Hi guys,

I'll try and enjoy a brief moment while still on my break. This is just to help chukwudi who addressed me directly.

First, thank you for the warm welcome. Now here's what I think with regards to your enquiry:

chukwudi44:

it is awell known fact that Jesus lived under the dispensation of the law.At the time Jesus made the above statements tithing was still valid likewise burnt offering,circumcision and other jewish laws .

There's a mixture there, and that is why you seem to be missing huge gaps there.

1. True, Jesus lived under the dispensation of the Law. However, you fail to understand the intrinsic nature of the said Law that you may been examining. The one question you need to ask yourself is this: what is the Law?

2. It is not a simplistic answer to (1) above that would help settle the matter. If you observe closely, there were "matters of the Law" that we need to pay attention to - judgement, mercy, and faith.

3. In the same breathe of that same verse, He implicitly placed both tithes and judgement, mercy and faith at PAR.

4. If anyone argues that only "judgement, mercy and faith" appeal to us as Christians today, such a person needs to understand that he/she is applauding the same "matters of the Law" that they are rejecting because of tithe.

5. To applaud one and reject the other is to violate what Jesus said in that verse and qualify as a hypocrite. Why? Because the things we are happy to take into Christianity (judgement, mercy and faith) are essentially called "weightier matters of the Law". Incidentally, the tithes are not the "weightier", and this should make us think deep within our hearts that it is futile as Christians to raise so much dust about tithe and yet never once realize that we are still sitting glued to the weightier matters of the Law.

6. An example of how Jesus taught NT principles from the Law while still living under the dispensation of the Law is found in Matthew 22:36-40. A lawyer had asked Him a question concerning the Law: "Master, which is the great commandment in the law?" He answerd that question by directly quoting the Law - "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind" (see Deuteronomy 6:5), and also "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (Leviticus 19:18).

What's the point? Simply this: your argument of the 'dispensation' of the Law for Matthew 23:23 does not quite balance things at all. This is so, if you feel that Matt. 23:23 applied only to Jews. If that is the case, we as Christians have no reason to pretend that we have nothing to do with the Law while at the same time dancing around the weightier matters of that same Law! Yes, everyone likes the sound of the words "love, judgement, mercy and faith" - but are those not matters that are undeniably OF THE LAW? It seems these days when we read Jesus direct teaching in Matthew 23:23, we choose to pick one and drop the other - whereas He essentially said: DO BOTH!!

If you cannot acknowledge that He said we should do both in that verse, then you have no business cherry picking some - love, judgement, mercy and faith are all matters of that same Law! If they don't apply to you, drop them immediately and never speak about them again!

There is no how this verse can be used to validate this criminal practice,besides that verse explicitly states that tithing while valid was not even among the weighty requirement of the law.

First, the typical anti-tithers who quickly confuse issues for themselves cannot resist referring to tithes with sour adjectives. Did God refer to tithes at anytime as "criminal"? You may not feel like you should tithe. Good - just keep your faith to yourself, and all will be well. But to make something criminal when God did not once make it so in His Word is to miss the mark by a million miles.

Second, how much of the "weightier matters" do you truly know in experience? If tithes are "smaller matters", it is surprising that it bothers anti-tithers so seriously to the point of a joke that one can't imagine what would happen if we were told that the "weightier matters" are not evident in our lives.

Besides, He did not refer to those factors (judgement, mercy and faith) as "weightier requirements" - no, He said "weightier matters". Our problem today is that we almost turn everything into a "requirement" from start to finish and then miss the whole point of His message. How this happens so many times is what I hope to show you subsequently.

chukwudi44:

@viaro
u re welcomed to the discussion,thereis this question that I have been beging for answers fro pro tithers .Am going to repeat it again for the umpteenth time.

How come the tithing frequency was increased from once in three years(deut 14;28,deut 26;12) mentioned in the bible to the unbiblical weekly monthly and daily tithing practised today ?

My dear sir, exaggerated misrepresentations are not in my domain. I do not know about "daily tithing", never heard of it, nor does it have any weight whatsoever in the main gist of what is to be answered.

Second, "tithing frequency" is a cheap construct that completely misses the point and further muddies the waters. "Tithe" is considered "tithe" regardless of how anyone may think of its "frequency" or not.

It should be clear to us all that is NOT the 'frequency' of the giving of tithes that makes our giving be properly called "tithes". Let me remind you of the example of Abraham - in the Genesis account, we don't read of any "three years" or "unbiblical weekly monthly and daily tithing" that he gave to Melchizedek. Plain and simple, he gave ONLY ONCE - and that singular act was TWICE called "tithes" in both the OT (Gen. 14:20) and NT (Heb. 7:6). If God's Word did not wait for any human-misconstructs of "frequency" before referring to calling Abraham's tithes as "tithes", I am quite satisfied to go with what is written and remove myself from this misadventure of pegging a "frequency" to it.

Another thing: that one singular act of Abraham went so far as to affect his unborn generation. Hebrews 7:9 informs us that the tithes Abraham gave Melchizedek also affected Levi, such that it is reported that "Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham." God didn't wait for us today to confuse ourselves looking too closely for "frequency" before acknowledging Abraham's singular tithes with far reaching consequences. Why do we as Christians like to spend waste  precious time with all these unnecessary arguments about time, shape and 'frequency' that are not even germane to the real issue? What the Word of God says is enough for me.

Now, a look at Deuteronomy 14:28 and 26:12 that you quoted:

Those verse have to be considered in the context of the Jewish feast - specifically in connection of seasons and numbers. The number 3  was (and is) very important in Jewish hermeneutics, so that it is not only in Deut. 14 and 26 that the third year was a year of tithing, but it is also written that all Jewish males were to appear/gather at Jerusalem before the Lord every three years (Deut. 16:16) - these gatherings were specifically arranged around 3 Jewish feasts:

           * in the feast of unleavened bread,
           * in the feast of weeks
           * and in the feast of tabernacles

You will also find that during the gathering of the tithes in the third year, it was a festive period in Jewish calendars: this is why when you consult the other passages where tithes are spoken of (such as Numbers 18 and Leviticus 23), you would find by careful reading that tithes were gathered each year, and then the third year (specifically called the year of tithing), and then other years except the seventh year when the land had a sabbath. You will find these explained if you check references on "Maaser Sheni, Maaser Rishon, and Maaser Ani".

The point in all this is not so much the time of the year that made the stuff properly be referred to as "tithes". The bigger and more important issue was that the tenth of their labours was what was regarded as tithes. For this reason, you will find that other passages where tithes are spoken of had nothing to do with specific calendaring - and Abraham's tithes is a good example where it did not follow the conventions of the Mosaic Law (no "third year" etc).

Now, if in our day some have been led to tithe without waiting for the conventions of the Law or human-misconstructs of "frequency", why should I have any problems with that? If the Holy Spirit speaks to some Christians to tithe of their income, they should by all means obey Him and Him alone. And yes, there are many such instances where this has happened and continue to happen.

Finally for the evening:

chukwudi44:

It is really amazing ,I just confirmed it online now that modern jews dont pay tithe today

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

http://www.askelm.com/tithing/thi003.htm

Lol, trust Ernest L. Martin with his fictitious stories. Dear chukwudi, relax bro - you "confirmed" nothing. . . nada. . zilch! If you believed Martin, he had you on the cheap!

I must confess something to you. First, I'm deeply embarrassed that Christian "ministers" would go about recycling this obvious LIE! The rest of us who believe them do so because we never read between the lines and just swallow this poison so gullibly the angels must be staggered! Let me show you the weakness in Martin's little blue book:

1. First, you should notice that he was giving you a fiction conjecture. Yes, he quipped that he telephoned "three rabbis in the Los Angeles area". Hang on mate. . what were their names? The reason I ask this question is typical as that is the first thing a Jew would ask you if you carelessly and niggardly dream up a story and mentioned "rabbi". Ernest Martin just told-you-so but mentioned no pointers, no names, no face, no synagogues to which those "rabbis" were officiating, no Jewish scholarship - NOTHING. Nada. Zilch. He just "telephoned yada-yada". Yea right!

2. Second, Martin did not even take time to look beyond the Los Angeles area - for him, 3 nameless and faceless "rabbis" were all it took to settle the matter, regardless of the numerous Jewish scholarship in and outside the 'LA area'. _{>viaro sadly shakes head!<}

3. Third, for those amazingly theatrical effects that would fool the gullible, Martin writes that one of the rabbis informed him: "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." By this he meant that tithes are "illegal" because there are no ordanied Levites today and no Temple services in Jerusalem. My question is: did Martin and his 3 rabbis in LA ever study the same Deuteronomy to see that it was not only Levites that received tithes - but the POOR as well?? Nay, the poor didn't have to qualify as the kohen or kohanim (priests) before they also were to receive tithes!

Now, I could just flush this old little blue book of finely crafted tales by Martin if I was to do a review on chapter 3 alone. But with due respect to you chukwudi, I'd rather point you to some Jewish sources also availabl online where you can authenticate the real issue for yourself. When 'Christian ministers' go about spreading such sad 'tell-you-stories', the rest of us should be slow. . . v-e-r-y s-l-o-w . . to reharsh their fallacies and claim we have "confirmed" them.

Here are examples of sources I would leave you for now:
[list]
1. Do Jews tithe like evangelical Christians ?
all of the teaching evangelical Christians get about tithing
comes from the Torah and that's to give 10 % of all earnings
to the church. do Jews do this ?

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
You are correct; tithing is mentioned in the Torah,
and we Orthodox Jews give at leat 10% of our earnings
to charity, since the recommended amount is 20%.
The annual membership at the average Orthodox synagogue
is $500 to $1,000 (NOT $5,000) per family, and this comes out
of the 20%, of course. Again; the amount we give goes to
different charities, not the synagogues. This includes both Jewish
and non-Jewish charities. The most popular charities are orphanages,
aid to families living in poverty, aid to victims of natural (or man-made)
disasters, etc.

Source(s):
I am Jewish and Orthodox

~~ culled from Yahoo Answers on the topic

- - - - - - - - - - -

2. Orthodox Judaism still regards tithe obligations as residing in produce grown in the Land of Israel. Contemporary practice is to set aside terumah, separate ma'aser rishon, separate terumat ma'aser, then redeem ma'aser sheni with a coin (on years that do not coincide with ma'aser ani). The coin can be a minimal amount capable of purchasing food and need not be the value of the produce.
~~ culled from Wikipedia on "Maaser Ani"[/list]

There are numerous others to help you; but please don't let such guys like Martin take you on the cheap. Sincerely.

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE REALLY TEACH ABOUT TITHING?
By 'Jide Akeredolu


The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it, the world and all who live in it" (Psalm 24:1)

"Hear, O my people, and I will speak, O Israel, and I will testify against you: I am God, your God, I do not rebuke you for your sacrifices or your burnt offerings, which are ever before me.  I have no need of a bull from your stall or of goats from your pens, for every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills.  I know every bird in the mountains, and the creatures of the field are mine.  If I were hungry I would not tell you, for the world is mine and all that is in it" (Psalm 50: 7-12).

"Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?" (Romans 11: 35).

God created the universe.  He sustains it by the word of His power.  He doesn't need your money and he doesn't want your money.  What God want is you! And 100% of you.  That God will not bless you unless you give 10% of your income to your church is a blatant lie.  It has no biblical basis; it is the ultimate "419".  There are multitudes of preachers, priests, evangelists, general overseers etc. who are sinning every day in their use (or better, abuse) of the biblical tithe. 

