IMHO, charitable organizations deserve my tithe and first fruits more than any religious institution. I've stopped paying my tithes to churches for years now and I even feel more financially accomplished (because I've made smart financial moves). I'm sure that what they preach in church is not applicable to me, In their own sense, I'm robbing God. If that is it, I don't mind robbing God to give to the less-privileged. Let that God come and punish me for not obeying his servants,

So far, I've donated only to
Little Saint's Orphanage:
Skye Bank: Adeola Odeku Branch: 1331770005200
Zenith Bank: Ajose Adeogun Branch: 6010173794

You can ask for their NUBAN number at the counter.


Disclaimer:I am not in anyway affiliated to them. I'm just a fella with some concern for the orphans. I hope to spread this little love to others soon.

Infomizer:

IMHO, charitable organizations deserve my tithe and first fruits more than any religious institution. I've stopped paying my tithes to churches for years now and I even feel more financially accomplished (because I've made smart financial moves). I'm sure that what they preach in church is not applicable to me, In their own sense, I'm robbing God. If that is it, I don't mind robbing God to give to the less-privileged. Let that God come and punish me for not obeying his servants,

So far, I've donated only to
Little Saint's Orphanage:
Skye Bank: Adeola Odeku Branch: 1331770005200
Zenith Bank: Ajose Adeogun Branch: 6010173794

You can ask for their NUBAN number at the counter.


Disclaimer:I am not in anyway affiliated to them. I'm just a fella with some concern for the orphans. I hope to spread this little love to others soon.

Dear friend.
I share your opinion.
Not the same to give the money directly to a pastor or a priest who end up buying planes with the money or spend it on drugs to give the money directly to work.
The thread is just what you mean.
While you care for good social work, other people try to change Bible versions to simply promote economically to the priest.
Regards

wordtalk:

Sorry, but that is NOT taught anywhere in the Bible. There is NOT A SINGLE VERSE showing that 'pre-law tithing' was nailed to any Temple wall or subsumed into the Mosaic law or Levitical tithes. Fallacies like these emerge out of the air with absolutely no Biblical hermeneutics to underscore them.

i don't understand. What exactly are you saying here? that the Israelite continue to practice the pre-law tithing model alongside the mosaic requirement?

I really like to know where you stand on this issue. The way i see it, there are only three possibilities:

1. The pre-law tithing model (whatever that was) was taken and modified to align with the requirements of the mosaic law (or was done away with)
2. The Isrelites continue to practice a pre-law model alongside the mosaic requirements
3. There was no tithing practice in place prior to the law

So, what sayeth thee

wordtalk:

1. Abraham's tithes were not 'incorporated' into the Law; rather, Scripture shows that it was the Levitical tithes that were 'subsumed' into Abraham's tithes to Melchizedek. Read Hebrews 7:9 - 'One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham.' [size=14pt]It was Levi who paid tithes in Abraham, not the other way round.[/size]

I honestly don't think it wise to go this route. The focus of the Hebrew writer was never tithe but the superiority of Christ's (not Mechizedek's) priesthood. If i follow your reasoning here, i can say the Israelites paid tithes in Abraham (to mechi) and by extension Jesus Christ paid tithe in Abraham to Melchi

Hebrews 7:9-10 (KJV)
9And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. 10[b][size=14pt]For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him[/size][/b].

^^^
It obviously works for the preachers who amass a lot of wealth from it, no evidence it works for the tithers even though some of them falsely claim it works for them but the reality is that tithers are not better off or better blessed than non tithers.

Hi Zikkyy

Long time, and thanks for raising those concerns.

Zikkyy:

i don't understand. What exactly are you saying here? that the Israelite continue to practice the pre-law tithing model alongside the mosaic requirement?

No. In responding to BERNIMOORE, my point was that he was seriously mistaken on the "subsumed" assumption he made for Abraham's tithes and was reading the texts backward. Not one verse in the entire Bible shows that Abraham's tithes were "subsumed" into the Levitical tithes alongside the Mosaic requirement. If anything at all, Hebrews 7:9 shows that it was rather Levi who paid tithes IN ABRAHAM to Melchizedek. Which is why those who argue for Abraham's tithes to have been nailed to the Cross are merely cheating on exegesis for the one reason that Abraham was NEVER under the Law in the first place.

I really like to know where you stand on this issue.

