithes, it replaced land inheritance rights in Israel and provided basic sustenance for the Levite and the Aaronic priests of the tribe of Levi, as described in Numbers 18.

The Second Yearly (Festival) Tithe: Deuteronomy 12:1-19 and 14:22-26

Deut. 12:6 And there [later Jerusalem] you shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill offerings, and the first offspring of your herds and of your flocks:

Deut. 12:7 And there you shall eat before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice in all that you put your hand unto, you and your households, wherein the LORD your God has blessed you. ["Rejoice" is in verses 7, 12, and 18.]

Deut. 14:23 And you shall eat before the LORD your God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there [later Jerusalem], the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the first offspring of your herds and of your flocks; that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always. ["Rejoice" is in verse 26.]

Whereas the first tithe was brought to the Levitical cities [", the tithe of our ground to the Levites, for the Levites are they who receive the tithes in all the rural towns. Neh. 10:37b, NASU], the second yearly tithe was brought to Jerusalem for the festivals which accompanied the numerous gatherings. Also, unlike the first tithe, along with the Levite, the other Israelites, their family members, and servants, ALL ATE portions of this tithe. Also, unlike the first tithe, this tithe was an integral part of REJOICING and celebration in the presence of the LORD. It is distinctly different from the first tithe.

The Third Year (Poor) Tithe: Deuteronomy 14:28-29 and 26:12-13

Deut. 14:28 At the end of three years you shall bring forth all the tithe of your increase the same year, and shall lay it up within your gates.

Deut. 14:29 And the Levite, (because he has no part nor inheritance with you), and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within your gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do.

Deut 26:12 When you have made an end of tithing all the tithes of your increase the third year, which is the year of tithing, and have given it to the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, that they may eat within your gates, and be filled,

Deut. 26:13 Then you shall say before the LORD your God, I have brought away the hallowed things out of my house, and also have given them to the Levite, and to the stranger, to the fatherless, and to the widow, according to all your commandments which you have commanded me; I have not transgressed your commandments, neither have I forgotten them.

Unlike the first tithe, the third-year tithe (in the year of tithing) was specifically for all of the needy--including the non-Israelite stranger! Its recipients included the Levites, widows, orphans, fatherless, and Gentile strangers. Also, unlike the second tithe which went to Jerusalem, the third tithe was to stay in the towns, "within your gates," at home. This could not possibly be the same as the first, or second, tithe.

Consequences of Two or Three Tithes

These texts, Deuteronomy 12:6-7; 14:22-29; and 26:12-13 present a real dilemma for those who teach New Covenant tithing. First, if these verses are only a later amended part of the original tithe ordinance found in Numbers 18, then Deuteronomy should have priority over Leviticus and Numbers. This would mean that tithers should be allowed to feast off the tithes they bring to church! [How does one eat money?] Failure to do so would be failure to follow the final biblical tithing revelation. Second, if the church admits that the feast tithe was indeed a second tithe, then it must also teach a minimum of twenty percent as an expectation of the church. This is a lose-lose situation!

Matthew Henry is among those who think that twenty percent tithes should be taught for the New Covenant Christian. Actually, he adds the king’s tithe and totals three tithes of at least thirty (30) percent! "You think the tenths, the double tenths, which the law of God has appointed for the support of the church, grievous enough, and grudge the payment of them; but, if you have a king, there must issue another tenth out of your estates, which will be levied with more rigor, for the support of the royal dignity". Yet modern taxation is much more than thirty percent.

In Jesus’s day, taxation would look like this:

10% EMPIRE: food spoils-of-war tax to Rome; 20% of fruits; Gen. 14:20

10%+ PROVINCE: King Herod’s tax: 1 Sam. 8:14-17

10%: RELIGIOUS: food tithes; Numbers. 18:20-26

10%: FESTIVALS: food tithe, Deut. 12:6-7; 14:22-23

[? 3 1/3%: POOR TITHE (10% every third year): Welfare, Deut. 14:28-29; 26:12-13

PLUS: road taxes; bridge taxes; temple shekel; free-will offerings;

and many other religious and royal taxes

TOTAL: 40% BARE MINIMUM TOTAL TAXATION

There are good reasons to disagree with Eklund and accept either two or three separate tithes. First, it is extremely difficult to interpret the Scriptures otherwise. The Levites deserved support and probably fed the poor from all three tithes since a secular government welfare system did not exist. Does not our government tax us at least ten percent in order to set up judicial posts and protect its people? Remember, these texts describe a theocratic (God-ruled) government! Second, the feasts were also important as national family-reunions; they were many and long-lasting and no government funds were allocated for them. If the citizens of Israel had combined all of the expenses at every religious and national holiday throughout the year, they would have discovered at least another ten percent spent.

The third year tithe was supplemental for the poor. Today our government, not our churches, taxes more than the extra three and one third percent from us for Medicare, public housing, food stamps, and other social programs. We must also remember that no tithes were to be collected from the land every seventh year, every fiftieth year, and when drought and famine caused no increase. Because of Roman occupation, this may have been dropped entirely.

In conclusion, twenty three and one third percent is not extravagant when compared to the amount of taxation required today which provides the same kinds of services as those of the theocratic Levitical government, as originally proposed in the Old Covenant.

John MacArthur, an extremely popular U.S. educator, author, evangelist, and radio personality agrees. "So when someone says the Jew gave ten percent, that isn’t true. The Jew gave twenty-three percent to begin with. It was for the poor people, the widows, and people who didn’t have anything to eat. So they were funding the people who ran the government, which were the Levites; they were providing for national feasts through the festival tithe; and they gave for the welfare program. All this was funding for the national entity. All three of these were taxation, not freewill giving to God. Tithing was always taxation so that the programs of the government could run: the priestly program, the national religious program, and the welfare program."

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says, "There is thus an obvious apparent discrepancy between the legislation in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. It is harmonized in Jewish tradition, not only theoretically but in practice, by considering the tithes as three different tithes, which are named the First Tithe, the Second Tithe, and the Poor Tithe, which is also called the Third Tithe; compare Tob. 1:7-8; Ant, IV, iv, 3; viii, 8; viii, 22). According to this explanation, after the tithe (the First Tithe) was given to the Levites (of which they had to give the tithe to the priests), a Second Tithe of the remaining nine-tenths had to be set apart and consumed in Jerusalem. Those who lived far from Jerusalem could change this Second Tithe into money with the addition of a 5th part of its value. Only food, drink or ointment could be bought for the money (Ma`aser Sheni 2:1; compare Deut. 14:26). The tithe of cattle belonged to the Second Tithe, and was to be used for the feast in Jerusalem (Zebhachim 5:. In the third year the Second Tithe was to be given entirely to the Levites and the poor. But according to Josephus (Ant, IV, viii, 22) the ‘Poor Tithe’ was actually a third one. The priests and the Levites, if landowners, were also obliged to give the Poor Tithe (Pe’ah 1:6)." [Admittedly, parts of this quotation are confusing.]

The third tithe reveals that the Levite was expected to be among the poor. Israel’s treatment of strangers, the fatherless, and the widows was extremely important. After being first mentioned in Exodus 22:21, and ten times in Deuteronomy, they are linked in Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah, and the very important tithing text of Malachi 3:5 -- a total of 21 times. God commanded Old Covenant Israel to care for the needy; it was not an option!

Again, the third year tithe remained in the towns instead of going to the temple storehouse in Jerusalem. In addition to the Levite, it included all others who had no inheritance. God made it the responsibility of the religious leaders to take care of the needy. Once again, one requirement for receiving from the tithe was lack of land inheritance in Israel.

In giving a portion of the tithe to the poor and needy, the Israelite was demonstrating his commitment to keep ALL of the law. Today, there is no valid biblical principle which allows the church to teach only one of the three types of tithes to support its ministers and then ignore the national festival tithes and the third year tithes for the poor and needy. Like the rest of the law, tithing was a complete package with three inseparable parts which cannot be divorced from the context of the entire Mosaic Law.

Some more stuff about tithing take from here

Tithing:
New Testament Principle (Law) or Religious Bondage
John Keefe, DC



Tithing is part of the Law

Scriptural basis: command in the law, Leviticus 27:30

Malachi 3:9 says, "Ye are cursed with a curse" if you don't, Galatians 3:13 "Christ redeemed us from the curse".

Are we under the Old Testament law today?