There is nothing more clear in the bible than the teaching of God about the ordained tithe.  The Bible tells us who were to pay the tithe, who were to receive the tithe, the type of products that were to be tithed, who was not to tithe, how the tithe was to be used, along with regulations that gave limitations and restrictions on its use.  Yet these clear laws of God are daily being violated wholesale by preachers, priests, and evangelists etc. who want a ready money supply for their religious or church work.  The truth is, these religious men and women are often aware of what the bible really says but in the zeal to raise money for their ministries, they have found the tithe a juicy way of fund raising, that they con their unsuspecting congregation of their income.  They use time-tested tactics of producing guilt in people's minds through their sermons in order to extract the tithe.  Some use the fear tactics of threatening God's withdrawal of his blessings, or a plague of misfortune descending on the finances of those who don't promptly pay their tithe in full.

Now, don't get me wrong.  It is perfectly proper to give funds to religious organisations (even generously if the person so desires) in order for them to perform the works God has given them to do.  People who are members of a church or a religious group should endeavour to support it.  It is wrong for you to get spiritual benefits from an organization and not contribute to its upkeep.  Funds are an essential part of running a religious organisation.  The Bible has a clear and easily understood manner in which the teaching of the Gospel ought to be supported (and adequately funded)  We will go through most of them.  In simple terms, the biblical tithe should not be the means that Christian organisations fund their functions.

Before we go into the Bible, let us pray that God will reveal the truth to us.
I always plead to people to study the Bible methodically, i.e. allow scripture to inteprete itself. By understanding the facts of the scriptures and the facts surrounding the scriptures (culture for example), we can better understand the scriptures in a way that was intended.  Over the ages, people have added their own twists to what the bible really says in order to justify their actions.  Slavery, racial discrimination, sex discrimination, and now fleecing innocent people of one tenth of their income have all been falsely justified using the bible.

What does the bible really say about tithing?  We will go first through the old and then the new testaments.

THE OLD TESTAMENT BEFORE MOSES

Tithes and tithing were mentioned only two times before the time of Moses and the Exodus.  They are favourite passages for the tithing teachers to prove that tithing was required by God before He gave the Law to Moses.  Let's examine these passages of the scripture.

Genesis 14
"Then Melchizadek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, and he blessed Abram saying, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of Heaven and earth.  And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand."  Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything" (Genesis 14; 18-20).

"See," they say, "tithing was a necessary practice way back in the days of Abraham.".  As these preachers always do, they take the portion out of context!  But read the context, which in this case is the entire chapter.  The first thing you find is that the "everything" in question did not belong to Abram.  It was the property of other people, including Abram's nephew, Lot, who had been captured by the armies of several kings.

Abram and a small group of his servants had gone to battle against these great armies and, against all reasonable expectations, had won.  Melchizadek recognised that God had granted this miraculous victory (v. 20)

Notice Abram's statements in verses 22-24.  He owned none of the property in question before the battle and, although entitled to the spoils as the victor, he refused to take any of it: "I will accept nothing belonging to you" (v. 23).  Abram gave away ten percent of other people's property, in a representative act of thanksgiving to God on behalf of some people who had been miraculously rescued from a life of slavery.

This was a once only event.  It has nothing to do with the common teaching that you should give ten percent of your gross monthly income regularly to a group of professional religious leaders.

One thing we can be sure of is that the spoils of war were not items upon which God required tithes to be paid. Let's see what the Scriptures tell us of what God required regarding the spoils of war.
In Numbers 31:25-30, God commanded the Israelites to take vengeance on the Midianites. Israel attacked them, defeated them and took their children, livestock and everything else they owned as the spoils. Did God require a tithe, 10 percent? No! He required only 2 percent from the congregation for the Levites and 0.2 percent (one in 500) from the warriors for the priests, not a tithe. If there had been a universal tithing law, why was it not applied here?
It is even crazy to urge people to do something just because Abraham did it!  I hope men will not be encouraged to marry their house helps if their wives are infertile.

Genesis 28
"Then Jacob made a vow, saying, 'If God will be with me and will watch over me on this journey I am taking and will give me food to eat and clothes to wear so that I return safely to my father’s house, then the Lord will be my God and this stone that I have set up as a pillar will be God’s house, and of all that you give me I will give you a tenth'" (Genesis 28:20-22).
"See," they say again, "tithing was a necessary practice way back in the days of Jacob, long before the Law was given."
But read exactly what Jacob said.
1. He made a vow, a promise (and there is no record in the Bible that he ever kept that promise.)
2. It was a conditional promise. Notice the five conditions:
• IF God will be with me;
• IF God will watch over me;
• IF God will give me food to eat;
• IF God will give me clothes to wear; and
• IF I return safely to my father’s house (which didn’t happen until some twenty years later),
THEN, and only then, can God have 10% of whatever He gives me.
If that is "tithing", feel free to make a list of everything you want from God and, once you have received it all, start making your once-every-twenty-year payments.
In the meantime, on the basis of Genesis 28, you don’t owe your religious leaders a solitary kobo.

EGYPT
The first hint of a taxation system in the bible was established by Jacob’s son, Joseph in Egypt.  We are all familiar with the story of how Joseph was inspired to interpret Pharaoh's dreams about seven full and seven lean years for harvests.  As a result of Joseph's wisdom, and because the spirit of God was in him (Genesis 41: 38-39) Pharaoh made him ruler over all the land of Egypt.  For seven years they gathered in the harvests and stored the grain. When the lean years came, the Egyptians used all their money to purchase some of the grain reserves (Genesis 47:14–15). They then sold Joseph all their cattle to buy the needed grain (verse 16). Finally, they even bartered their own bodies and all their land for food (verse 18–20).
This meant that Pharaoh, through the advice of the patriarch Joseph, came to possess all things found in Egypt. At this point notice what Joseph did,
"Then Joseph said unto the people, ‘Behold, I have bought you this day and your land for Pharaoh: lo, here is seed for you, and ye shall sow the land. And it shall come to pass in the increase, that ye shall give the fifth part unto Pharaoh, and four parts shall be your own, for seed of the field, and for your food, and for them of your households, and for food for your little ones.’" • Genesis 47:23–24
We see here that the taxation system established by Joseph in Egypt when the Israelites were there was twenty per cent.  And this went to Pharaoh.    There was no tithing system in operation when the Israelites left Egypt.  This goes against the claims by tithing preachers that tithing was in practice before the time of Moses.

THE TIME OF MOSES AND THE EXODUS
About three months after leaving Egypt, at Mount Sinai, the Old Covenant with the Ten Commandments was first given to the Israelites (Exodus 20). It also embraced many other laws recorded in four chapters—unto the end of Exodus 23. These were laws of the Old Covenant which Israel promised to observe (Exodus 24:3–. These four chapters contained essentially the basic constitution which was intended to govern Israel. The Bible calls the contents of those four chapters the Book of the Covenant. Remarkably, there is not one hint of tithing as a requirement in this basic teaching of the Old Covenant.
It would have soon become apparent, that there was a need to raise funds to finance these new requirements of the Covenant.   We notice here that the first method used by Moses was voluntary donations.  When Moses petitioned Israel for money to build the Tabernacle, here is what happened:
"Men and women, as many as were willing hearted, brought bracelets, and earrings, and rings, and tablets, all jewels of gold and ,  the children of Israel brought a willing offering unto the Lord ,  They brought yet unto him [Moses] free offerings every morning ,  the stuff they had was sufficient for all the work to make it, and too much." • Exodus 35:22, 29; 36:3, 7
Under God's inspiration, Moses finally came to the conclusion that a tithing system was necessary for the nation of Israel. This occurred at the beginning of the second year of the Exodus. He told the Israelites that they should henceforth give a tenth part of their seed crops and fruit trees plus every tenth animal to the treasury in the newly erected Tabernacle (Leviticus 27:30-33).
"All the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land or of the fruit of the trees, is the Lord's; it is holy to the Lord.  If a man wishes to redeem any of his tithe, he shall add a fifth to it.  And all the tithe of herds and flocks, every tenth animal of all that pass under the herdsman's staff, shall be holy to the Lord.  A man shall not inquire whether it is good or bad, neither shall he exchange it; and if he exchanges it, then both it and that for which it is exchanged shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed."
One should notice four points about this initial law that are commonly overlooked today.
At first, Moses discouraged Israelites from giving tithe in money though he reluctantly allowed it. For example, if anyone insisted on retaining any increase of the crops for personal use, Moses demanded an extra fifth part premium (Leviticus 27:31). Moses did not mind them paying in money for crops, but they had to give the extra premium for the privilege. For livestock, redeeming is banned.  It is strange, but Christian ministers today would rather have the money than the foodstuffs that Moses ordained.
Secondly, the tithe for animals must be random, not the best as some preachers claim.  "A man shall not inquire whether it is good or bad"   (Only after this are the Levites to choose the best tithe of this tithe to the priests. -the so-called second tithe.  Please remember this, as it is useful in understanding Malachi)
Thirdly, since the tithe was only required on agricultural crops and herds, little produce would have been given to the treasury while Israel was in the desert of Sinai. Israel had little agricultural crops produced in that desolate wilderness to tithe (Deuteronomy 29:5–6).
Fourthly, Moses did not say in the Book of Leviticus how the tithe was to be spent or to whom it was to be given. He simply said that Israelites were required to pay the tithe. It was later that the Levites were appointed to collect it.  Obviously, the goods were placed in the Tabernacle (the Temple) treasury and this limited amount of produce was placed in storage bins. Let us now examine the tithing system.
WHAT PRODUCTS WERE TITHED?
Many people have been hasty in assuming that all the income earned by Israelites was subject to the laws of tithing. This was not the case. Any Jewish rabbi can inform a person what items were to be tithed because the Bible makes the matter plain. This point should be noted very carefully.
There were only two types of income that were tithable: One was from agricultural production. "All the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord’s" (Leviticus 27:30). This meant that a tenth of all agricultural produce of the land of Israel, whether fruits or vegetables, had to be tithed. The second type of tithable income was the increase of animals. "All the tithe of the herd or flock, whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord" (verse 32). Only these two specific income producers were subject to the tithe.
There is only one exception to this rule. Leviticus 27:31 reads: "If a man will redeem ought of his tithe, he shall add unto it the fifth part thereof." In other words, if a man for various reasons did not wish to pay his tithe in kind (and he wished to give money as a substitute), he was penalized a fifth part. Such a law was obviously not intended to encourage payment of the tithe in money. Infact, monetary redemption, was not allowed for the tithe of animals. Moses declared: "It shall not be redeemed" (verse 33). Any money offered to redeem the tithe would be confiscated.  A man shall not inquire whether it is good or bad, neither shall he exchange it; and if he exchanges it, then both it and that for which it is exchanged shall be holy; This means that the tithing law of the Bible prohibited cattle ranchers from paying money at all. They were required to give the tenth animal no matter if they wanted to keep it for some reason to themselves. I believe Moses designed it this way because it guaranteed a steady supply of animals in the temple for sacrifices.  Imagine the crisis that would be created if all the cattle ranchers opted to redeem their tithes!   There would be no animals for sacrifice in the temple!  It is easy now to understand the sense of this regulation.
WHO DID NOT TITHE?
Since farmers and ranchers were responsible for paying the tithe, we now come to an equally important question: Who was not required to tithe? It is often surprising to people to find that a large segment of people in Israel did not tithe!
The owner of a farm had to tithe, but his hired hands were exempt. Was a hired hand required to tithe on his salary? Not at all! There was no law that required a tenth of one’s salary to be tithed (which was earned for services rendered). Only the crops and animals of those who owned them were subject to the tithe. After all, the crops and the animals did not belong to the hired hand and only the increase from one’s land or animals was subject to the tithe. And note this. Fishermen did not tithe, though this industry is mentioned in the law (Leviticus 11:9–12). Likewise, the mining industry is referred to (Deuteronomy 8:9), but the tithe of minerals extracted from the earth was never called for. The lumber business is mentioned (1 Kings 5:7–12) and construction work on buildings (1 Kings 5:13–18) but tithes were not extracted from people who worked in those trades. The same held true for those earning an income from weaving, handicrafts, or from any form of manufacturing or merchandising. They all were immune from tithing including all those in the military and government workers. And though the Levites were commanded to pay a tenth of the tithe they received from the farmers and ranchers to the Priests, those Priests themselves were totally exempt from paying any tithe.
To make it plain and simple, only the owners of farms and flocks were required to tithe. Indeed, the Israelite who had fewer than ten cattle did not have to tithe on nine of them because the requirement stated that only the tenth animal that passed under the rod was to be tithed (Leviticus 27:32). Looking at this matter of the tenth animal being tithed from our present monetary point of view, a rancher could have many thousands of Naira invested in nine cattle, but unless he had a tenth he was not required to tithe one kobo of his assets.
[Some Christian ministers commonly teach that the tithe is God’s and that he must get his money first. But the Bible says it is the tenth animal (the last one) that passes under the rod that is God’s, not the first.]
These clear biblical teachings present some real dilemmas for Christian ministers today who want to use the tithe for their church activities. If a minister wanted his members of his church to abide by the tithing laws, why doesn’t he teach them to perform them the way the Bible instructs? If church members who live in a city wanted to tithe according to biblical law, they would be paying a tenth of their garden produce (if they had gardens) or a tenth of their chickens (if they had chickens). Even if they earned N200, 000 a month in other income, only the garden produce and chicken would be tithed. This would hardly be enough to support normal church activities today. Yet this is the precise law of tithing which was ordained for Israel by God. There is however hardly a Christian minister (who demands tithing today) who would feel inclined to abide by these laws of the Bible regarding tithing. They want more money than a tenth of what comes from gardens and chicken!