Excuse me? How many times do I have to state it in clear terms? My opening remarks in this thread once again highlighted where I stand on this issue because I sensed some readers would be worried sick to ask that same question, so here goes again, outlined and rearranged:

1. 'Bottomline is that a believer should choose what and how they want to give as long as doing so does not border on coercion of some sorts ('coercion' - another name for 'mandatory').'

2. 'So, those Christians who want to express their giving in the form of tithing/tithes (or a 'tenth' or 'ten percent') are absolutely free to do so without arguments to the contrary.'

3. 'For those who do not wish to express their giving in this way or any other way, it is entirely up to them to also do as they may rather than harangue others how not to give.'

In simple terms, the above shows that -

#1. general point and a common ground we can all agree upon;

#2. for those who wish to give through tithing (or a 'tenth' or 'ten percent') , etc.

#3. for ANTI-TITHERS who are far too disturbed on this very simple issue with the multiplied pretences they make and the fallacies they often argue.

The way i see it, there are only three possibilities:

That's the way you see it; but who says there could be 'ONLY' three possibilities? Who knows if there are less or more than three possibilities? We can merely argue for our own convictions without making hard-and-fast rules for everyone.

1. The pre-law tithing model (whatever that was) was taken and modified to align with the requirements of the mosaic law (or was done away with)

Wrong. Nothing in Scripture bears this out, and I did not argue for what you just stated above.

2. The Isrelites continue to practice a pre-law model alongside the mosaic requirements

Wrong again. There was no 'continuum' between either tithes that was to be a stricture or stenosis 'ALONGSIDE' anything. The former  is not taught in Scripture to have been transfigured into the latter in just the same way that we know that Melchizedek's priesthood was not translated into and practised alongside the Levitical priesthood under the Mosaic covenant.

3. There was no tithing practice in place prior to the law

Wrong again. If there was no tithing prior to the Law, from where did Abraham derive the concept (Gen. 14:20)? From where did Jacob derive the concept of tithing (Gen. 28:22)?

The denial of tithing prior to the Law is a convenient claptrap often waved by anti-tithers in order to ignore the fact and escape the responsibility of dealing with basic exegetical principles around the two examples above. This is why they try to sweep the Genesis case under the carpet by arguing that 'Abraham's tithes were pagan tithes', because by some magic which they have introduced through the back door, Melchizedek appears as a 'pagan priest' inspite of the fact that the Bible teaches the contrary.

edited:
I've shown elsewhere that 'Abraham’s Tithes Are Not Pagan'

So, what sayeth thee

As above, sir.

Zikkyy:

I honestly don't think it wise to go this route. The focus of the Hebrew writer was never tithe but the superiority of Christ's (not Mechizedek's) priesthood.

I think Hebrews is worth a serious study, especially because we have heard this tired and retired excuse of what many people say is the 'focus of the Hebrew writer'. The epistle to the Hebrews demonstrates many things, including the fact of the superiority of Melchizedek's priesthood ('consider how great this man', Heb. 7:4). There is no basis to argue for the superiority of Christ's priesthood if we fail to see the superiority of Melchizedek's priesthood in the first place; for Christ is made 'a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec' (Heb. 7:17).

Although NO OTHER New Testament writer discusses the priesthood of Christ, yet the 'focus' of Hebrews is not the priesthoods (Melchizedek's, the Levitical, or Christ's priesthoods). Rather, Hebrews focuses on the Son of God as the subject of the Christian life and faith.

If i follow your reasoning here, i can say the Israelites paid tithes in Abraham (to mechi) and by extension Jesus Christ paid tithe in Abraham to Melchi

That is not following my reasoning here, in so far as I'm not the author of Hebrews. In quoting Hebrews 7:9, I did not stretch it to mean that Jesus Christ paid tithes in Abraham to Melchizedek; rather, I showed that BERNIMOORE was wrong in trying to 'subsume' Abraham's tithes into the Levitical tithes conrary to what we find in Scripture.

Perhaps you want to show me how the 'subsumed' case holds ground in your argument, then I'll gladly consider it.

wordtalk:

Hi Zikkyy

Long time,

Yes ooh you had to do that disappearing act

wordtalk:

Excuse me? How many times do I have to state it in clear terms? My opening remarks in this thread once again highlighted where I stand on this issue because I sensed some readers would be worried sick to ask that same question, so here goes again, outlined and rearranged:

1. 'Bottomline is that a believer should choose what and how they want to give as long as doing so does not border on coercion of some sorts ('coercion' - another name for 'mandatory').'