The answer to this is both yes and no. The Old Testament law covered two aspects of the Jews life, their personal and national relationship to God as well as their relationship as an individual to civil authority. The civil law is still in affect today. But the law concerning our relationship to God has undergone a change (Hebrew 7:12) under the new covenant. If one studies civil laws, we can clearly see today that our civil law's have their roots in the old covenant law.

The law of Christ (Galatians 6:2) has all the components of the moral law of the Old Testament but none of the ceremonial law (Tithing, circumcision, ceremonial washing, Saturday worship, etc.). Not to say that we don't have some ceremonial aspects (communion, water baptism) but these are not requirements to maintain a proper relationship. These are requirements to maintain a proper perspective of what Christ has done. While in the old law circumcision or tithing were mandatory or you were not right with God. But we can do without communion or water baptism and still maintain our salvation. The fact that we are free from the Old Testament law is a revelation that Paul received and one he fought hard for. This concept was very difficult for the other apostles to completely grasp at first but eventually it was a revelation they received. Jesus talked about the law being fulfilled and thus passing away but they did not have ears to hear that.

If we try to fulfill the law today it puts our salvation in jeopardy. Galatians 5:3-4 "we are severed from Christ if we keep the law".

No. 1 no one except Jesus ever did it.
No. 2 if you break one law your guilty of them all and deserve death.
Trying to keep the law is trying to develop your own righteousness. Accepting Christ is accepting his righteousness and realizing you can't be good enough. So God wants us to stop trying. God wants us to stop trying to obey the Old Testament law. When we receive Christ he writes his law on our hearts. Our salvation is both immediate and progressive. Our walk includes a progressive salvation of our soul by allowing the life in our spirit to renew our soul one step at a time, from glory to glory. Our spirit becomes a new creation instantly; our soul is renewed day by day. God's word cuts through the veil of division of the soul and spirit to release the life changing power of the living word within us. The Holy Spirit will let us know when we violate the inward law. Tithing, circumcision, ceremonial washing, Saturday worship, holy days, dietary laws, Temple worship, stoning, all are part of the Old Testament law. Do them all or NONE AT ALL.

The law was fulfilled. In fact the Bible says this law was "until John the Baptist". Jesus was "born under the law" and so he told the Jews they should follow the law. That was only true until his death, burial and resurrection. I'm sure Jesus followed every point to the Old Testament law and I'm also sure it pains him to see us try to do the same. He did it so we wouldn't have to. He nailed that system to the cross. (Col. 2:14) I'm free, I'm free, I'm free indeed.

If I lie today I violate the Royal law spelled out in the New Testament not the Old Testament "thou shalt not" law, that is before God, we are not talking before man's court. This is not just semantics; this is potentially where we spend eternity. Galatians 5:3-4.

Let us hear what the New Testament says about being under the Old Testament Law:

Matthew 11:13 law prophesied till John,
Luke 16:16 law and prophets until John then gospel of the kingdom,
Matthew 22:37 Love God with all your heart with all your soul etc-love your neighbor-these two ARE the whole law and prophets,
John 1:17 law through Moses Grace and truth through Jesus,
John 7:23 circumcision a must to keep the law,
Acts 13:39 not justified by law,
Acts 15:5-20 observe law? Saved through faith,
Acts 18:13 these men want us to worship contrary to the law,
Acts 21:21 you teach to forsake Moses,
Romans 3:19 want the law says it says to those who are under the law, Romans 3:21 apart from the law is righteousness manifested,
Romans 3:27 the law of faith,
Romans 3:28 saved by faith apart from the law,
Romans 4:1-16 faith not law,
Romans 6:14 we are not under the law but under Grace,
Romans 7:4 we are dead to the law,
Romans 7:6 we are released from the law,
Romans 8:3-4 the law is fulfilled,
Romans 10:4 Christ is the end of the law,
Romans 13:8, 10 love fulfills the law,
1st Corinthians 9:20 not being under the law,
Galatians 2:16 we are not justified by the law,
Galatians 2:21 if righteousness is through the law Christ died in vain, Galatians 3:2 does the spirit comes by the law or faith,
Galatians 3:5 are miracles by law?,
Galatians 3:10 if you're under the law your under a curse,
Galatians 3:11 were not justified by law,
Galatians 3:13 we are redeemed from a curse,
Galatians 3:17-29 not by law but by faith we are linked to Abraham's blessings,
Galatians 5:3-4 we are severed from Christ if we keep the law,
Galatians 5:14 law fulfilled by love,
Galatians 5:18 we are led by the spirit thus not under the law,
Galatians 6:2 law of Christ,
Philippines 3:9 we are made right by faith not by law,
1st Timothy 1:9 law is not for righteous,
Hebrew 7:12 priesthood has changed and is necessary to change the law,
Hebrew 7:28 after the law comes the son,
Hebrew 8:6 we're under a better covenant,
Hebrew's 8:7 after the first; there is the second,
Hebrew's 8:13 the 1st has become obsolete and is ready to disappear,
Hebrews 9-10 describes the first being the law and the second being faith

Practical benefits to the church are that if every Christian tithed the church would have all the money needed to carry out the great commission. At least human reason would indicate so. Is it possible that 10 %, instead of being an answer to the church's money needs, could become a limit for many? How many times has a 10 % law cut off giving? If you're told to follow an outside law then you tend not to hear the inward witness. How many people could give 20, 30, 40 % of their income but religion has made it hard for them to hear that. "Hearing of faith" (Gal.3:2) 2 Corinthians 13:5 "test yourself to see if you're in faith."

Did tithing become part of the new covenant?

If so God decided to hide it from Paul and the other New Testament writer's. No matter how hard you try, you have to use Old Testament covenant to teach it. Some say tithing was before the law, part of the law and in force now also. Where is the New Testament Scripture for this? Circumcision was before the law (Genesis 17:24), part of the law, but is it in effect now? Some of the New Testament apostles tried to maintain it (Acts 15:5-11; Galatians 2:11) but Paul would have none of it. Hebrews talks about Abraham giving a tithe to Melchizedek but the same passage says there was a change in the law Hebrews 7:12. Hebrews 8:13 and 9:1 talks about the "first covenant with regulations (tithing is a regulation of the law) made obsolete (tithing was made obsolete)." Hebrews 10:9 "takes away first (tithing was part of the first) to establish second (tithing is not part of the second)" Hebrews 10:16 "writes law on heart and mind (God never wrote tithing on my heart or mind)"

The Melchizedek argument

Some have said that Melchizedek was Christ. So if Abraham gave Melchizedek a tithe then Jesus should receive tithes today. This is an interesting theory with no scriptural basis. The problem with this premise is that Jesus was not a man back then thus not Melchizedek and Jesus' ministry as a high priest, after the order of Melchizedek, is a heavenly one not an earthly one.

Melchizedek was a priest who blessed two systems in Abraham. The law (he took a tithe) and grace (communion bread and wine, Genesis 14:18). Jesus is now a priest of two systems: the church (Gentile centered, now) and the temple system (Jewish centered, after the rapture) in the New Jerusalem Rev. 21:9-27.

Was Jesus Melchizedek?

In Genesis 14:17-23 we have the first appearance of Melchizedek.

"And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale. And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all. And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself. And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, That I will not take from a thread even to a shoe latchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:"

It says that he is a king, and priest of God. In verses 18- 20 it says that Abraham "gave him a 10th of all" (type and shadow of tithing) and received "bread and wine" (type and shadow of communion). Melchizedek recognized and blessed both the law and promise (grace) represented in Abraham.

Psalms 110 is the next reference to Melchizedek.
"The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth. The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath. He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries. He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head."

This is recognized prophecy of God the Father telling Jesus that he would be a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. The context of this Psalm is stated in verse 1. "The Lord says to my Lord: sit at my right hand, until I make thine enemies for thy footstool". This proclamation was after the cross. This particular Psalms seems to imply that this priesthood was conferred after the cross.

It seems the more defining scriptures are found in Hebrews. In Hebrews 5:1 states "every high priest is taken from among men". When did God become a man? Verse 1 implies two beings of like status and one ultimate being. Only in Jesus' humanity did this reality take place. God had not become man in Abraham's day. Verse 2 states "a priest himself is beset with weakness". When was this true of the second person of the Trinity? After he was born of Mary.

Hebrews 5:7 states "in the days of his flesh" is when verse 10 became a reality " Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedek". God designated him a high priest when he was a man "in the flesh". Jesus was not in the flesh during Abraham's time.