A common argument of professional tithing preachers is that food substances were tithed because Israel was a mainly agricultural society and that collecting money would not have been practicable!  How far from the truth!!!  There was a very sound monetary system in place even before the exodus.   Exodus 30:11-16 discusses an offering of money to be brought by each person to the tabernacle.
" And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,  When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the LORD, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them.  This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary: (a shekel is twenty gerahs an half shekel shall be the offering of the LORD.  Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto the LORD.  The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto the LORD, to make atonement for your souls.  And thou salt take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shalt appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation; 
See!  This was how the running of the temple was to be financed.  Like the annual dues in some churches!
This was what became the "temple tax" that Jesus Christ paid. (Matthew 17: 24-27)
The Bible here teaches us how religious activities should be financed. --- The atonement money appointed "for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation".  Nowhere in the Bible is the tithe specifically appointed to be used like this.

THE EVOLUTION OF THE TITHE
Obviously, many people would have heard of references to the "first tithe", "second", "third", and even a "fourth" tithe.  A methodical study of the Old Testament in context will show that it was the same one and only tithe that God, through Moses modified over time depending on the circumstances of the Israelites. 
While the Israelites were living a nomadic life in the wilderness, they would have camped near the tabernacle and found it easy to just drop their tithe with the Levites without much stress. On getting to Canaan the Promised Land however, the situation became different.   That land was well over one hundred miles long and some fifty miles wide. The various Israelite tribes were going to be scattered over an expansive area and even the Levites and Priests were to live in forty-eight cities located throughout the land (Joshua 21).
This dispersal of the people made it difficult to pay the tithe at one central location. This prompted Moses to authorize the forty-eight priestly cities scattered over the land as official sites where tithes could be stored or to be paid in certain tithing years.  The first 11 chapters of Deuteronomy contain a lot of the other modifications to the original laws.
Moses commanded that Israelites were no longer to perform their tithing obligations in the manner they had observed them in the wilderness. "Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here [within the wilderness] this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes" (Deuteronomy 12:. Moses began to regulate the religious activities of the Israelites with more precision. He made the laws more strict and with greater detail for Israel’s observance in the Land of Canaan.
Notice the context of the last quote. It is important. He said the Israelite did "whatsoever is right in his own eyes" (Deuteronomy 12:. Moses was talking about the payment of tithe, burnt offerings, sacrifices, heave offerings, vows, free will offerings, firstlings of the herds and flocks (Deuteronomy 12:6). There were no laws regulating these matters.
Note that the law of the firstlings (that is, the firstborn of herds and flocks or the first fruit of harvest from farms) is a very different set of laws than those of tithing. They must not be confused as is sometimes done by preachers and priests who want to be the first paid from one’s income, so they erroneously apply the word "first" regarding animals and produce in this regard. But the law of firstlings is not for Christians. For firstlings see Numbers 3:12–13, 40–45; 8:16–18 and for first fruits see Leviticus 23:10–14; Numbers 18:12–28; Deuteronomy 18:4. One must distinguish these laws of the firstborn and first fruits from the law of tithing.

The Lord said to Moses, "Speak to the Levites and say to them: ‘When you receive from the Israelites the tithe I give you as your inheritance, you must present a tenth of that tithe as the Lord’s offering to Aaron the priest.  Out of all the gifts to you, you shall present every offering due to the Lord, from the best of them, giving the hallowed part from them"(Numbers 18:25-31).
This was the so-called "second tithe” There is nowhere in the bible where it is called a second tithe.  It provided financial security for the priests.  They were to get the 'best' parts of the tithe. (This is very important as we will find later). However, the original tithe was random as mentioned earlier.

"At the end of every third year you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce in that year, and shall deposit it in your town. And the Levite, because he has no portion or inheritance among you, and the alien, the orphan and the widow who are in your town, shall come and eat and be satisfied, in order that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do" (Deuteronomy 14:28-29).

This is what some people call the "third" tithe.  But again they read it out of context!  A study of the earlier verses (22-26) will shed more light on the issue.
"Be sure to set aside a tenth of all that your fields produce each year. Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the Lord your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere the Lord your God always. But if that place is too distant and you have been blessed by the Lord your God and cannot carry your tithe (because the place where the Lord will choose to put his Name is so far away), then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the Lord your God will choose. Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the Lord your God and rejoice" …,  And the Levite, because he has no portion or inheritance with you, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow who are within your gates, may come and eat and be satisfied, that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do.  (Deuteronomy 14:22-26; 29).

The Israelites were obliged make an annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem with their tithes.  But with population now spread over a wide area, an allowance was made for people to give their tithes to the Levites in the forty eight designated towns every three years.  However, in years 1 and 2, the pilgrimage to Jerusalem was compulsory.  To make this less stressful however, Israelites were allowed to sell the foodstuff and just bring the money "to the place the Lord your God appointed".  They were however not to pay the cash to the Levites (as some professional tithe takers would tell you), they were to use the cash to buy whatever they wanted, and celebrate with everybody, especially the less fortunate in the society, and the Levites. We see here the evolution of a social security system designed to take care of the weak.

THE PLACE OF LEVITES IN THE SOCIETY
What God, through Moses gave to Israel in regard to the tithe was reasonable, and very beneficial to the whole nation. Let us now look at the sensibleness of the Mosaic law of tithing. When it is fully understood, it will be seen that it was intended to benefit the whole of society within Israel. The Levites were central to it all.
Though the tribe of Levi in ancient Israel was empowered to receive tithe of the people (except that part of the tithe needed by the people for festival requirements and that for the destitute), the Levites also had other ways of earning money. Not all of them were supported by the tithe.
The Levites were not given territorial lands like other Israelites. They (along with the Priests) were allotted forty eight cities in which they could earn a living. This means the Levites received a reasonable amount of acreage to cultivate besides the fact that many of those cities were located in some of the best parts of the Land of Canaan.
"And the Lord spoke unto Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho saying: Command the children of Israel, that they give unto the Levites of the inheritance of their possession cities to dwell in; and open land round about the cities shall ye give unto the Levites. And the cities shall they have to dwell in; and their open land shall be for their cattle, and for their substance, and for all their beasts."   • Numbers 35:1–3
Many people have not realized that Moses gave the Levites the means by which to earn a living without having a dependence upon tithe alone. Other than the tithe of the third and sixth years of a sabbatical cycle, the only Levites that received tithe were those who attended the service of the Tabernacle (and even then it was only that part left over from the festival use by ordinary Israelites). At other times they had to earn their own living within the cities and lands allotted them. The Levites were expected to work for their livelihood like any other normal citizen within the community of Israel.
This is why the Levites were provided with open lands surrounding the cities. The suburb of each Levitical city had 1,000 cubits (about 1,600 feet) on each side for grazing their cattle (Numbers 35:4). There was a further 2,000 cubits beyond the first measure surrounding each city that they were to use as fields and vineyards (verse 5). The two zones represented 3,000 cubits of open land extending outward from each side of the city walls.  At least four square miles of land belonged to each Levitical city. With 48 cities being represented, the cumulative amount of land equalled almost 200 square miles for pasturing and cultivation.
Since some of the cities that the Levites inherited were the most prosperous in the nation, their combined property value would almost equal that of the lesser Israelite tribes. These facts ought to put to rest the belief of some church leaders who imagine that the Levites lived solely off the tithe of the other tribes. In no way was this true. The Levites had to work for their living as anyone else. Only when Levites attended the service of the Tabernacle (whether on a full-time or part-time basis) was the tithe expected to support them (Deuteronomy 18:6–.
Moreover, God was quite concerned that the Levitical lands remain within the tribe of Levi perpetually: "But the fields of the open land about their cities may not be sold; for that is their perpetual possession" (Leviticus 25:34).
Though the Levites were scattered throughout the land of Israel, there was only one place in the land where they could assist in the service of the Tabernacle (and later, the Temple). When Israel got the possession of the Land of Canaan, they set up the Tabernacle first at Shiloh, and later in the time of Solomon it was finally moved to Jerusalem where the portable structure was abandoned for the permanent Temple. But the greatest percentage of the Levites did not perform services in the Temple. That building was simply too small for all of them to work there. Most Levites performed duties in other employments within the nation of Israel.
The occupation of the Levites was in what we call professional fields today. Moses expected this to be the case. They were ordained to be teachers of the nation (Deuteronomy 24L8; 33:10; 2 Chronicles 35:3; Nehemiah 8:7); they also represented many of the judges of the land, and in the time of Ezra they were the sole members of the Sanhedrin—the Supreme Court of the nation (Deuteronomy 17:8–9; 21:5; 1 Chronicles 23:3-5; 2 Chronicles 19:8; Ezekiel 13:2; 14:2; Luke 17:14); they were professional singers and musicians (1 Chronicles 25:1–31; 2 Chronicles 5:12; 34:12)  producers of books and librarians were almost exclusively Levites (2 Chronicles 34:13). It may appear strange to some but even law enforcement was in their care (1 Chronicles 23:4).   Many of the Levites were architects and builders (2 Chronicles 34:8–13).
As stated before, the Levites earned their living by becoming what we call "the professional people" of the community.
And while the ordinary Israelite gave his tithe every third year to the Levites (and the destitute), look at the services he got besides the management of the Temple. Israel got teachers for their children, physicians for their ills, scribes, musicians, singers, judges, and law enforcement officers. A part of their tithe even went to support a type of social security service every third and sixth year for the destitute.
This indicates that the one tithe, which was distributed differently over a seven year period, was not simply intended for religious purposes. It was something similar to our taxes that support our educational institutions, our government hospitals, our law enforcement agencies, our cultural societies, etc. When one sees the true picture of Israel’s tithing system, the early Israelites didn’t get too bad a deal in their payment of tithe. Today, however, the "tithe payer" gets nothing.  He is told he is giving to God and would be paid back in "blessings".   What a far cry from the ancient tithing system of Israel in which all benefited.
WHO IS A LEVITE?
Another point of note is the issue of who is a Levite.  To be a Levite you have to be born by a Levite father.  Inheritance in Israel was through the male lineage.  You don't go to Bible College, and then rent a warehouse somewhere to start a ministry, and claim you have become, or now represent a Levite, telling people to pay their tithe to you or your ministry.  Some claim they were now Levites in the "spirit".  It is, to put it mildly, ridiculous!  Even our Lord Jesus Christ, a most holy Jew, was not a Levite.  He came, by adoption, from the tribe of Judah.  He had no authority to collect tithe, and he did not.  His works were funded by whatever donations he got.  And he did not pay tithe either.  He did not own farms or cattle.  But he paid his temple tax!    Paul, whose writings take up more than half of the New Testament did not collect tithe to fund his ministry!  He could not because he was from the tribe of Benjamin.  The closest disciple to Jesus, Peter, never collected tithe for his own ministry.  He was from the tribe of Judah.   But a pastor here in Nigeria, a Yoruba from, say, Ibadan, would claim he has authority to collect tithe.  How absurd?