2. 'So, those Christians who want to express their giving in the form of tithing/tithes (or a 'tenth' or 'ten percent') are absolutely free to do so without arguments to the contrary.'

3. 'For those who do not wish to express their giving in this way or any other way, it is entirely up to them to also do as they may rather than harangue others how not to give.'

In simple terms, the above shows that -

#1. general point and a common ground we can all agree upon;

#2. for those who wish to give through tithing (or a 'tenth' or 'ten percent') , etc.

#3. for ANTI-TITHERS who are far too disturbed on this very simple issue with the multiplied pretences they make and the fallacies they often argue.

I know your stand on tithing, i was referring to the issue of pre-law tithe being part (incorporated) into the mosaic law.

wordtalk:

Wrong.

wordtalk:

Wrong again.

wordtalk:

Wrong again.

Lol Okay if you believe all three are wrong, lets have what you considered right

wordtalk:

There was no 'continuum' between either tithes that was to be a stricture or stenosis 'ALONGSIDE' anything. The former  is not taught in Scripture to have been transfigured into the latter in just the same way that we know that Melchizedek's priesthood was not translated into and practised alongside the Levitical priesthood under the Mosaic covenant.

pre-law tithing for me span the period from Abraham to the time Moses stood before the people to deliver the law. Was there a tithing practice in place up to the time the Israelite received the law? If there was, what happened after the law was given? If there was no none, does that imply that pre-law tithing ended with Abraham (or Jacob)?

wordtalk:

If there was no tithing prior to the Law, from where did Abraham derive the concept (Gen. 14:20)? From where did Jacob derive the concept of tithing (Gen. 28:22)?

Am not saying there was no tithing, that's why i listed the possibilities. If there was, what happen after the law was given, did the Israelite continue to practice these tithing models?

wordtalk:

The denial of tithing prior to the Law is a convenient claptrap often waved by anti-tithers in order to ignore the fact and escape the responsibility of dealing with basic exegetical principles around the two examples above. This is why they try to sweep the Genesis case under the carpet by arguing that 'Abraham's tithes were pagan tithes', because by some magic which they have introduced through the back door, Melchizedek appears as a 'pagan priest' inspite of the fact that the Bible teaches the contrary.

Don't know anything 'bout this, so no comment

wordtalk:

If anything at all, Hebrews 7:9 shows that it was rather Levi who paid tithes IN ABRAHAM to Melchizedek.

Again, this tells us the focus of the Hebrew chapter. The writer was comparing 'like' for 'like', 'priesthood' for 'priesthood'. He was comparing the receivers of tithes i.e. Levi & Melchi one tithe receiver paying tithe to the other. it has nothing to do with those that were required to tithe i.e. the other 11 tribes of Israel vs Daddy Abraham.

wordtalk:

I think Hebrews is worth a serious study, especially because we have heard this tired and retired excuse of what many people say is the 'focus of the Hebrew writer'. The epistle to the Hebrews demonstrates many things, including the fact of the superiority of Melchizedek's priesthood ('consider how great this man', Heb. 7:4). There is no basis to argue for the superiority of Christ's priesthood if we fail to see the superiority of Melchizedek's priesthood in the first place; for Christ is made 'a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec' (Heb. 7:17).

Although NO OTHER New Testament writer discusses the priesthood of Christ, yet the 'focus' of Hebrews is not the priesthoods (Melchizedek's, the Levitical, or Christ's priesthoods). Rather, Hebrews focuses on the Son of God as the subject of the Christian life and faith.

No argument here. Just as long as you don't say tithe was the focus

Same old recycled arguments.

Pastor Kun:

Same old recycled arguments.

Yep, as if anti-tithers have ever presented anything fresh besides their retired old tales and excuses.

Zikkyy:

Yes ooh you had to do that disappearing act

Forgive me, it was due my work and other commitments.

I know your stand on tithing, i was referring to the issue of pre-law tithe being part (incorporated) into the mosaic law.

Okie-dokie.

Lol Okay if you believe all three are wrong, lets have what you considered right

But did I not explain why I feel those 'possibilities' were wrong?