Hebrews 7:1-28 definitely looks at the similarities between Melchizedek and Christ, both were priests of duel systems. But there are also definite dissimilarities. Hebrews 7:3 Melchizedek was "without Father and without mother". Some have interpreted this as symbolic indicating Melchizedek was a natural man but had no recorded Father or mother, his "recorded history" or lack of one was a reflection of the God/Man (God who became Man) who would hold his priesthood someday, forever. But if you take this literal then what do you do with Mary? We definitely don't have a genealogy on Melchizedek (But he whose descent is not counted from them) but we have an extensive one on Jesus (Matt. 1:1-17). Having neither beginning of days nor end of life. Jesus has a birthday and a day he died. The second person of the Trinity has no beginning or end but priest are taken from among men ("And the Word was made flesh", John 1:14) not God. Any reference to a mediator between God and man is always someone with an earth suit on. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" Melchizedek was like Christ, "But made like the Son of God", Heb. 7:3. Melchizedek's life was a hint of the incarnation to come.

Hebrews 7:4 states that Melchizedek was a man.

Hebrews 7:6 states that Melchizedek's genealogy was not traced from Abraham. (6But he whose descent is not counted from them) There is a direct genealogy from Abraham to Jesus (Matt. 1:1-17).

Hebrews 7:15 talks about another priest arising according to the likeness of Melchizedek. What does "after the order" imply? Doesn't another imply different? Likeness (similarity) and same (identical)? John the Baptist was a type and shadow of Elijah but not Elijah.

Hebrews 7:22 talks about "Jesus has become". Jesus either always was or Jesus "has become" a priest after the order of Melchizedek.

Even though there are interesting parallels between Melchizedek and Jesus I think the scriptures' clearly state they are separate people. If we look at Hebrews 8:4 it appears to imply that Jesus' priesthood is in his present heavenly position at the right hand of God and "if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all". His priesthood seems to be related to his heavenly ministry in the true temple unlike Melchizedek in Genesis. Which agrees with Psalms 110 "Sit thou at my right hand"

One could say Benny Hinn has a ministry like Kathryn Kuhlman or Benny Hinn is after the order of Kathryn Kuhlman but you can't say Benny Hinn is Kathryn Kuhlman or that Kathryn Kuhlman is Benny Hinn.

What did Jesus say about tithing?

Luke 11:42
"Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone."

Matt 23:23-24
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices-mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law-justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel."

Matthew 5:17-20
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

I think it's interesting to note that in verse 17 he uses the phrase "law or the Prophets" and in verse 18 he just uses "law". To understand this verse it's important to understand the context in which it was spoken. So let's look at the history of man. From Adam to Abraham/Moses there is 2000 years. From Moses to John the Baptist/Jesus there is 2000 years. From Jesus/death, burial, Resurrection to present there is 2000 years. These three periods are all significant, separate dealings that God has had with mankind. The period between Abraham and Moses was a transitional period (430yrs.) into the time of the Law and the Prophets. Abraham was an interesting individual whose life spoke to both the Jews under the law and Christians under Grace. For Abraham's life had the concept of righteousness through faith and the concept of the law (tithing and circumcision).

The law was given to the Jews. It was a Jewish system. Luke 16:16 (the law and the Prophets were until John). The Bible says this system was up until John. So what came after John? Another transition period. From John till the death, burial and Resurrection of Jesus. Galatians 4:4-5 says "Jesus was born under the law". Jesus was a transitional figure, for he taught Old Testament law (Matthew 5:17-20, Luke 11:42, Matthew 23:23-24) and the Royal law of the New Testament (Matthew 22:37; Romans 13:9 for this, thou shall not commit adultery, thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, thou shall not bear false witness, thou shall not covet, and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, thou shall love my neighbor as thyself).

But after Jesus' Resurrection, when he fulfilled the demands of justice with his blood, we entered a new system, a new covenant, a new priesthood (the tithe was for the Levitical priesthood), with a change in the law. John 1:17 "the law was through Moses but Grace and truth came through Jesus" the Moses system was the Old Testament law (tithing, dietary laws, etc) the new system through Jesus' sacrifice is summed up in Romans 6:14 "we're not under the law that under Grace".

I don't know how more clearly this can be stated. The facts are we are "scabs" (Gentiles), the union workers (Jews) have gone on strike. Management has brought us in as scab workers. We don't have to join the union (old covenant system). We don't have to go to those stinky (blood of animal sacrifices) smoke filled (the burning of incense) union halls (Temple worship). We don't have to pay the union dues (tithe). The management loves us and treats us as family. There are rumors that were being used to irritate the strikers to cause them to come back to work (Deuteronomy 32:21). If they do we could be yanked out of here in a heartbeat (in a twinkling of an eye 1 Cor. 15:51-53). But we still get to take advantage of the great retirement benefits.

Now back to verse 18, when Jesus paid the price on the Cross-he accomplished, fulfilled the law (Moses) and some of the prophecies (Elijah). I think the reason that verse 18 doesn't include "the Prophets" is that some prophecies will not be completely fulfilled until his second coming (Elijah comes first). It's like the Jews not understanding his first coming when they thought he would overthrow the Romans and set up his kingdom now. They didn't see the gap between the suffering servant (Isaiah 53) and the ruling King (Revelation 21:15-16). And there's a gap between the fulfilling of the law (Moses) and the fulfilling of the Prophets (Elijah). I hope I've included enough verses to prove that the law was fulfilled.

There's no question that the Jews understood that the apostles were teaching something new and contrary to law keeping. Acts 18:13 "these man want us to worship contrary to the law" Acts 21:21 "you teach us to forsake Moses". Christ was born under the law but was also the "end of the law" Romans 10:4.

What is the law, where is it found in the Old Testament? Some say the first five books of the Old Testament but this is just an arbitrary division. Jesus makes a quote and says, "it is written in the law" in John 15:25, he is quoting Psalms 35:19, 69:4. In I Corinthians 14:21 they quote from the law and reference Isaiah 28:11. I think God would call everything from Moses to John the Baptist "the Law and Prophets". The "Law (Moses) and Prophets (Elijah)" is used as a catchall term for what has passed away under the new covenant.

True there are prophecies not yet fulfilled (Elijah's work is not completed, Moses' is) because there is a break in the system of God working strictly with the Jews. Prophecy indicates after his second coming he will again primarily work through the Jews (Zechariah 2:12, 8:23). When Jesus said if you destroy this Temple (center of the old covenant system) I would raise it up in three days, he was speaking in the law of double reference. He was not only speaking about his body, which was raised early on the third day (24 hour days), but he was also speaking of the physical Temple (Jewish system) that will be raised early on the third day ("one day is as a 1000 years". Jesus and the Temple (Matthew 27:51) died the same day. Both gave up their ghost. When the Temple is resurrected so will God's working with the Jews. Now is the time of the Gentiles. The Gentiles are not under the law. The law was given to the Jews not the Gentiles.

The facts are Abraham did not practice the law of tithing, his giving that 10% was a type and shadow of tithing just like John the Baptist was a type and shadow of Elijah. There is no Scripture he practiced regular tithing. There was no law (Moses or Levitical priesthood) at that time. There is no scripture that Melchizedek ever came for a tithe again. There is no law (Moses) at this time, period.

Are we only right with God if we follow the law of tithing today?

Is our right standing connected with the law? If we are commanded to tithe today than we're not right with God's command if we don't Galatians 2:21 "for if righteousness comes through the law Christ died needlessly" our right standing comes from hearing with faith Galatians 3:2.

The law was a tutor. It taught us to give 10 %. Galatians 3:25 " now that faith has come we no longer need a tutor " those who are under the law are a slave to the law. Galatians 4:7 "we are no longer a slave" Romans 9:31-32 "pursue by faith not works".

The law of tithing imposes a financial debt (Amos 5:11), if we don't pay that debt were in trouble. The law demands certain actions to stay right with the lawgiver. This would change the nature of our righteousness in the new covenant, Amos 5:7 "fruit of righteousness to wormwood", "as many as are under the law are under a curse" Galatians 3:10.