WILL A MAN ROB GOD?
Now let us come to the scripture, perhaps the most quoted and referred to on the subject of tithing, Malachi 3:8-10:
Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say "wherein have we robbed thee"? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation. Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.
This is the tithing pastor's most favourite passage in the whole bible.  But again, they use it out of context.  If you want to understand this passage, you have to read the whole of Malachi.  I plead with you to read in detail.
Before we look at these verses in detail, let us look at the context, a cardinal rule in Bible study, and see specifically to whom this is written.
Malachi 1:6 …If I be a master, where is my fear? Saith the Lord of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name.
Verse 7: Ye [i.e. priests] offer polluted bread upon mine altar…
Verse 8: And if ye [i.e. priests] offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? And if ye offer the lame and the sick, is it not evil? (Remember the "tithe of the tithe” we discussed earlier, which was supposed to be the "best" parts --Numbers 18:25-31).
Verse 10: Who is there even among you [i.e. priests] that would shut the doors for nought? Neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought. (the priests were refusing to do anything unless given gratification!) I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand.
Verses 11-13: …For my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts. But ye [i.e. priests] have profaned it, in that ye say, The table of the Lord is polluted; and the fruit thereof, even his meat, is contemptible. Ye said also, Behold, What a weariness is it! And ye have snuffed at it, saith the Lord of hosts; and ye
brought that which was torn, and the lame, and the sick; thus ye brought an offering: should I accept this of your hand? saith the Lord. (again God scolding the priests for using sick and disabled animals for sacrifice and not the "best" parts as ordained.)
Malachi 2:1: And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you.
I could go on. You can read for yourself verses 2-13 of chapter two.
Now let us come to Malachi 3. Notice verse 3: …And he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.
It is extremely clear the book of Malachi is written to the Levites and the priests of Aaron. It is an indictment for their improper practices including the way they sacrificed. The holy places were being badly run.  Chapter 1 verse 10 even says the priests refuse to do anything in the temple unless they are given 'something'.  Malachi wasn't addressing the Israelite nation or the tribe of Judah or you and me specifically. Since these words are in the Bible, there are lessons we can learn from them, but the truth is that Malachi was addressing the priests and Levites.  Let us read verses 8-10 with the understanding now of whom they were specifically addressed.
Verses 8-9: "Will a man rob God? Yet ye [who? The priests] have robbed me. But ye [i.e. the priests] say, Wherein have we [priests] robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye [priests] are cursed with a curse, for ye [priests] have robbed me, even this whole nation".  i.e. the priests have robbed God, and the whole nation.  They have misled the people.  Malachi 2: 7-8 will give an insight to Malachi's line of thought.  "For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek instructions from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.  But you have turned aside from the way; you have caused many to stumble by your instruction; you have corrupted the covenant of Levi, says the Lord of hosts."
And who was being cursed?  Malachi 2: 1-2 already shows us
And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you.  If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the LORD of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart.
It seems so clear and obvious for anybody who cares to look.  But how people's eyes have been covered for so long beats one's imagination!   
It is very sad that this book, Malachi, has been used for a long time to con people of their money, especially chapter 3: 8-10.  I think this will once and for all clear the eyes of innocent God-fearing people who have through fear, guilt, and a need to "give to God" surrender their hard-earned money to professional tithing preachers.  It is a rape of the people of God.   

THE JEWS DO NOT TITHE TODAY

In the past, I have thought about what the practice of modern Jews is now.  What I found out was shocking!   Thank God for the internet.  I have been able to participate in chats with three independent Rabbis and I was amazed at their replies.  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 discussed 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 state 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. The Israelites are very meticulous in keeping records.  Since the Temple was destroyed in AD70 by the Romans, all records were lost.  It has since been difficult to establish a true Levitical order.  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 you), 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, what makes a Christian minister today think he has such authority?  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.


THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THE TITHE

No matter what we believe or conclude about tithing in the Old Testament, we need to see what the New Testament commands for us. What kind of bridge do we find from the Old to the New?
In all the New Testament, we find only a few verses that speak of tithing. We will look at them. We will see what the Book actually says. In addition, we will read a few verses often quoted or referred to that some feel give instruction or teach the "principle of tithing".
The first verse mentioning tithing is in Matthew 23. It is often cited as a proof that Jesus taught tithing. Let us look at verses 23-24:
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel."
What is Christ doing? Is He giving instructions on tithing?  It seems clear He is delivering a rather scathing indictment to the Pharisees for their omission of the weightier matters of the law. Yes, He mentions tithing. He is supporting the Levites' continuing service in the temple and acknowledges they were still receiving tithes.  Note that He also mentioned specific agricultural products, not money, but we find no instructions here, directed to you or me, regarding what we should be doing. We must look further.
To educate our readers better, mint, anise and cummin are food substances.
These are the dictionary meanings:
mint (PLANT): a herb whose leaves have a strong fresh smell and taste and are used for giving flavour to food:
e.g. - mint-flavoured gum/toothpaste/sweets
anise:  a Mediterranean plant with small yellowish white flowers and seeds that taste of liquorice, used for flavouring food and drink
Cummin:  Hebrew: kammon; i.e., a "condiment"
the fruit or seed of an umbelliferous plant, the Cuminum sativum, still extensively cultivated in the East.
Jesus here was indicting the Pharisees for demanding tithes for even the smallest of food items!  Like demanding tithes on maggi cubes and curry etc.  They were stretching the laws to ridiculous extents, ignoring more important issues!  But note that Jesus mentioned only food substances.
Luke 11:42 is a parallel account to the scriptures we just read in Matthew. We do not find any specific instructions pertaining to the subject here, either.
The next passage that mentions tithing is found in Luke 18. Christ is giving a parable, beginning in verse 9, about two men going up to the temple to pray. Notice what the point of the parable is.
"He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others". Jesus is here addressing a self-righteous attitude, and He specifically uses the Pharisee as an example. 
"Two men went up into the Temple to pray, one a Pharisee, and the other a tax-gatherer. The Pharisee stood and was praying thus to himself, ‘God, I thank Thee that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax-gatherer. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all I get.’ But the tax-gatherer, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself shall be humbled, but he who humbles himself shall be exalted" (Luke 18:10-14).
Which one was justified before God, the tither or the non-tither?
Verse 12: I fast twice in the week; I give tithes of all that I possess. If this man were fasting two times a week, it was because he felt these actions made him righteous. Nowhere will we find a command to do this. Likewise, if he were giving tithes of all he possessed, he felt this was the way to be righteous.
Remember the law stated the tithe was on agricultural products. Why was he doing more than the law? Again, it was because he thought doing more made him more righteous. He "trusted in himself that he was righteous," but we see that he also despised others, which was the point Christ was making in this parable.
Jesus does not give us any command regarding tithing here. This contains absolutely no instruction about tithing. What we are given is a valuable lesson and warning regarding self-righteousness, of adding to what is commanded in an attempt to be more righteous.

Tithes Are ‘Corban’
"He was also saying to them, 'You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honour your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death’; but you say, ‘If a man says to his father, anything of mine you might have been helped by is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many such things as that'" (Mark 7:9-13).
If you have money your family needs, but you withhold it from them in order to pay it to the church as ‘tithes’, you are doing exactly what the Pharisees did. You are saying your money is "Corban" and Jesus taught that by doing so you were invalidating the Word of God.

Under A Curse
We do not live under the Law; we live under the grace provided in Jesus Christ. If you choose to submit yourself to even part of the Law of Moses, you have a problem.
1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth,? 2This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? 5Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?--
"For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the Law, to perform them'"  11But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith." 12Yet the law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them."
13Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), (Galatians 3: 1-5; 10-13)
2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.  6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. (Galatians 5: 2-6)
If you choose to place yourself under the works of the Law, you are under a curse for the simple reason that you cannot keep the Law of Moses. Your fallen, sinful nature will see to that.  The lesson is clear. Christians who go back to the Mosaic law fall from grace.

The First Church Council
In the early church, there were those who tried to force the Gentile Christians to live under the Law. A dispute arose which quickly lead to the first ever church council.
"And some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.' And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue. And when they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them…. But certain ones of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed, stood up, saying, 'It is necessary to circumcise them, and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses'…… And after they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, 'Brethren, listen to me. It is my judgment that we do not trouble these who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood'" (Acts 15:1-2, 4-5, 13, 19-20).
The question being answered by this council (v.5) is:
Do Christians have to observe the Law of Moses (which, of course, includes tithing)?
What was the answer? They were given four instructions.
Abstain from:
• things contaminated with idols,
• fornication,
• what is strangled, and
• blood.
Where does tithing come on the list?
Nowhere! The first ever Church Council decided that Christians are NOT required to tithe.
Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself never paid or demanded tithe either!  But He paid the 'temple tax'!  . (Matthew 17: 24-27)
When challenged why He didn't pay the 'temple tax', He initially claimed immunity as "staff" ( like military men do in public transport), but on second thoughts, He knew He had an obligation to support the running of the temple, and even though He was broke, He made efforts to raise the money for Himself and Peter.  Notice that He paid the exact amount, no more, no less.  This, as I have highlighted earlier, is how the Bible stipulates that the running of the temple should be financed.  Church leaders should take a cue from this example from our Lord.  They can calculate the equivalent of half a shekel today and levy their followers.  That will pass the biblical litmus test.  Some liberal denominations are already doing something similar in form of the 'annual church dues'! 
Jesus and his disciples were supported by private funds from those who believed in his mission. Jesus was not a Levitical Priest and he could not legally receive tithe. The Book of Hebrews makes a major point of this. "It is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood" (Hebrews 7:14). Christ had to use personal monies for his work—not tithe.
Indeed, the matter of using free will offerings was insisted upon by our Lord. When Christ sent out the seventy, they were told:
"Go your way: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves. Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes ,  and in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire ,  and into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you ,  he that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me."• Luke 10:3–16
Many modern preachers will feel very sad if they are told to follow these instructions of our Lord Jesus Christ.
At this early date in the ministry of Christ, the disciples were informed by Christ to take only that which was set before them. They were also instructed not to worry about operating some kind of major organization that depended on great quantities of money in doing the work. No large institution was then needed. The criterion that guided the mission of Christ in the matter of finances can be best summed up by Christ’s own words: "Freely have ye received, freely give" (Matthew 10:. To the materialistic mind, however, it would seem ludicrous to imagine that any kind of work could function under such a system of "free offerings." Yet the church that Christ established operated quite effectively in accordance with such a principle. True enough, no gigantic religious organization evolved among the apostles as a result of this procedure, but strange as it may seem, the whole Roman world came to know what the Gospel was all about in a powerful way and (comparatively) it took so little time to do it. The work was done on faith, supported by the free will contributions of God’s people.
Tithing: The Curse Of The ‘Kings’
"And [Samuel] said, 'This will be the procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots. And he will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards, and give to his officers and to his servants. He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys, and use them for his work. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourself will become his servants. Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day'" (1 Samuel 8:11-18).
When you submit yourself to the spiritual authority of a man (no matter whether he is called the King, the General Overseer, Archbishop, or the National Superintendent), instead of to God, you will end up:
• Paying him tithes,
• Being a virtual slave to him, his family and his organisation, and
• Having God ignore your prayers.
[God cannot answer you, for you have placed your faith in a man. If He answered your prayers, He would be reinforcing your confidence in the flesh. ]