Let Abraham speak to this: Abraham's life speaks to the issue of the law. Abraham had two sons, Ishmael (law) and Isaac (promise). Gal. 4:21-31, 5:1-10. The son that Abraham had through Hagar was based on the flesh, the law and customs of the time. The son that Abraham had through Sarah, Isaac, was the son of promise. One-day the Holy Spirit (Sarah) told Abraham to get rid of Hagar (Old Covenant) and Ishmael (tithing, etc.). Then God the Father told Abraham to forever put Ishmael outside the camp. Can you imagine the pain Abraham went through. I can just hear him reason with God. But can't he visit us once a week (Saturday Sabbath)?, but God says no. But can't I flow him some money (tithing)?, no. Can I at least have a meal (dietary laws) with him occasionally?, no. But he will be all alone in the desert can't I defend him (stoning)?, no. Can't he come home for the holidays (holy days)?, no. But God can't I------- no, no, no.

The law (Ishmael, tithing) must be kept outside the camp (Church). Grace (Jews) might try to accommodate the law (Arabs) but the law (Arabs) will destroy grace (the Jews). Ishmael hates Isaac. Isaac (promise, grace) might allow Ishmael (law) to live in the camp but if he does Ishmael (law, Arabs) will kill him (grace, Jews). It's true now, it was true then, it will always be true.

No matter what our emotional attachment is with the law we must put it outside the Church, send it into the desert (civil law). As a pastor we might see the benefit of tithing to help the budget of the Church. As a surgeon we might see the benefits of circumcision, it would bring in a lot of business. As a kosher food distributor we might see the benefits in the dietary laws, we would have a corner on the market. We must put our emotional attachments aside and obey God. Put Ishmael (tithing, etc.) and Hagar (Old Covenant) outside the camp, forever. No compromise, for no reason.

The principle of giving in the New Testament

1. What is the New Testament equivalent to tithing? It seems to me that Galatians 6:6 is the closest equivalents to tithing (the tithe was for the Levitical priesthood). We're taught to give to those who teach us the word, Galatians 6:6 "if taught the word then share in all good things" and 1 Tim. 5:18 "For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The laborer is worthy of his reward." Based on the belief that the old covenant holds types and shadows for us today I believe this will answer a believer's questions about what do we replace the tithe with. How much? Are you getting fresh bread (words of life) or moldy bread (men's ideas)? Listen to your heart on giving. Support where your feed!!! Fulfill the storehouse principle.

2. We're taught the principles of sowing and reaping, Galatians 6:7, 2 Corinthians 9:6-sowings and reaping-a seed you sow not a debt you owe.
Support where your feed!!! Also plant into good soil, you will reap from the blessing in the soil. Sow into GLORY reap GLORY.

3. We're taught to listen to our hearts as far as giving is concerned, 2 Corinthians 8:2-3 is New Testament giving----from the heart not from the dictates of the/a Law.

The nature of a law is obedience by compulsion for the law has penalty, 2 Corinthians 9:7 "purposed in his heart"-"not grudgingly"-"not under compulsion" This is probably the foundational verse for new testament giving.

4. The practice of our giving, coming from the heart, would cause us to be moved by compassion, Ephesians 4:28 "give to who has need"

Paul had ample opportunity to bring up the "principle" or Law of tithing when he had needs both personally and for the church at Jerusalem, 2 Corinthians 11:9. Why didn't Paul teach them to tithe? In 2 Corinthians 11:8 Paul talks about "wages" (1 Tim. 5:18) he also talks about gifts but never about receiving tithes.

The principle (law) of giving in the New Testament comes from the heart not from the dictates of the law, 2 Corinthians 8:10 "giving comes by desire", 2 Corinthians 9:7 "purposed in his heart"-"not grudgingly"-"not under compulsion" The church leaders must trust in the people hearing from God themselves 2 Corinthians 8:16 "God puts it in the heart ". Man's way has always been not to trust the people but to lay down the Law. Some can't join a local church without promising to follow the external dictates of the Old Testament law instead of following after the law written in their hearts. This is very close to charging for the word, 2 Corinthians 11:7 "preach without charge".

If I pay my 10 % I have something to boast about, yet in the body of Christ it is "by Grace and faith not by works of the law" "Not of works, lest any man should boast" Ephesians 2:8-9.

The body of Christ should not be tied to religious leaders who play it safe with man controlled comfort meetings, because the church is a breathing organism not a formal institution.

Sermon notes 9:00AM April 21, 2002

As an organism I do not need to read a physiology book on digestion before I eat. The laws of digestion are written inside. I just chew, swallow and everything else comes naturally. As a formal institution we need laws, we need to learn traditions, forms, rituals etc. in order to function. Following the Old Testament law (tithing) is more consistent with a formal institution. Giving from the heart (not the head) is more consistent with a breathing organism.

It might be a comfort to man to teach the minimum amount that each Christian should give but tithing is a tax on our freedom in Christ, we should all join the tax revolt and be free, not free from giving but free in giving. God wants to inspire "miraculous giving". Even in the government's economy when taxes are reduced there is an economic boon and the government ends up getting more money.

Is it possible that if a church gives up this remnant of the law and teaches its people to give from the heart that the church's economy would increase? 2 Corinthians 8:2 "in their poverty---overflowed in liberality" 2 Corinthians 8:5 "they gave themselves to the Lord and then to us" these were poor people yet they gave a large offering, "miraculous giving".

The facts are you can't rub any two New Testament Scripture's together and get even a spark of tithing as a New Testament doctrine. 2 Corinthians 13:1 "confirmed by two or three witnesses"

Romans 8:2 we are either free from the law or we are not-you can't be a little pregnant; Galatians 5:9 a little leaven will leaven the whole loaf.

Let's look at this another way.

Ten years ago you and your spouse purchased a home in an exclusive neighborhood that had a clubhouse and pool. Part of the contract you signed for the purchase of the home included fees each month for the upkeep of the clubhouse and pool. Now you a get new job 2000 miles away. You sell the home and move to the new city and buy a new home. Three months into the new contract you receive a letter from the old property asking for the fees for the clubhouse and pool. What do you do? Of course you tell them that that contract has been satisfied and you are not under any obligation to make these payments. But if you were extremely naive about contract law and realizing that you did sign a contract to pay those fees, you send in payments faithfully, what is your benefit?

Let's say three years later you're back in the former state visiting family and you decide to go swimming on a hot August afternoon. As you drive up to the exclusive communities' swimming pool you're asked for your ID and you're informed that this pools is only for residents. It doesn't matter that you been sending in payments for three years, you don't live there and the rules concerning pool use are for residents only. Those payments were totally wasted, they were based on a contract that was fulfilled, null and void. You're only responsible for the new contract that is in force.

There might be provisions in both contracts that are similar. Like the Old and New Testaments. And if you are interested in contract law and had a copy of your first contract you could study it for information. You might find provisions in both contracts that are similar yet the only provisions that you'd be responsible for, in front of a judge, are only those spelled out in the new contract. If the new contract does not have clubhouse fees then you don't pay them. Any dictates from the old contract you try to fulfill will not help you under the new contract. If you're in default on the new contract and you bring up the fact to the judge that you're paying fees from the old contract he will think you're crazy. He will also inform you that that has nothing to do with this case. If you're in front of a judge because you are in default, the only facts important in this case are the provisions from the new contract. Any payments that go to the old contract are completely irrelevant. Its money down the drain. Jesus paid the price on the old contract 2000 years ago.

Let me summarize: the Old Testament Temple worship with its rules and regulations (tithing etc) is dead. The Temple died and gave up the ghost 2000 years ago (Matthew 27:51, Rom. 7:2). You can't beat a dead horse--. We have now moved 2000 years away from the old Temple system, why should we still pay the clubhouse fees? (Rom. 7:6) What about animal sacrifice, circumcision etc.? How much of the old system are you going to bring across to the new system? Did Christ die in vain? Was his sacrifice not enough to take care of the old contract with its rules and regulations? (Eph. 2:15, Col.2:14-23)

Money paid in tithes today could be cursed.
Let's look at a Christian couple that has been giving to the church for several years. Over the years they have been able to increase their giving up to 20 percent of their income. (Personally I believe we should be doing better than the old covenant.) The first 10 percent they give as a tithe, based on the Old Testament covenant (Leviticus 27:30), the next 10 percent they give out of love (Rom. 13:. Look at it this way, they have divided their seed up and laid half of it on the stony tablets of the law (Rom.14:23) and planted the other half in the fertile ground of faith and love. The second 10 percent has the potential for harvest. The first 10 percent lays on the stony tablets of the law (Gal.3:12) exposed to being devoured by the birds of the air (religious spirits). Maybe some of it, because of mercy and grace, might be blown off to the surrounding soil and find root, but most of it will be exposed to the birds of the air.

The word tithe might have never come out of the lips of Paul in the New Testament unless, as many believe, he wrote Hebrews, if he did, there are only four verses concerning tithing and they are in reference to past history not present doctrine. And in the context of the old being done away with.

There are 39 different Scripture's concerning tithing in the Old and New Testament. Only 7 of those scriptures are in the New Testament and none of those teach the doctrine for New Covenant believers. Seven is the number for completion. Christ completed the old and Christ's 39 stripes paid that debt.

With the principle of the widow's mite, a New Testament believer who is in severe financial straits and gives only 3.76 % of his income, is he blessed or cursed? If he gives with a cheerful heart, in faith, he is blessed not cursed.

Under the law of tithing giving 3.76 % would put us under a curse, 9 % we would still be under the curse, 9.9999 % we would still be under the curse, 10 % then God would love us again. This is Law not Grace. Threatening the body of Christ with the curse of the law is an affront to the sacrifice of Christ, for he became a curse for us. The real curse is on those who preach another gospel for Paul never, ever taught tithing; neither did any of the other New Testament writers. So if somebody does today, they are teaching something contrary, Galatians 1:6-8 "let him be accursed" "contrary to which we preach"

It seems after 2000 years the church is afraid to completely release the Old Testament Law, "we do not yet see all things subject to him" Hebrews 2:8.

What is it about "For freedom he has set us free" that we don't understand? Romans 4:15 "where no law there is no violation."

Giving for "Dummies"

Unfortunately some will read this article and see it as an excuse not to give or to reduce their giving. I would ask that you reread this article with your heart not your head. It takes a little bit of head knowledge to calculate your tithe and it takes a little bit of head calculations to figure out how not to give. Both are cut from the same cloth (head not heart). James 2:26 "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also". If this is your mindset then you might as well tithe because you're in bondage both ways. Why not go ahead and put your seed on the stony tablets of the law, it will produce more than sticking it in a bag with holes. Haggai 1: 6 "Ye have sown much, and bring in little; ye eat, but ye have not enough; ye drink, but ye are not filled with drink; ye clothe you, but there is none warm; and he that earneth wages earneth wages to put it into a bag with holes." Because if you're not a giver then you have separated yourself from God's blessing.

More than one pastor who has read the rough draft of this paper expressed their concerns that few in the church even give 10 percent, most less than 5%. Shame on the church. What is it about giving that we don't get? What is it about God that we don't understand? For God so loved the world that he gave…, John 3:16 "16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life". Be imitators (followers) of God as dear children. Eph. 5:1-2: "Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savor." Give and it shall be given to you. Luke 6:38 "Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again". It is more blessed to give than to receive. Acts 20:35 "I have showed you all things, how that so laboring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive."

One day I got an impression of God handing me his wallet. But the catch was he wanted my wallet. Personally, I thought that was a good exchange. But I found some strange things about God's wallet. He had foreign currency. You had to go to the bank (enter HIS financial system) and stand in line (faith and patience, James 1:3) and exchange it for U.S. currency. Another interesting thing is that if you reached in and grabbed everything out of the wallet and then looked back in, the wallet was still full. 1 Kings 17:10-16 "So he arose and went to Warpath. And when he came to the gate of the city, behold, the widow woman was there gathering of sticks: and he called to her, and said, Fetch me, I pray thee, a little water in a vessel, that I may drink. And as she was going to fetch it, he called to her, and said, Bring me, I pray thee, a morsel of bread in thine hand. And she said, As the LORD thy God liveth, I have not a cake, but an handful of meal in a barrel, and a little oil in a cruse: and, behold, I am gathering two sticks, that I may go in and dress it for me and my son, that we may eat it, and die. And Elijah said unto her, Fear not; go and do as thou hast said: but make me thereof a little cake first, and bring it unto me, and after make for thee and for thy son. For thus saith the LORD God of Israel, The barrel of meal shall not waste, neither shall the cruse of oil fail, until the day that the LORD sendeth rain upon the earth. And she went and did according to the saying of Elijah: and she, and he, and her house, did eat many days. And the barrel of meal wasted not, neither did the cruse of oil fail, according to the word of the LORD, which he spake by Elijah." But there was a downside, if I didn't give where God told me to give (if my wallet was stuck shut) then I had a problem opening God's wallet.

Why do you think the Bible is full of promises concerning giving? Was God trying to take up space or spice things up? Does the farmer expect to get more than he planted? When he plants one seed does he expect one seed back? Did God make natural principles to explain the spiritual? Does he expect us to understand the natural and then use that knowledge in the spiritual realm?

Let me make this simple. We are at the end times. God is getting ready for a massive revival. That's going to take big bucks. Who do think he wants to fund this revival through? What does that mean about your banking account? Would you like to have God's wallet? Then you have to have God's heart. The word "give" in one form or another is found over 1276 times in the bible. Any questions?
Rev. 3:15 "I know thy works."

@huxley,

huxley:
If the following has already been posted, I apologise. Taken from here

Please don't weary yourself quoting every simplistic argument against tithes, okay? I have read Russell Earl Kelly's book (800 pages long) and the guy kept yapping excuses like a vomiting machine and yet he was unable to come to the simple basic question that non-tithers have found very enigmatic. Here is the man:
https://fgn.typepad.com/freegoodnews/images/russsuitjpg_1.jpg

You know the one problem with these folks? It is this: basing ALL their arguments against Tithes on the Mosaic Law. There is nothing more than that. This is the same man who called the Melchizedek case in the book of Hebrews a "scandal" - and any godly fellow needs to ask himself/herself what value is such an idea to the health of Christian ministry? Or, how different is that declaration from those who have been scuttling round this issue with sources that tend to place Abraham's tithing on par with "pagan" rites?

Since this is not your problem, any excuse against tithes just seems to please you guys so very much that you can't hold yourselves. It seems remarkable indeed that one could spend all their energy fighting against something they have no clue about - and it just comes across as a testimony to a restless conscience.

This matter is not about endless or 800 pages long excuses. If people don't want to tithe, what is the quarrel there? Are tithers asking a dime from the pockets of non-tithers and tithe-anatgonists?

I know and have enjoyed the other messages of some godly men who also teach against tithes. Such men as J. Vernon McGee and John MacArthur. Although these men do not encourage tithes, nonetheless they do not descend to the sanctimonious hubris of declaring the case of Melchizedek a "scandal". We can all exercise some charity about matters which we do not agree with one another on. . but for someone to use the Bible to preach extremes and curse his fellow brethren to HELL (as I pointed out sometime earlier) is a most ungodly adventure - all in the name of. . TITHE?!?

I have said it before and say it again: TITHE is not the problem here. many people hold their misgivings against tithes for matters which are far removed from what it actually is in Scripture. That is why they curse others with a religious sanctimony, proclaim that tithers are on the road down to HELL; go so far as to use the same tithes to refer to others as thieves, liars, manipulators, and rogues. . . and for pete's sake, could someone tell me what name Russell Earl kelly has made for himself for asking $16 for his book initially? What does such money-making scheme make Russell if he was at liberty to make money from a subject he detests and ask for your money to sell his vexations in order to repudiate others in his book? Today, his friends are pretending that he has been giving out his book free! I knew when he released his book and how much he was panning it for!

Dear huxley, after all the efforts to ridicule this issue (by quoting those who no less have themselves ridiculed what they have no clue to), please rest your heart. Until you could find such adulators who could answer my one simple question on Hebrews 7:8 often quoted, your efforts here are best wasted. Best of luck at other times.

Cheers.

huxley:
Some more stuff about tithing take from here

Tithing:
New Testament Principle (Law) or Religious Bondage
John Keefe, DC



Tithing is part of the Law

Scriptural basis: command in the law, Leviticus 27:30

By what LAW or COMMAND did Abraham tithe to Melchizedek?

huxley:
Are we under the Old Testament law today?

Was Abraham under the Old Testament Law when he tithed?

huxley:
The answer to this is both yes and no. The Old Testament law covered two aspects of the Jews life, their personal and national relationship to God as well as their relationship as an individual to civil authority.