GIVING TO GOD!!  What does it really mean?
Let us see what the Bible says.  Infact our Lord Jesus Christ has told us.
This is a sure way that no one who is a Christian and loves the New Testament teaching can argue with. The teaching comes from Jesus Christ himself. Christ told people this certain way to give things DIRECTLY to Him,
"When the son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory. And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats ,  then shall the King say unto them on the right hand, Come, ye blessed of my father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry, and ye gave me food: I was thirsty and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked and ye clothed me: I was sick and you visited me; I was in prison and ye came unto me."• Matthew 25:31–40
Christ went on to say that the righteous might be puzzled over this, because none of them ever gave Christ these things personally. But Christ went on to say: If you have "done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, YE HAVE DONE IT UNTO ME" (Matthew 25:40).
There we have it! This is the assured manner to give something directly to Christ. If you help out the unfortunate brother or sister in Christ, you have given something directly to Christ. "Ye have done it unto me."
So, if a minister says that one is robbing God by not tithing (and one still feels constrained to believe him), then the person can simply give a tenth of his income to any brother or sister in need and he will know it has gone directly to Christ. One would not be "robbing" God any longer. A person does not have to give money (even tithe) to a minister or a church organization in order to give something to Christ. That’s what Christ said and it seems reasonable for Christians to believe it. If you have "done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, YE HAVE DONE IT UNTO ME" 
If we are practicing what Christ said and are giving and sharing of that we have been given stewardship, then we are giving to Christ, our Lord. We need to search the Scriptures. We should study what Christ and the apostles had to say about finances, wealth, abundance, money, "filthy riches", treasures, covetousness and the love of money.  Tithing has nothing to do with being a Christian.  Spiritual abusers have used tithing as a method of squeezing God's people dry.  Don't be fooled again!
And now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Saviour, be all glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever.  Amen.

While Mr Akeredolu's observations are appreciated in so many instances, there is this very disturbing trend that we see with many anti-tithers. They recycle the same fictitious story over and over again that one wonders why 'christian ministers' must go to any length to lie to the public. I'm sorry to make this plain as it it, but please beloeved people of God, it is time to tell these pretenders to their faces that they are lying through their teeth! I will point this out soon, but let me acknowledge some of the things I appreciate in his piece and highlight a few others that are wide of the mark.

1. First, I'm relieved to find that Akeredolu observed indeed that the Levites were alloted some property in Israel. Often is the case that many people say that the Levites had no inheritance - but this guy is one of the few I've read who does not make that mistake. Let me quote him:

The Levites were not given territorial lands like other Israelites. They (along with the Priests) were allotted forty eight cities in which they could earn a living. This means the Levites received a reasonable amount of acreage to cultivate besides the fact that many of those cities were located in some of the best parts of the Land of Canaan.

Spot on! Good observation - and i hope that those who are still arguing that the Levites had no inheritance would desist making that misleading connotation.

2. He also did not go down the lane of those who insist that Abraham gave back 90% to the king of Sodom. Indeed, Abraham did not take anything to himself - nor was he "required" to give any tithe to anybody. Yet, he could take the goods and give a tithe to Melchizedek while also sharing portions to his confederates. I like the way Akeredolu put it:

Notice Abram's statements in verses 22-24. He owned none of the property in question before the battle and, although entitled to the spoils as the victor, he refused to take any of it: "I will accept nothing belonging to you" (v. 23). Abram gave away ten percent of other people's property, in a representative act of thanksgiving to God on behalf of some people who had been miraculously rescued from a life of slavery.

However, the part that Abraham took other people's property is quite misleading - that would be theft. The plain truth is that the spoils belonged to the victor (in this case Abraham), otherwise he could not take other people's property and do as he pleased. To do so would have been theft.

______________

Now, here is something I must point out as false; and I don't know what in the world Akeredolu was thinking to have made that huge slip. There are so many things that simply don't square in his piece; but I shall point out just this one that I had already pointed out earlier in my reply to chukwudi.

Akeredolu is quoted as saying that he had "participated in chats with three independent Rabbis". Nothing wrong with that. . . except that he had taken plagiarised the same fictitious story from Ernest L. Martin and made it his own!

Anyone reading that piece would just see through the blanket.

THE JEWS DO NOT TITHE TODAY

In the past, I have thought about what the practice of modern Jews is now. What I found out was shocking! Thank God for the internet. I have been able to participate in chats with three independent Rabbis and I was amazed at their replies. 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 discussed 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 state 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. The Israelites are very meticulous in keeping records. Since the Temple was destroyed in AD70 by the Romans, all records were lost. It has since been difficult to establish a true Levitical order. 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 you), 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."

Aside from the fact that I've given examples to show that Orthodox Jews actually STILL tithe today, I'm particularly concerned that many Christians are cooking up all sorts of fictitious stories just to make people believe that Jews don't tithe today!

Just go back to the link that chukwudi left earlier to chapter 3 of Ernest L. Martin's "askelm _dot com" - Akeredolu just recycled the same fiction, changed a few sentences to make it look like it was his (Akeredolu's) experience with those Rabbis! This is quite unfortunate, and should not be coming from Christians, let alone "ministers".

Place them side by side:

1. Martin had a chat with 3 rabbis - Akeredolu had a chat with 3 rabbis.

2. Martin expressed "youthful indignation" by the time he had spoken with the third rabbi - Akeredolu simply 'photocopied' that part for his story telling.

3. Martin also noted that he was "staggered by his answer" - these are the very same words that Akeredolu copied into his plagiarism.

4. Martin claimed that "This teaching was a revelation to me" - precisely the same words Akeredolu used for his own story!

5. Martin also pointed out that the rabbi "then wisely began to show me my ignorance (not his) in the whole matter" - this again was dramatically photocopied by Akeredolu as if he was the one who chatted with those 3 Rabbis!

Come on, people!

I could go on to list so many other highlights, but what is the use really? I just wonder that the same fictitious story is being recycled over and over and over again by none other than "Christian ministers!" Why must people resort to this kind of falsehood just to give credit to their anti-tithing thesis? After all is said and done, it makes some of us wonder if these guys are complete strangers to 'truth' - we ought not to brazenly tell such fibs to the public and damn our consciences. Those who are aware understand that Ernest L. Martin was making up that story - but those who keep recycling it to the gullible Christian crowd do not realise what they are doing. May God forgive us all.

viaro:

I like the way you reason: Jesus redeemed us from "Old time laws". Good.

Now apply that to marriage: a woman is BOUND BY THE LAW as long as her husband lives (Romans 7:1-2 and 1 Corinthians 7:39) - what "Law" are Christian women still "bound by" according to those passages? Again, why are women asked to zip up shut up in Church - "they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law" (1 Cor. 14:34).

No, I'm not starting a war (God forbid). What I try to look out for is the talk that Jesus redeemed us from "Old time laws", therefore that should include every single aspect of that same "Old time laws". Why do Christians not use the same arguments for Christian women who are STILL BOUND BY THE LAW in their marriages? On what grounds do you make that exception?

It's easy to rush to Galatians as firstaid to condemn what it does not condemn. But when we do so, let's not pretend to cut corners by condeming the Law and at the same time ignoring Christian marriages founded and governed by the same "Old time laws". My 2centimeters!

I never said Jesus' coming has given us the freedom of going against the OLD TIME LAWS.
No!
In Romans 7:7,Paul said"What shall we say then? Is the LAW sin? God forbid,
V6 says "In the past,the law held us like prisoners.But our old selves died and we were made free from the law.So now do we SERVE GOD IN A NEW WAY,not in the OLD WAY with written rules.Now we serve God 4n the new way wt the spirit"
V12"So the law is holy and the command is good"
About asking women to be silent, 2nd Timothy2:11 says "A woman should learn whild listening quietly and while being fully ready to obey"
V12"I(Paul) don't allow a woman to teach a man.And i don't allow a woman to have authority over a man, Why?(his reason)
V14"Adam was not the one the devil tricked.It was the woman who was tricked and became a sinner"
A person that says the law of marriage(because it is a law that we have been redeemed from) should not be binding on a woman whose husband is still alive,hmmm,has got a couple of screws up in his head loose!
I submit 4 now!

tayotoyin:

I never said Jesus' coming has given us the freedom of going against the OLD TIME LAWS.
No!

I owe you a sincere apology - it is apparent that I had misread you. Reading through again, I notice that you did not fail to clearly state this: "Christ's coming & subsequently His death doesn't wipe out the law of tithing,his redeemeing us to Himself doesn't mean we are free 2 act as we will". Okay, I'm sorry to have gotten that point mixed up. Let me explain.

Actually, Gentiles were not given any "law of tithing". I stand to be corrected on that one. However, it seems clear to me that the Christian faith and testimony are based on the principles of the Law for all believing Jews and Gentiles in Christ. What's the difference? What the Body of Christ looks to are principles, not literalism. As a result of this, we cannot claim any "law of tithing" from the Mosaic Law for ourselves; but we certainly can draw from the principles of the Old Testament and the Law for today. This is why we read in so many instances in the NT that most of our Christian doctrines are derived from the same OT Law. I should have made myself clear - but since that was not the case, I apologise to you. Please forgive me.

A person that says the law of marriage(because it is a law that we have been redeemed from) should not be binding on a woman whose husband is still alive,hmmm,has got a couple of screws up in his head loose!
I submit 4 now!

Lol, I did not argue to falsify the law of marriage. My point was that we should remember that even though we are not under the Law, its principles nevertheless apply in our Christian marriages. Again, please don't be miffed at my mix up. Cheers.

@Akered, Nice post. I especially liked the part on the levites.

Pilgrim.1 has come again with her wahala i don't think i am ready to be worn out again running round in circles.

@pilgrim 1

why the change of name ? it's so obvious u re viaro

Second, "tithing frequency" is a cheap construct that completely misses the point and further muddies the waters. "Tithe" is considered "tithe" regardless of how anyone may think of its "frequency" or not

The bible was so explicit in deut 14:28 and deut 26 :12 that leveitical tithe should be paid every three years,it definitely imputed a tithing frequency to the law,this law if still valid has to be respected in both thge percentage of the income and the frequency of payment

chukwudi44:

@pilgrim 1

why the change of name ? it's so obvious u re viaro

I'm not Pilgrim.1, sorry.

The bible was so explicit in deut 14:28 and deut 26 :12 that leveitical tithe should be paid every three years,it definitely imputed a tithing frequency to the law,this law if still valid has to be respected in both thge percentage of the income and the frequency of payment

That's your view - and no, my understanding is not that rigid. I also offered you to check Jewish references to see things for yourself: surely, the Jews should be in a better position to share their own theology on the subject with us, don't you think?