That's actually three aspects he spoke of there:

(a) "their personal and (b) national relationship to God"

Personal relationship to God was never once confused for the national relationship they had with God. Each person's faith brought blessing to that person; but as per the national relationship, one person's evil may affect the whole nation!

(c) "their relationship as an individual to civil authority"

Sorry, Israel was an a theocratic nation - your author should have known better! It was not a "civic" nation built on democracy, but rather on theocracy. If "civic" (however one slices it) was merely pertaining to citizen responsibilities, then the author was mixing up issues here because that would simply mean their "national relationship" - which he already mentioned. Then what waste repeating himself and making it a different issue?

huxley:
The civil law is still in affect today. But the law concerning our relationship to God has undergone a change (Hebrew 7:12) under the new covenant. If one studies civil laws, we can clearly see today that our civil law's have their roots in the old covenant law.

here is the big throb on his toe! Dear huxley, it pays to be careful when quoting people - to post these utility grade scholarship only makes one wonder if you really have a handle on what you're proffering for others to read. I would like to ask YOU pointedly - could you enunciate the "civic law" which your author say is still in effect today? When you do so, then I shall show you how trailed off he was by many miles.

Many thanks.

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

Please don't weary yourself quoting every simplistic argument against tithes, okay? I have read Russell Earl Kelly's book (800 pages long) and the guy kept yapping excuses like a vomiting machine and yet he was unable to come to the simple basic question that non-tithers have found very enigmatic. Here is the man:
https://fgn.typepad.com/freegoodnews/images/russsuitjpg_1.jpg

You know the one problem with these folks? It is this: basing ALL their arguments against Tithes on the Mosaic Law. There is nothing more than that. This is the same man who called the Melchizedek case in the book of Hebrews a "scandal" - and any godly fellow needs to ask himself/herself what value is such an idea to the health of Christian ministry? Or, how different is that declaration from those who have been scuttling round this issue with sources that tend to place Abraham's tithing on par with "pagan" rites?

Since this is not your problem, any excuse against tithes just seems to please you guys so very much that you can't hold yourselves. It seems remarkable indeed that one could spend all their energy fighting against something they have no clue about - and it just comes across as a testimony to a restless conscience.

This matter is not about endless or 800 pages long excuses. If people don't want to tithe, what is the quarrel there? Are tithers asking a dime from the pockets of non-tithers and tithe-anatgonists?

I know and have enjoyed the other messages of some godly men who also teach against tithes. Such men as J. Vernon McGee and John MacArthur. Although these men do not encourage tithes, nonetheless they do not descend to the sanctimonious hubris of declaring the case of Melchizedek a "scandal". We can all exercise some charity about matters which we do not agree with one another on. . but for someone to use the Bible to preach extremes and curse his fellow brethren to HELL (as I pointed out sometime earlier) is a most ungodly adventure - all in the name of. . TITHE?!?

I have said it before and say it again: TITHE is not the problem here. many people hold their misgivings against tithes for matters which are far removed from what it actually is in Scripture. That is why they curse others with a religious sanctimony, proclaim that tithers are on the road down to HELL; go so far as to use the same tithes to refer to others as thieves, liars, manipulators, and rogues. . . and for pete's sake, could someone tell me what name Russell Earl kelly has made for himself for asking $16 for his book initially? What does such money-making scheme make Russell if he was at liberty to make money from a subject he detests and ask for your money to sell his vexations in order to repudiate others in his book? Today, his friends are pretending that he has been giving out his book free! I knew when he released his book and how much he was panning it for!

Dear huxley, after all the efforts to ridicule this issue (by quoting those who no less have themselves ridiculed what they have no clue to), please rest your heart. Until you could find such adulators who could answer my one simple question on Hebrews 7:8 often quoted, your efforts here are best wasted. Best of luck at other times.

Cheers.

Hello,

My interest in this is not to ridicule but to understand how it could be that "god's" command could be so variously interpreted.

What is the standard, guiding principle, etc, etc, behind any proposition or injunction in the christian doctrine.  That is what fascinates me about religion.

Why is it that a section of people can think themselves so right and others so wrong, reading exactly the same book and supposedly being guided by the same god?

"Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied. "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son. [/i]. . . "

"The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore.[i] Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me." (Genesis 22:10-12, 15-18, NIV)

do you notice abraham's heart?  a heart that does not with hold anything from God.

Most casual readers of the Old Testament will conclude that there were at least two, and perhaps three, separate tithes, averaging either twenty or twenty three and one third percent (23 1/3%) per year, instead of only one ten (10%) percent tithe. For two thousand years theologians have been split over whether these were all separate tithes or somehow merged into either one or two tithes. The "multiple tithe" position is held by Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, Matthew Henry, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, Bruce Metzger, Charles Ryrie, the Jewish Talmud and most Jewish writers, like Josephus.

Which type of tithes do you advocate? The single or the multi tithes approach? Looks like the biblical scholarly position is divided about what this really means.

JJYOU:
"Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied. "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son. [/i]. . . "

"The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore.[i] Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me." (Genesis 22:10-12, 15-18, NIV)

do you notice abraham's heart? a heart that does not with hold anything from God.

If god is omniscient, how come he did not know that Abraham was faithful to him, but had to put him and Isaac through this ordeal

oh my

Josh, u r bringing something different here.

this tithe issue. ooooooooh

@huxley,

huxley:
Hello,

My interest in this is not to ridicule but to understand how it could be that "god's" command could be so variously interpreted.

Okay, my apologies for my very firm tone. It was not intended against your person, and I should not have been quoting you directly even though I know that you were reposting others just to "seek" what the variance in interpretation. No worries there - this is not the only subject that people have disagreed on (and it doesn't have to be a Biblical subject for people to disgaree). In anycase, since you were seeking various interpretations, I wonder how it is that it is only those who disafvour tithes that seem to catch your interest most.

huxley:
What is the standard, guiding principle, etc, etc, behind any proposition or injunction in the christian doctrine.  That is what fascinates me about religion.

You know what fascinates me? It is the attitude of people not being serious enough to look at issues objectively. I do not want to repeat myself endlessly here again; but if anyone wants to know the difference between matters under the old covenant and the new covenant, all the needed to do is make the effort to not mix them up - and then appreciate the fact that they were never confused in the Bible. This was one of the reasons I posted the difference in detail and simply in the previous couple of pages. Not even as if I'm the only one who has done this: others have even done a finer job simplifying issues in fewer words than I could manage.

huxley:
Why is it that a section of people can think themselves so right and others so wrong, reading exactly the same book and supposedly being guided by the same god?

That is no problem at all, huxley. Even if all Christian agree, is it not the same book that many skeptics and atheists have read with different, disagreeing objections thereto? I have taken the time to look at so many fields of human endeavours, and everyone seems to interprete issues differently - a few just to tease us:

     -- many meteorologists have different weather forecasts on the same region

     -- many biologists differ in their interpretation of mechanisms for evolutionary biology
        (Richard Dawkins was so bitter against Stephen J. Gould - and both were atheists)

     -- politicians are not all agreed on interpretations of political issues among themselves

     -- two people can look at the same artwork and have different interpretations thereto
         (Dan Brown gave a weird interpretation of Leonardo Da Vinci's last supper from what
         secular art critics know and teach)

     -- even in the recent discussions we had on Buddhism, both of us had different opinions
         as to whether the Theravada was actually a religious or atheistic worldview, not so?

If the problem was about viewing things differently under the claim that those interpreters claim all to be guided by God, it makes no surprises, dear huxley. .  because not everyone making a claim actually has the reality of that claim in experience.

Cheers.

huxley:
Which type of tithes do you advocate? The single or the multi tithes approach? Looks like the biblical scholarly position is divided about what this really means.

On what covenant are those based? if you're still struggling with the old covenant, could you help refresh your mind as to what I have always consistently stated? My persuasions for tithing are not based upon the old covenant under the Levitical priesthood. I have said so many times over.

huxley:
If God is omniscient, how come he did not know that Abraham was faithful to him, but had to put him and Isaac through this ordeal

Did Abraham slay Isaac? Is that the "ordeal"? God knew Abraham's heart, but in speaking those words to the hearing of the patriarch, He was reassuring him that there was nothing quizzical about the latter's faith in Him. There are so many examples about this type of matter - it is simply a case of prophetic confirmation.

@huxley,

huxley:
Am sorry if my poorly structured sentence caused you to misinterpret what I meant. I was not asking for how you support your tithing practices financially. I was asking how you support it biblically, which you have amply provided.

My deepest apologies there - indeed I misread you.

huxley:
Like I said, I could not care less. I was only after how it could be defended (supported) biblically.

Okay, if you could care less we wonder why the sudden interest that you had to repost articles that have already been posted earlier and which arguments did not yield any significant fruit? Why so? Because most of these authors have been basing all their arguments mainly on the Levitical priesthood and missed the one thing Hebrews 7 mentions in the case of Abraham and Melchizedek! That was why I kept asking over and over again: under what LAW or COMMAND did Abraham tithe to Melchizedek? Only a few careful readers have noted that it had nothing to do with such Law or Commandment, but simply on the basis of FAITH.

That is the one thing ("FAITH" in Abraham's case that those authors missed - and we cannot perpetuate the mistake of the previous generation and carry them into our thinking today. Not that they have not been of help in any way (most of them still have my deepest respects to this very day) - but I think it does not cost so much if people come forth and honestly tackle issues regardless the controversy it may stir. This is why I often clear shy of sticking my mind on commentaries (although so many commentaries are quite helpful).

huxley:
By the way, I was quoting from a book by people (Frank Viola & George Barna considered as respectable Christian scholars. None of the words and ideas there was mine. I am sure you would have been familiar with some of these discussion already, so what I posted would have been nothing new to you.

True - I'm familiar with those authors; and I do not follow their slant in "Christainity". From the earliest times I came across them, I knew it would not be long before they drove themselves to the edge where their blasphemous shade of religious ideas would become clear to all. A case in point is the book now that is misleading many "Christians" - the book: 'The Shack', in which the author describes the Trinity in humanistic terms with God the 'father' as an American woman! This is more than a joke, huxley; and all this so-called "new reality" is based on one false premise which they have dyed themselves hard: their disdain for what they describe as "institutional church". Anyone familiar with them and listens to their sermons will see New Ageism under the cavalier masque. One who has a living reality in their relationship with God cannot acknowledge those works as "Christian scholarship".

huxley:
From a bible perspective, I and convinced that the NT as it is today appear to clearly favour tithing. For me, this raises two questions;

1) IS the tithing in the NT the same practice as described and mandated in the OT?

No, and I have shared extensively on that already. The difference is simple: Under the Levitical priesthood, Israel was called upon to tithe by legal requirement; whereas, under the new covenant, there is NO LAW of a legal requirement in the priesthood of Melchizedek to do so! This is why you will never find tithes in NT Christian teaching as a compulsory requirement! So what then? Simply this: by faith, those who understand what Hebrews 7:8 could (not must) tithe as they so desire from their hearts. God won't force anyone, but as anyone is drawn to give their tithes, He receives them.

But what if someone sees Hebrews 7:8 and decides from their heart to not tithe at all till his/her last breath? There are no curses, no hates, no anger from God against them, and no quarrels thereto. This, we can understand, is simply left to such brethren and God - for He alone sees their faith.

huxley:
2) Given that it is accepted amongst many Christian and secular bible scholars that many parts of the NT are interpolations, made to pursue certain theological agenda, it could be that those NT references to tithing were additions made many years after the books were originally written.

This is mere speculation - and I said earlier that my persuasions does not derive from secular literature. Those who go about with a "Christian" badge and yet bend their convictions of secular speculations are best left to their musings.

huxley:
If Viola & Barne's account are anything near correct (ie that earlier church history does not show it practicing tithing), then it is conceivable that the redactors of the NT might have inserted text to present tithing in a favourable light, in view of the considerable percuniary implication it would have had for the church coffers.

Let Viola and Barne show us how Hebrews 7:8 was a "latter interpolation". It is easy for chaps like that to clutter their thinking for whatever reason suits their agenda best; but pilgrim.1 does not bend her convictions to their slant.

Shalom.

Melchizedek was a priest who blessed two systems in Abraham. The law (he took a tithe) and grace (communion bread and wine, Genesis 14:18). Jesus is now a priest of two systems: the church (Gentile centered, now) and the temple system (Jewish centered, after the rapture) in the New Jerusalem Rev. 21:9-27.

Was Jesus Melchizedek?

In Genesis 14:17-23 we have the first appearance of Melchizedek.

"And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale. And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all. And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself. And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, That I will not take from a thread even to a shoe latchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:"

It says that he is a king, and priest of God. In verses 18- 20 it says that Abraham "gave him a 10th of all" (type and shadow of tithing) and received "bread and wine" (type and shadow of communion). Melchizedek recognized and blessed both the law and promise (grace) represented in Abraham.

@huxley,

This is a very big mistake that the author (John Keefe, DC) above was making.

(1) Melchizedek was not blessing "two systems" - and anyone who simply opens his or her Bible would see it clear as day! Genesis 14:19 shows that Melchizedek blessed Abraham, and there is no interpolation there to warrant the idea that the blessing was rather to a "system" - this is how religion creeps in through the back door, and it is remarkable that the people who are arguing the loudest against "religion" in Christianity are the same ones who are building its foundations!

(2) The bread and wine that Melchizedek brought to Abraham does not speak about "communion" of grace in Christ - it does not foreshadow it, does not point to it, and it does not give us any warrant to take that view. Back then, a simple presentation of bread and wine was a familiar symbol of fellowship and not the "communion" of grace in Christ.

(3) To misconstrue the bread and wine in that instance as "communion bread and wine" is to confuse the whole essence of that passage, because it would then mean that the author was presenting Melchizedek as Jesus Christ (even though he disavows that very thing)! Only Christ Himself could actually present the "communion bread and wine" in theophany; and even at that time the typology of the very basis for that communion (the death and resurrection of Christ) has not been established there!



(4) Lastly, please people, never ever ever make the mistake of arguing against tithes and at the same time presenting the Lord Jesus as a priest of two systems! That is such a denigration of Christ's glory as High Priest of only one thing before our Father - and that is: the new covenant!

If Christ was to be priest of two systems, it means He would be priest of the Jewish system and the new covenant (which is actually what our author has declared - please see above highlight in quote where he said: "Jesus is now a priest of two systems: "! As such, it would require the Lord Jesus to be here on earth to manage the earthly priesthood as well - which is categorcally refuted in Hebrews 8:4 - "For if He were on earth, He should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law."

That being the case, since Christ is in heaven, He could be priest of only ONE priesthood - the Melchizedek priesthood! What this means is that Jesus could not be priest of the Jewish system at all - because the Jewish system is said to be "that which decayeth and waxeth old" and is "ready to vanish away" (Hebrews 8:13).  How could Jesus be priest of that kind of system?!?

More over, referring to the basis of our new covenant, the Bible clearly says: "We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle." (Hebrews 13:10).


People, you see now why I said that when anatagonists of tithes try to argue their case every single time on the Law, they come off confused than when they started! This is one reason why I categorically said that I'm not inclined to set my thoughts on commentaries - because some of these commentaries are quite misleading!!! Even though they argue against tithes, how could these same men be postulating that Jesus is a priest of TWO systems - and we should just swallow it because they argue against tithes with long theses?!? Just about the same retired arguments I found in Russell Kelly's 800 pages book arguing irrationally just every excuse against tithes - and because he holds a Ph.D people assume that he knew what he was saying?

May God help us examine matters with a sharp taste and vision and not fall victims of needless arguments.

Blessings to all.

@ huxley

If god is omniscient, how come he did not know that Abraham was faithful to him, but had to put him and Isaac through this ordeal

In your words, God is not omniscient, abi? If you really want an answer to the above question,ask him yourself.

Hello,

My interest in this is not to ridicule but to understand how it could be that "god's" command could be so variously interpreted.

What is the standard, guiding principle, etc, etc, behind any proposition or injunction in the christian doctrine. That is what fascinates me about religion.

Why is it that a section of people can think themselves so right and others so wrong, reading exactly the same book and supposedly being guided by the same god?

Not to ridicule abi? Then why the consistent small "g". Is that how it's written in your bible?

@ Pilgrim.1,
I wonder if its any use explaining to huxley (a self-professed atheist on nairaland) the whole tithing issue. His mission here is not get clarified on the issue of tithing either by supporting it or not supporting it, but to probably laugh at it.