Another way to verify this is simple: have you noticed that the misrepresentation of these matters is coming from no other groups than Christians? When it is obvious that the Torah is not rigid on just Levitical tithes, Christians have tried to make it so. Examples are found in the arguments that there is only one tithe instead of several - only Christian theologians would argue like that, but Jews would feel sorry to see the way we mishandle the Torah. This was why I referred you to the Maaser (Maaser Ani, Maaser Roshni, etc). The Jews never confuse these at all, so why should Christians often try to confuse them?

Second, is it not obvious that tithes, even under the Law, was not strictly for just the levites alone? Go through those texts you quoted, and you'll see that others were entitled to tithes as well. Why then make it only a matter of the Levites, or forget others who were specifically mentioned as well?

@viaro

you mean to tell me that the percentage of tithe is fixed as stated in the bible while the frequency stated can be varied ?this is hypocrisy opf the highest standard.

I'm not Pilgrim.1, sorry.

it's an open secret that u re

Second, is it not obvious that tithes, even under the Law, was not strictly for just [b]the levites alone?[/b] Go through those texts you quoted, and you'll see that others were entitled to tithes as well. Why then make it only a matter of the Levites, or forget others who were specifically mentioned as well?

chineke God!!are my dreaming or is my eyes deceiving me,where in the bible was tithe directed to be paid to anyother tribe other than the levites?.

I never thought People could be so desperate

chukwudi44:

@viaro

you mean to tell me that the percentage of tithe is fixed as stated in the bible while the frequency stated can be varied ?this is hypocrisy opf the highest standard.

I understand that many people who try to hold a rigid idea about Biblical tithes have that hypocricy - whether such is of the highest order is not any concern of mine. When you have checked the recommendations I mentioned earlier, you prolly might see what level you have achieved.

it's an open secret that u re

If my initial answer does not satisfy you, does your insistence add anything to you personally? I'd be delighted if you make me someone I am not; even at that, what have you said so far as to the subject?

chineke God!!are my dreaming or is my eyes deceiving me,where in the bible was tithe directed to be paid to anyother  tribe other than the levites?.

It was right in those chapters you quoted:

[list]Deuteronomy 14:28
At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates:
^v.29  And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and . .
[size=14pt]  -  the stranger,
  -  and the fatherless,
  -  and the widow, [/size]
which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest.[/list]

[list]Deuteronomy 26:12 -
When thou hast made an end of tithing all the tithes of thine increase the third year, which is the year of tithing, and hast given it unto the Levite, . .
[size=14pt] - the stranger,
- the fatherless,
- and the widow, [/size]
that they may eat within thy gates, and be filled; [/list]

Are you still awake? Or you chose to read only "Levites" and forgot all about others specifically mentioned in the same verses you had quoted?

I never thought People could be so desperate

I noticed you top the list.

There's a mixture there, and that is why you seem to be missing huge gaps there.

1. True, Jesus lived under the dispensation of the Law. However, you fail to understand the intrinsic nature of the said Law that you may been examining. The one question you need to ask yourself is this: what is the Law?

2. It is not a simplistic answer to (1) above that would help settle the matter. If you observe closely, there were "matters of the Law" that we need to pay attention to - judgement, mercy, and faith.

3. In the same breathe of that same verse, He implicitly placed both tithes and judgement, mercy and faith at PAR.

4. If anyone argues that only "judgement, mercy and faith" appeal to us as Christians today, such a person needs to understand that he/she is applauding the same "matters of the Law" that they are rejecting because of tithe.

5. To applaud one and reject the other is to violate what Jesus said in that verse and qualify as a hypocrite. Why? Because the things we are happy to take into Christianity (judgement, mercy and faith) are essentially called "weightier matters of the Law". Incidentally, the tithes are not the "weightier", and this should make us think deep within our hearts that it is futile as Christians to raise so much dust about tithe and yet never once realize that we are still sitting glued to the weightier matters of the Law.

The bold section refers.

You make an interesting comment there, saying judgment, mercy and faith are at par with tithes. Based on one scripture, you may make that conclusion, but if indeed he was making it at par, there would have been at least one more mention of a matter as 'weighty' as judgment, mercy and faith don't you think?

Again, the comparison you make is misleading in my opinion for this reason:

Justice, mercy and faith are principles in themselves, not clearly prescriptive practices that tithes are. This is the very issue Jesus was tackling - the Pharisees were excellent in fulfilling explicitly stated practices and 'ticking all the boxes', but would not do what would benefit the people under their care.

Furthermore, even if Jesus placed them at par, what is this TITHE he referred to? As the partly truthful 'expose' by Akere has shown, this was almost exclusively limited to agricultural produce and animal husbandry and not to anything else. If Jesus referred to this TITHE of animals and produce to LEVITES, who are we to 'modify' this to mean monthly/weekly paying of INCOME to the 'church'?

Surely this is a CLEAR departure from what Jesus taught, since the requirement has never been to pay money, even when people clearly had financial income.

Finally, I like your use of the term 'intrinsic nature' of the Law. When it comes down to it, all that matters is giving according to how you have decided in your heart to give as taught in the new testament, and the principle of sowing and reaping.

To 'cajole' people into giving 'tithes' by quoting factual but inapplicable references in the Old Testament is neither useful nor illuminating. It just muddles issues and causes the type of fractious opposition we have witnessed on this thread.

@ viaro

I just saw your earlier response to my post. . .apologies for the late reply

The very verses is prescriptive. Read verse 1 and see why it was prescriptive: "as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye". Although he mentions no specific percentage - not even 23% (which is what some Christian theologians also argue is the tithe amount, people like John MacArthur; Russell Kelly drags a huge 40% as 'tithe', etc). However, those who read his epistle quite well understood that Paul was prescribing that they MEASURE out a portion of teir income commensurate with what they had earned. That was not prescriptive, you say? Good - then that verse should mean abslutely nothing to any Christian, ignoring the fact of verse 1 - 'do AS I instructed other churches!' Otherwise we may have read something like - do just about anything that comes to your head.

Apologies for my lack of clarity. The passage is not prescriptive on PERCENTAGE to be given - the instruction is given to lay aside what YOU decide to give, in line with how God has prospered you, before Paul came. It did not say give x%, it only said give in proportion to how you've been blessed.

By measuring out, you have determined how much you want to give as instructed in 2 Cor 9:7.

I do not claim nor suggest that Paul's instruction should be ignored - it should simply be treated as what it is: An instruction to give and make this giving regular and orderly for proper organisation. No one is compelled to give a certain amount, but all are instructed to give.

I may also choose to give regular in the form of a tithe - and yes, I deliberately choose to do so. Not because of fulfilling any Law - but because, like you, that is what I sense the Holy Spirit movig me to do many times.

I have absolutely nothing against this - let each man (or woman) give as he decides in his own heart, not out of a belief that you are doing what the Israelites did, because that is clearly not the case.

The point is not that Jesus was castigating the Pharisees but implicitly giving out an instruction. What is meant by His clear statement:

    " these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone" - Matthew 23:23.

If you assume that the big picture is His castigating the Pharisees, you should not even seek to lay any claim to judgment, mercy, and faith. He clearly stated that these ought to be done - on equal terms He stated that the other should not be negleted.

If this was the ONLY place Jesus mentioned Justice, Mercy and Faith, then you would be completely correct. However it is NOT. Copious examples of Justice, Mercy and Faith are given, with entire parables dedicated to each one of them. If indeed, this was a placing at par and an implicit instruction, surely Jesus would have equally gone on to teach parables as he did for the latter 3? But he did not.

That is not a telling omission - that is a huge excuse. Let me show you a few things that you will not find in the Gospels where Jesus discussed the KINGDOM:

   * He made no mention of Melchizedek - none, nada, zilch.
      But Christianity is rested on expressly the statement that
      Jesus is 'made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec'
      - Heb. 6:20 for example.

I don't think Christianity is rested expressly on that statement, but that is a discussion for another day. To put it differently, without that verse in the bible, is Jesus' role in doubt? NO - there are copious examples of Jesus interceding on our behalf, not dependent on Melchisedec. In any case, Jesus interceding on our behalf was clearly established during his life on earth. Melchisedec primarily (but not solely) served to buttress the earlier message in a manner more understandable to the Hebrews as the name of the book implies.

   * He made no mention of of Himself as High Priest - none, nada, zilch.
      But we know that Christ as our High Priest is central to our Christian faith:
      should we then call these examples the same as  telling omissions?

Again, the allegory of Jesus being the high priest is one of the tools to LINK the old priesthood of the Old Testament to the New Testament. It does not establish the foundation of our faith per se, which is that Jesus is the lamb who came to take away our sins, or that he is the beloved Son of God whom we should listen to and is the Way, the Truth and the Life, the ONLY way to the Father.

Furthermore, Jesus PRAYING for his disciples and teaching them was clear evidence of his priesthood when he was on earth.

If we're going to seek the things of Christ, we do so not because He did not say something directly. Rather, we seek to understand what He conveys to us in the body of apostolic teachings. In this case, we cannot claim that NONE of the apostles mentioned anything about tithes. For me, I would rather say that nowhere do we find anyone condemning tithes - not in the OT nor in the NT.

I agree fully with you - tithes were NOT condemned. But if we are to talk about things NOT condemned, burnt sacrifices were not condemned either were they? 

With the in depth details of how churches (the body of believers) should be run, it is telling that apart from a cursory mention in castigating legalistic pharisees and in references to levites paying tithes while in Abraham's loins we find sparse reference to tithing in the NT, and definitely NO MENTION of 'paying of tithes' given as instruction to the Church.

Giving regularly is however given prominence in many parts, with CLEAR instructions as you so eloquently described. I am convinced that if it were a 'requirement' to give a fixed percentage of 10% (or any other determined percentage) as is taught today in many churches, the leaders of the early church would not have failed to mention it.

Clearly there is no need to condemn the tithe, if, as I believe, it was understood as an obligation as set out under the Levitical priesthood tending the temples. As that system had been superseded with the tearing of the veil, no such requirement was needed anymore.

You make so much sense that is simply delightful to read. These few points stand out especially for me:

debosky:

Justice, mercy and faith are principles in themselves, not clearly prescriptive practices that tithes are. This is the very issue Jesus was tackling - the Pharisees were excellent in fulfilling explicitly stated practices and 'ticking all the boxes', but would not do what would benefit the people under their care.

Excellent.

Furthermore, even if Jesus placed them at par, what is this TITHE he referred to? As the partly truthful 'expose' by Akere has shown, this was almost exclusively limited to agricultural produce and animal husbandry and not to anything else. If Jesus referred to this TITHE of animals and produce to LEVITES, who are we to 'modify' this to mean monthly/weekly paying of INCOME to the 'church'?  

This is where I have some problems. To remain on ideas as such is to talk about "principles" and yet fail to follow through with the same "principles" in practical terms. Look at it again: the tithes in that verse were 'mint and anise and cummin' - these are pointing to herbs and not to animals. I'm just showing you an example of following a rigid sense of reading; and when you are refering to 'animals' in that verse, you certainly would have "modified" what He said, in as much as He did not mention such. Of course, we would have to point back to the Law and read past what He said in that verse - which in so doing is applying a "principle". Otherwise, to diffuse them would render that verse weak and make it sound as if "the weightier matters of the Law" were for the Jews alone.

Finally, I like your use of the term 'intrinsic nature' of the Law. When it comes down to it, all that matters is giving according to how you have decided in your heart to give as taught in the new testament, and the principle of sowing and reaping.

Spot on! And let me not fail to mention that the very same principle is what we find in the OT - God's offerings were to be received from those whose hearts were willing. It mattered nothing to Him if someone was fulfilling the strict Law of 10% or less or more. What was far more important in both Testaments was the condition of the giver's heart.

To 'cajole' people into giving 'tithes' by quoting factual but inapplicable references in the Old Testament is neither useful nor illuminating. It just muddles issues and causes the type of fractious opposition we have witnessed on this thread.

I understand. The problem is even deeper than that. When one reads through the New Testament, at first it appears that many, many verses quoted from the OT hardly fit into what is being quoted in the NT. The problem seems to ease off when we understand that the 'intrinsic nature' of the Law is what we find in the NT, rather than a literal intonation.

debosky:

@ viaro

I just saw your earlier response to my post. . .apologies for the late reply

That's no problem.

Apologies for my lack of clarity. The passage is not prescriptive on PERCENTAGE to be given - the instruction is given to lay aside what YOU decide to give, in line with how God has prospered you, before Paul came. It did not say give x%, it only said give in proportion to how you've been blessed.

By measuring out, you have determined how much you want to give as instructed in 2 Cor 9:7.

I do not claim nor suggest that Paul's instruction should be ignored - it should simply be treated as what it is: An instruction to give and make this giving regular and orderly for proper organisation. No one is compelled to give a certain amount, but all are instructed to give.

I have absolutely nothing against this - let each man (or woman) give as he decides in his own heart, not out of a belief that you are doing what the Israelites did, because that is clearly not the case.

In hindsight, I should've realised your point as you have now clarified further. Appreciated.

If this was the ONLY place Jesus mentioned Justice, Mercy and Faith, then you would be completely correct. However it is NOT. Copious examples of Justice, Mercy and Faith are given, with entire parables dedicated to each one of them. If indeed, this was a placing at par and an implicit instruction, surely Jesus would have equally gone on to teach parables as he did for the latter 3? But he did not.

I think that's where we're mixing up issues. By saying that He placed them both at par, it was clear that He did so in that verse. Essentially, He said: DO BOTH. Certainly, it is not in every instance He mentioned all three matters together (judgement, mercy and faith) - at various instances, He either taught on being merciful (as in Luke 6:36) without mentioning either faith or judgement (ie., justice); but at other instances, He taught about those others without mentioning mercy. The point was that in that verse of Matthew 23:23, He brought them together and essentially gave value to all He mentioned there. In simplicity, He essentially said to do both.

I don't think Christianity is rested expressly on that statement, but that is a discussion for another day. To put it differently, without that verse in the bible, is Jesus' role in doubt? NO - there are copious examples of Jesus interceding on our behalf, not dependent on Melchisedec. In any case, Jesus interceding on our behalf was clearly established during his life on earth. Melchisedec primarily (but not solely) served to buttress the earlier message in a manner more understandable to the Hebrews as the name of the book implies.

Lol, there are several good points as there are mixed up issues I perceive there. First, I don't remember intoning that He was "dependent" on Melchizedek; rather, the point was that just because He did not expressly mention a particular subject does not mean therefore that it had no place in His life and ministry. There are so many things that He did not mention, and if we are only looking for what He mentioned, then I reckon perhaps half of our Christianity would be out the window. Do you get my jive?

Second, I'm somewhat not sure that His intercession would have been effected on earth. The first question would be: in what capacity was He interceding? If the answer is in the capacity of "a priest", then it is clear from Hebrews 8:4 that "if he were on earth, he should not be a priest". It was not in an earthly capacity that He ministered to interced for us as Christians - rather, it was in the capacity of His glorification as our High Priest in heaven that He could ever assume that role.

Third, Melchizedek may have been addressed to the Hebrews; but its message rings clear to the entire Body of Christ. How else should we know precisely the office He assumes as Priest on our behalf? If I remember clearly now, it seems to me that no other book in the NT shows Christ as our High Priest the way Hebrews does - because the first thing to ask would be as regards the lineage that establishes Him as such.

But ahh! All this should have been saved for another discussion as you suggested. _{>viaro knocks head on his keyboard<}

Again, the allegory of Jesus being the high priest is one of the tools to LINK the old priesthood of the Old Testament to the New Testament. It does not establish the foundation of our faith per se, which is that Jesus is the lamb who came to take away our sins, or that he is the beloved Son of God whom we should listen to and is the Way, the Truth and the Life, the ONLY way to the Father.

But isn't it all clear that these are traced back to the Law?

Furthermore, Jesus PRAYING for his disciples and teaching them was clear evidence of his priesthood when he was on earth.

Nope, He could not assume the priesthood while He was on earth - read Hebrews 8:4.

I agree fully with you - tithes were NOT condemned. But if we are to talk about things NOT condemned, burnt sacrifices were not condemned either were they? 

I would rather be persauded that burnt offerings were made "inoperative" (is that the word? well. . .) It is clear what happened to burnt offerings when we read the book of Hebrews 10:8-9.

With the in depth details of how churches (the body of believers) should be run, it is telling that apart from a cursory mention in castigating legalistic pharisees and in references to levites paying tithes while in Abraham's loins we find sparse reference to tithing in the NT, and definitely NO MENTION of 'paying of tithes' given as instruction to the Church.

Good observation.

Giving regularly is however given prominence in many parts, with CLEAR instructions as you so eloquently described. I am convinced that if it were a 'requirement' to give a fixed percentage of 10% (or any other determined percentage) as is taught today in many churches, the leaders of the early church would not have failed to mention it.

Like you, I'm not convinced that giving was a "requirement" - I may even go as far as to say that it was not a "requirement" in the OT? That word leaves me wondering what intrinsic value it fulfilled if it was made a "requirement". But that's just me, and I cannot push my ideas too strongly.

Clearly there is no need to condemn the tithe, if, as I believe, it was understood as an obligation as set out under the Levitical priesthood tending the temples. As that system had been superseded with the tearing of the veil, no such requirement was needed anymore.

'No such requirement' was "needed" at any time. Lol, yes, under the OT dispensation, the Levites had a commandment to take tithes - and even the Levites themselves also "paid" tithes through Abraham to Melchizedek. But I haven't come across any verse as yet that made it a "requirement" in as much as it did not point to the fulfillment of any indispensable aspect of their salvation or atonement under the Law. The tithes were simply a matter of thanksgiving to God.

Tonye-t:

[font=trebuchet ms][color=#000099]@Chukwudi44,
My reply:
[li] Tithing never originated from the mosaic law hence it must not adhere to the pattern of the mosaic law[/li]
[li] The basic origin of tithing was simply TO RENDER ONE-TENTH of one's income/profit,

Where did you get this info from, i am interested. It would be nice if you can provide reference. Some of us really want to learn. Thanks.

Tonye-t:

@Chukwudi44,


[li] Tithing never originated from the mosaic law hence it must not adhere to the pattern of the mosaic law[/li]

[li] The basic origin of tithing was simply TO RENDER ONE-TENTH of one's income/profit, there its regardless if it is done everyday/everyweek/everymonth/everyyear[/li]

Which bible did you get this fallacy from the only two examples of tithes in the bible b4 the law are that of Abraham's one off tithes of war booty {not from his income or personal wealth} and Jacob's conditional promise to tithe if God blessed him first. How did you manage to twist these occurences to mean income or profit?

All scripture is given by God and is profitable for REPROOF

Hebrews 7:18 describes tithing as unprofitable

KunleOshod will say i have twisted scriptures again, well not my fault maybe i study the scriptures you know but as one who eats hard bone and not milk suckers

I don't have to say that as you have already confessed to twisting it and that is probably why you couldn't post one single scripture in proper context to back your fallacies

@pilgrim.1
I have deliberately refused to join issues with you on this thread as experience as shown me that even though you know the truth on this issue you would rather stand the truth on it's head whilst holdng on to your position for reasons best known to you. And your strategy of running round in circles grasping at straws and using semantics is at best dis-honest. It still beats me why a bible beleivng christianwith the fear of God in her heart would find it convinient to tolerate falsehood and outright deception in the church of christ. Just becos some pastors who are just messengers have decided to distort the truth. Just remember that these pastors are just mere men and in the sight of God they are no more important than even an unbeliever.

Tonye-t:



[li] Tithing never originated from the mosaic law hence it must not adhere to the pattern of the mosaic law[/li]

[li] The basic origin of tithing was simply TO RENDER ONE-TENTH of one's income/profit, there its regardless if it is done everyday/everyweek/everymonth/everyyear[/li]

I like your reasoning, and yes, I agree with those postulations. Tithing never originated from the Mosaic Law; and anyone who does not understand that would always want to drag all issues of tithing to the Mosaic Law.

As for the second one, now I understand where chukwudi was coming from when he mentioned the issue of "daily tithing". Like I said, it is not the frequency that determines someone's giving as tithes; rather, it is the giving in itself that is referred to as tithes - regardless of when it is done.

_________________________

Zikkyy:

[li] Tithing never originated from the mosaic law hence it must not adhere to the pattern of the mosaic law[/li]

[li] The basic origin of tithing was simply TO RENDER ONE-TENTH of one's income/profit, there its regardless if it is done everyday/everyweek/everymonth/everyyear[/li]

Where did you get this info from, i am interested. It would be nice if you can provide reference. Some of us really want to learn. Thanks.

Hi Zikkyy, do you have something else in mind to bear on those two points outlined in Tonye-t's submission? I guess if someone is asking a question the way you did, then it would mean that the questioner basically disagrees with what he read; or otherwise he would not be asking them in the first place if he agreed.

Tonye-t:

[li] The basic origin of tithing was simply TO RENDER ONE-TENTH of one's income/profit,

viaro:

Hi Zikkyy, do you have something else in mind to bear on those two points outlined in Tonye-t's submission? I guess if someone is asking a question the way you did, then it would mean that the questioner basically disagrees with what he read; or otherwise he would not be asking them in the first place if he agreed.

Hi Viaro, please go back to my post and note the section highlighted. That's what i am interested in. We have not gotten to the point where i either agree or disagree. It appears the Tonye-t has gotten hold of some ancient scroll that provides detailed info on the origin of tithe. I am simply interested. It would be nice of him to share, so some of us can also benefit from this newfound knowledge. Thanks

Zikkyy:

It appears the Tonye-t has gotten hold of some ancient scroll that provides detailed info on the origin of tithe.

He most certainly has

Zikkyy:

Hi Viaro, please go back to my post and note the section highlighted. That's what i am interested in. We have not gotten to the point where i either agree or disagree. It appears the Tonye-t has gotten hold of some ancient scroll that provides detailed info on the origin of tithe. I am simply interested. It would be nice of him to share, so some of us can also benefit from this newfound knowledge. Thanks

That's great, Zikkyy. However, even when one goes back to consider his statement (as highlighted again in your reply), it does not appear that he stated what details the origin of tithe(s), to be fair. If he said that the "basic" origin of tithe is such and such, he first made clear that it did not originate from the Mosaic Law. At first reading, it appears to me that by "basic origin", he might've been pointing to what many of us (including anti-tithers) already know. That was why I thought you might have a second opinion.

My reply:
Tithing never originated from the mosaic law hence it must not adhere to the pattern of the mosaic law

In accordance wih the melchizedek tithe,please where was is commanded that the melchizedek tithe should be repeated by anybody?

Assuming the melchizek tithe is still valid,how can we that are not involved in war tithe ,since there are no war booties to tithe ?

Where in the bibe did God command Abraham to tithe in the order of melchizedek as it appears Abraham tithed out of his own freewill ?

Assuming the tithe is still valid ,where can I find this man to pay tithe to him,since there is no where else anyone else was instructed to receive tithes on his behalf ?