Hi @sleekmag,

Thank you for your comments - and even in previous pages where you shared, I have truly been blessed (not because you also favour tithes as a Christian, but rather because many friends offline constantly reference the way you shared your views).

sleekymag:
@ Pilgrim.1,
I wonder if its any use explaining to huxley (a self-professed atheist on nairaland) the whole tithing issue. His mission here is not get clarified on the issue of tithing either by supporting it or not supporting it, but to probably laugh at it.

Actually, I knew from the very onset that he was least interested in this subject or any other. Typically, most atheists (not all of them that I know) make a career of ridiculing the Christian faith. When they talk about "religion", they don't sincerely mean that - rather, they mean "Christianity". So, it does not surprise anyone that all their efforts are often geared against Christianity even when they claim to be fighting "religion".

And it was because of his efforts to deflect this discussions with retired arguments that I took the time to post a few pointers (especially for the sake of those friends offline who pressed me to defend my position against Russell Kelly's and John Keefe's arguments - reposted earlier by huxley).

As anyone can see now, is it not plain that even those who argue long and hard against tithes often have no clue what they are saying? As in the case of John Keefe, how could such a man argue against tithes by claiming that "Jesus is now a priest of two systems"?!? The moment I pointed that out to my friends offline, I never saw any email from them even up until now! None of them have returned to counter-argue anything.

My point? Simply this: that not every one (on both sides of the divide) actually has a good grasp of what they argue (and that includes me, though learning everyday). I don't know it all - have never known it all; and even so, I had once argued against tithing. . . until my eyes were opened that indeed I was merely swallowing the arguments of others and not actually allowing the Word to stir my own convictions.

The moment I saw this, I tread carefully as to whose persuasions I was hooting for. It then dawned on me that: (a) some tithers actually have no good grasp about their persuasions - and that is why antagonists will always succeed to waste their persuasions; and (b) most antagonists against tithes actually have no Biblical substance to their own arguments either! Why were these fellows making the same mistake every time? Because they were always setting their eyes every single time on the Levitical priesthood! Does anyone now wonder that they just don't have any answers to the case of Melchizedek's priesthood in Hebrews 7:8?!? Instead of helping their readers, such anatagonists scuttle round that verse. .  some even calling it a "scandal" or "pagan rites" - and you won't find anyone of them calmly and responsibly addressing that matter. The best you can get from them are the tired, old, and retired exculpations that are now a bore!

It's my persuasion that the moment these guys calmly address that verse over and above all their excuses, then they will see how sadly mistaken they have been in dissing Abraham's tithes to Melchizedek! May God make it so for them.

Shalom.

pilgrim.1:
Actually, I knew from the very onset that he was least interested in this subject or any other. Typically, most atheists (not all of them that I know) make a career of ridiculing the Christian faith. When they talk about "religion", they don't sincerely mean that - rather, they mean "Christianity". So, it does not surprise anyone that all their efforts are often geared against Christianity even when they claim to be fighting "religion".
It's my persuasion that the moment these guys calmly address that verse over and above all their excuses, then they will see how sadly mistaken they have been in dissing Abraham's tithes to Melchizedek! May God make it so for them.

Shalom.

Amen in Jesus name. it shocks me to see believers agreeing with what atheist think of the words in the bible. we had one in my family. he always complained about my mum giving money to church. he has no problem asking us for money. i took the pain to hear him out saying all we give my mum goes to the church. his only wahala was pastors living in good houses and having children in private schools.  to my usual question of how the churches should be funded, he said giving as everyone wishes.  he had the misfortune of needing money for his sons wedding 2yrs ago and asked my brother for some money. God have mercy on him the good boy said uncle i can only give you a free will offering seeing even God doesn't compell people to give to him.  need i say he has not forgiven my brother till this day.

he couldnt swallow what he recommended for his maker. poverty is a mind set. my illeterate granny told me that years ago.

Another interesting Factual article someone sent to me on tithes, very thought provoking


Jews Do Not Tithe Today

Thankfully, Jewish theologians know better than their Christian counterparts. They are well aware that only Levites have the right to receive tithe of the people. After all, the Jewish leaders have the Old Testament as their Scripture and that’s what it commands. And since there is no Temple in existence (and consequently no ordained Levites or Priests serving in a Temple), then a major factor in fulfilling the laws of tithing does not exist in our modern world.

In regard to this, it may be profitable to relate an event that happened to me over thirty–five years ago when I was just starting to study theology in college. A letter had been given to me for answering. It was from a woman who heard that modern Jews were not tithing. She wanted to know whether the information was true, and if so, why the Jews seemingly violated the plain laws of the Bible which spoke of tithing as a law to be obeyed?

Having read the letter, I began to share her concern. To resolve the matter I telephoned three rabbis in the Los Angeles area for their explanation. Much to my dismay, all three independently of each other informed me that no religious Jew should tithe today. I was startled at their replies. This appeared to be evidence that the Jews were so lax with their biblical interpretation that they were abandoning even the simple words of their own Scripture about the laws of tithing.

By the time I spoke with the last rabbi, my youthful indignation was beginning to emerge. But that rabbi then wisely began to show me my ignorance (not his) in the whole matter. First, he admitted that none of his congregation paid one penny of tithe that was demanded in the Old Testament. He then said: "If any member of my synagogue paid tithe in the scriptural manner, he would be disobeying the law of God—he would be sinning against God."

I was staggered by his answer. He went on to inform me that since the Bible demands that the tithe be paid to Levites, he said it would be wrong to pay it to anyone else. And further, because there is presently no official Levitical order of Priests ministering at a Temple in Jerusalem, this makes it illegal at this period to pay any biblical tithe. He went on to say, however, that the moment a Temple is rebuilt, with its altar in operation and with the priesthood officiating at that altar (and the Levites there to assist them), then every Jew who lives in the tithing zones mentioned in the Bible will be required to tithe according to the biblical commands.

This teaching was a revelation to me (as it may be to some of our readers), but the rabbi gave the proper biblical answers. To pay the biblical tithe at this time, without Levites and Priests in their regular ordained offices and doing service in the Temple, would be "sin" both to the giver and the receiver. The rabbi told me: "If we are to obey the law, we cannot pay tithe unless we pay it to the ones ordained by God to accept that tithe."

The rabbi explained that though he was the chief rabbi of his synagogue, he was not a Levite. He said he was descended from the tribe of Judah and was thereby not eligible to receive tithe. The same disqualification applied even to Christ Jesus while he was on earth since he was also reckoned as having come from the tribe of Judah. This same restriction was applicable to the activities of the apostle Peter (because he was as well from Judah) and it applied to the apostle Paul (because he was from the tribe of Benjamin). Neither Christ nor those apostles were Levites so they were all disqualified from receiving any part of the biblical tithe. It is just that simple. And listen, if Christ, Peter and Paul did not use the biblical tithe for any of their work in the teaching the Gospel, Christian ministers today should not use the biblical tithe either. The Jewish religious authorities are wise enough to read what the Word of God states about the tithe and, thankfully, they abide by it. But our Gentile preachers and priests care very little what the biblical texts actually state and go merrily on their way by devising their own laws of tithing which are different from those of the Bible.

The rabbi then gave me some information on the method that many Jews use today to secure adequate funds with which to operate their religious organizations. He went on to say that the activities of his synagogue were financially supported through the adoption of the "patron system" by its members. That is, families would buy seats in the synagogue for various prices each year. The rabbi mentioned that many of his congregation actually paid more than a tenth of their income to get better seats in the synagogue. This method for raising funds is perfectly proper (from the biblical point of view) if Jews wish to use it. This is because the money is paid to the synagogue and not to an ordained Levitical priesthood.

The final rabbi was correctly interpreting the teaching of the Holy Scripture. While many Christian ministers today teach that Christians may be in danger of missing salvation itself if they do not pay tithe to the church, Jewish rabbis know better than to say such a thing. They realize that it is biblically improper (actually, it is a blatant disobedience to the laws of the Bible) for anyone to pay or to receive the biblical tithe today. And any minister or ecclesiastical leader who uses the biblical tithe (or any one who pays to a minister the biblical tithe) is a sinner in the eyes of God."

This topic still dey? It has even reached 54 pages.
I will give this topic 10% clap.

KunleOshob:
Another interesting Factual article someone sent to me on tithes, very thought provoking


Jews Do Not Tithe Today

Someone also sent it to me by email: http://www.askelm.com/tithing/thi003.htm  

I believe that anytime we make contributions and use statements from a website, the link should be refered by posting it as well.
I read it and I find it quite interesting.