@chukwudi,

Your questions are okay, and it is such that I like to answer. However, they reveal two things to my mind:

   (a) the fact that people who ask questions like that rarely have answers to address questions themselves;

   (b) the fact that no matter the answers that may be given, a default mindset already exists to reject every other position that does not favour the anti-tither.

I've observed both scenarios in this topic, and I can attest to them. As to (a) above, you don't seem to be able to proffer any answers after our last engagement. Remember my reply in post #396 to your exclamations in post #395? That is just one example, and perhaps you will prove the veracity of (b) above when you react to this reply. So here goes:

chukwudi44:

In accordance wih the melchizedek tithe,please where was is commanded that the melchizedek tithe should be repeated by anybody?

That's a red-herring. In the first place, where was it written that Melchizedek took tithes by any "commandment"? That is the first and necessary question that must come before asking for any other commandment that goes after. Abraham received no "commandments" to tithe to Melchizedek; and what the former gave to the latter was clearly referred to as "tithes" despite the absence of any "commandments".

Assuming the melchizek tithe is still valid,how can we that are not involved in war tithe ,since there are no war booties to tithe ?

What Abraham did was not supposed to be a clone to all believers. He acted by faith in response to the blessing of Melchizedek - the very same thing that you acknowledged in part in your third question below.

Where in the bibe did God command Abraham to tithe in the order of melchizedek  as it appears Abraham tithed out of his own freewill ?

This is the mystery of the Christian faith. It is clear that Abraham acted out of his own freewill without the enactment of any legalistic commanements to do so as regards the tithe he gave to Melchizedek. What condemns any believer if they also do the same in principle - acting our of their freewills as led by the Holy Spirit?

Assuming the tithe is still valid ,where can I find this man to pay tithe to him,since there is no where else anyone else was instructed to receive tithes on his behalf  ?

You do not need to meet Melchizedek face to face. What you really don't realize is that every Christian is already connected with the very same priesthood of Melchizedek that is the basis for our Lord's priesthood. Levi did not meet Melchizedek face to face, and yet Scripture says that he also gave tithes to the latter.

viaro:

I think that's where we're mixing up issues. By saying that He placed them both at par, it was clear that He did so in that verse. Essentially, He said: DO BOTH. Certainly, it is not in every instance He mentioned all three matters together (judgement, mercy and faith) - at various instances, He either taught on being merciful (as in Luke 6:36) without mentioning either faith or judgement (ie., justice); but at other instances, He taught about those others without mentioning mercy. The point was that in that verse of Matthew 23:23, He brought them together and essentially gave value to all He mentioned there. In simplicity, He essentially said to do both.

While not wanting to be pedantic or claim to know what Jesus was thinking, I must highlight this: Note that in each case we can find copious teachings (either separate or combined) on Justice, Faith and Mercy, but NONE others on tithing. Does that not lend further support that the earlier mention was indeed focused on castigating the Pharisees for their legalistic approach and NOT saying Christians should tithe?

But isn't it all clear that these are traced back to the Law?

Even if traced back to the Law, it is NOT a 'license' as it were to continue carrying out practices as contained in the Law. It merely serves to indicate that the overall purpose of the law is fulfilled in Jesus.

Nope, He could not assume the priesthood while He was on earth - read Hebrews 8:4.

I won't debate this as it is not 'essential' to the current discourse as you have discovered.

I would rather be persauded that burnt offerings were made "inoperative" (is that the word? well. . .) It is clear what happened to burnt offerings when we read the book of Hebrews 10:8-9.

I like that word ''inoperative''.  Can this not be the case for tithes as well, since the Levitical Priesthood whom were the collectors of the tithe became ''inoperative'' as well as the means of interacting with God? 

'No such requirement' was "needed" at any time. Lol, yes, under the OT dispensation, the Levites had a commandment to take tithes - and even the Levites themselves also "paid" tithes through Abraham to Melchizedek. But I haven't come across any verse as yet that made it a "requirement" in as much as it did not point to the fulfillment of any indispensable aspect of their salvation or atonement under the Law. The tithes were simply a matter of thanksgiving to God.

I disagree - they were MANDATORY requirements, which needed to be carried out, since it 'belongs to the Lord'.

To argue whether it was 'indispensable' or not is to start engaging in unnecessary determinations of significance. The simple fact is that they were required to do so - Moses gave CLEAR instructions on what must be done.

For reference Deuteronomy 26:12

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

Note the use of WHEN and SHALL which are not 'optional' as it were. If we want to get into the 'meaning'  of the word shall:

The word shall is used to qualify an action which is mandatory but can be construed as required considering the situation

In other words, if it is 'mandatory' and 'required', it is a 'requirement'. 

Finally, the way I would answer your attempt to distinguish the 'indispensable' from the others is thus:

Deuteronomy 28:1

If you fully obey the LORD your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations on earth.

Clearly the COMMAND to TITHE as expressed in chapter 26 of the same book is contained in this promise. As such, it cannot be separated or rendered any less 'dispensable' compared to the other commands given on that day.

debosky:

While not wanting to be pedantic or claim to know what Jesus was thinking, I must highlight this: Note that in each case we can find copious teachings (either separate or combined) on Justice, Faith and Mercy, but NONE others on tithing. Does that not lend further support that the earlier mention was indeed focused on castigating the Pharisees for their legalistic approach and NOT saying Christians should tithe?

The focus was not on castigating the Pharisees, else He would not be asking them to do anything. Hence, I don't see how that squares with the emphatic pointers He left to do both.

Even if traced back to the Law, it is NOT a 'license' as it were to continue carrying out practices as contained in the Law. It merely serves to indicate that the overall purpose of the law is fulfilled in Jesus.

Which brings the point of "principles" to the fore, rather than a 'license', don't you think?

I won't debate this as it is not 'essential' to the current discourse as you have discovered.

Okay - in which case, you could see that not everything pertaining to the essentials of our faith are to be found only in His quotes in the Gospels.

I like that word ''inoperative''.  Can this not be the case for tithes as well, since the Levitical Priesthood whom were the collectors of the tithe became ''inoperative'' as well as the means of interacting with God? 

Lol, this fails to see the fact that tithes were not made 'inoperative' on the basis of a Law that came long afterwards. If tithes are settled only on the Law, then there could be a legitimacy to argue its inoperation and discontinuation. But a Law that came long after tithes could not render something inoperative that it did not originate.

I disagree - they were MANDATORY requirements, which needed to be carried out, since it 'belongs to the Lord'.

If you were referring to the highlighted parts you had quoted from mine, I could point you to references that show that they were as articulated. However, that they were 'mandatory' to Israel by a commandment is obvious from a reading of Hebrews 7:5; yet they were not a "requirement" in as much as tithes were not established upon the basis of meeting any intrinsic aspect of their salvation. One is not 'saved' or 'lost' upon the basis of the tithes, for tithes are not taught in Scripture as a basis of anyone's salvation. That is the sense I meant as "not required". If you still disagree, I have no qualms; but you may please find me where tithes were made a "requirement" for any part of their salvation.

To argue whether it was 'indispensable' or not is to start engaging in unnecessary determinations of significance.

Not necessarily. If Scripture shows that it was indeed having any part to play in their salvation, please show and share.

The simple fact is that they were required to do so - Moses gave CLEAR instructions on what must be done.

For reference Deuteronomy 26:12

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

Note the use of WHEN and SHALL which are not 'optional' as it were. If we want to get into the 'meaning'  of the word shall:

The word shall is used to qualify an action which is mandatory but can be construed as required considering the situation

In other words, if it is 'mandatory' and 'required', it is a 'requirement'. 

I've shared my distinction in context of what I meant by "requirement" - nothing changes from the same position I held in my previous replies. So I don't think you've said anything new as significantly at odds with what I shared earlier in this regard. I have already stated in my last reply #400 that:

[list]"Lol, yes, under the OT dispensation, the Levites had a commandment to take tithes - and even the Levites themselves also "paid" tithes through Abraham to Melchizedek."[/list]

Consequently, I went on to state in that same post #400:

[list]But I haven't come across any verse as yet that made it a "requirement" in as much as it did not point to the fulfillment of any indispensable aspect of their salvation or atonement under the Law.[/list]

That was what I stated earlier in context of my use of "requirement"; and while not disputing your context, I am yet to see how tithes were a "requirement" in terms of the intrinsic nature of the Law as pertaining to the salvation of anyone - OT or NT. Other matters that were "required" of the Law upon Israel pointed to their salvation; but not the tithes. That was the sense in which I saw the "requirement" that people often argue about.

Finally, the way I would answer your attempt to distinguish the 'indispensable' from the others is thus:

Deuteronomy 28:1

If you fully obey the LORD your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations on earth.

Clearly the COMMAND to TITHE as expressed in chapter 26 of the same book is contained in this promise. As such, it cannot be separated or rendered any less 'dispensable' compared to the other commands given on that day.

Lol, at pain of risking a repetition, let me call your attention to the fact that I already have outlined that I was aware of the Levites having a commandment to receive tithes from their brethren - which again I had to highlight in this reply (Hebrews 7:5). That verse shows that the Levites had a "commandment" as such; but as far as what the intrinsic nature of the Law, it was NOT a "requirement". I hope you get the distinction now?

By way of expounding, for it to be a "requirement" would not be simply a "commandment" - it would rather be something that was indispensable for their salvation for it to be a "requirement". No such verses in either the OT or NT shows tithes to be a 'requirement' in this case; even though we have COMMANDMENTS in both the OT and NT concerning our giving to God. Our giving (whatever they are - tithes, freewill offerings, donations, alms, etc) are not "requirements", as they have nothing intrinsic to rest our salvation upon. They are not the basis of our salvation. However, even in the NT, we have several instances where COMMANDMENTS were given concerning our giving/offerings (whatever they are).

Now, are the "commandments" in this regard be said to be "requirements" as well? Are we "required" to give offerings as Christians? If not, where is the argument to see "requirements" only in the Law and yet fail to see it in the new covenant if we are arguing that "commandment" = "requirement"?

Phew, bro . . I enjoy your reasoning (and in many things I essentially agree with you). Even when you disagree, your points have been quite heart-warming. However, take a moment and consider the contexts of what I'm trying to convey. . it may sort out a few other issues you may not have considered. What sayest thou?

hmmmmmmmmmm Pilly!

TV01:

hmmmmmmmmmm Pilly!

Ahh!!!!!! TV01, nice to see your post, how have you been? You can see your friend is back to harrass us whilst continously twisting scripture to promote her tithing agenda. I really wonder what keeps her going.

viaro:

I owe you a sincere apology - it is apparent that I had misread you. Reading through again, I notice that you did not fail to clearly state this: "Christ's coming & subsequently His death doesn't wipe out the law of tithing,his redeemeing us to Himself doesn't mean we are free 2 act as we will". Okay, I'm sorry to have gotten that point mixed up. Let me explain.

Actually, Gentiles were not given any "law of tithing". I stand to be corrected on that one. However, it seems clear to me that the Christian faith and testimony are based on the principles of the Law for all believing Jews and Gentiles in Christ. What's the difference? What the Body of Christ looks to are principles, not literalism. As a result of this, we cannot claim any "law of tithing" from the Mosaic Law for ourselves; but we certainly can draw from the principles of the Old Testament and the Law for today. This is why we read in so many instances in the NT that most of our Christian doctrines are derived from the same OT Law. I should have made myself clear - but since that was not the case, I apologise to you. Please forgive me.

Lol, I did not argue to falsify the law of marriage. My point was that we should remember that even though we are not under the Law, its principles nevertheless apply in our Christian marriages. Again, please don't be miffed at my mix up. Cheers.

Apology accepted,actually :owasn't angry,just stressing my point.
I loooooooooooooove your courtesy man!