'Wrong' the first time - because 'Nothing in Scripture bears this out, and I did not argue for what you just stated above.'

'Wrong' the second time - because blah-blah, and then 'The former  is not taught in Scripture to have been transfigured into the latter. . .'

'Wrong' thirdly - because. . . (you catch my drift, eh?)

So, yeah. . . I explained.

pre-law tithing for me span the period from Abraham to the time Moses stood before the people to deliver the law.

That's fine - and I could allow for that inference, even though for me it goes much further back and is a broader subject than its first mention in Genesis 14. We understand Abraham is arguably not the first man to have given tithes in history, just as Melchizedek is arguably not the first man to have been priest in human history even though the first mention of 'priest' in the Bible is in connection with Melchizedek in Genesis 14 as well. The same thing applies in saying that Abraham is arguably not the first prophet in human history even though the first mention of 'prophet' is in connection with Abraham in Genesis 20.

So, when people argue the concept of 'pre-law' this and that, the one thing I ask is that we try to not be so narrow on the subject to assume that the idea of 'first mention' in Scripture necessarily establishes 'first occurence' - it does not.

Was there a tithing practice in place up to the time the Israelite received the law?

What do you mean by 'tithing practice' and 'in place'? For me, as long as we know that Abraham is not the first man to have given tithe in human history, that is enough to show that tithing most possibly could have preceded Abraham in just the same way that prayer and priesthood were known much earlier than his day.

If there was, what happened after the law was given?

How do you mean? I have tried to argue that there was no 'continuum' between Abraham's tithes and the Levitical system of tithing. The Genesis tithes did not become 'hijaked' by the Mosaic Law and conscripted into the Levitical system as if Abraham's tithes became part of the Judaism.

There were aspects of the Abrahamic covenant that ran through the period of the Law and yet did not end at the Cross (compare Galatians 3:17 for instance). Yet, when applied in the New Testament, it is the spiritual significance that is highlighted rather than its literal reading (Galatians 3:29).

Nothing is said in Scripture to have ended tithing; and in Abraham's case, two things stand out:

1. in just the same way that the Levitical covenant is not a 'continuum' of the Abrahamic covenant, so the Levitical tithes are not a 'continuum' of the Abrahamic tithes

2. Abraham was not under the Law when he gave tithes to Melchizedek; so no one can use the Law to argue for an end to tithing by trying to dribble in the Mosaic Law to apply to Abraham's life and faith.

If there was no none, does that imply that pre-law tithing ended with Abraham (or Jacob)?

No, neither 'ended' with either Abraham or Jacob in just the same way that neither 'priesthood' nor 'prophets' nor 'prayer' nor 'covenant' ended with either of them.

For instance, the Abrahamic covenant did not become 'subsumed' into the Levitical covenant in just the same way that Abraham's being a 'prophet' did not mean that the prophetic ministry was derived from Genesis 20 on Abraham's practice. In this way, if we argue to 'end' tithing in itself by some misapprehension of how covenants work in the OT, then by the same hermenuetics we have to end 'covenants' and 'priesthood' and 'prophets' at the same Cross.

By extension, did the Cross put an end to 'sabbath' just because there was a 'sabbath' of the Jews and we do not read of any 'sabbath' in Abraham's time? The reason I ask this question is this: many people who assume that the Cross ended EVERY SINGLE THING mentioned in the Law need to go back and study their Bibles to see something is patently wrong with that presumption.

Am not saying there was no tithing, that's why i listed the possibilities. If there was, what happen after the law was given, did the Israelite continue to practice these tithing models?

Depends on what you mean by 'models'. As I have said again and again, I do not think Abraham's tithes were 'subsumed' into the Levitical tithes as if the latter was a 'continuum' of the former. This is why you will be hard pressed to apply the Law of Moses to Abraham's or Jacob's tithes or even to Melchizedek.

There is a principle that was operative at the time of Abraham which we find in the Law; but this is not to say that the Law is to be brought into Abraham's tithes. I could expatiate on this, if you first understand that Moses Law was not the first of its kind in human history. Many of what we find written in the Law were ALREADY codified in other polities of other nations and people groups before Moses declared rhetorically: 'And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?' (Deut. 4:8).

Don't know anything 'bout this, so no comment

No problem. One of these days soon, you will find anti-tithing theologians asserting such bloopers.

Zikkyy:

Again, this tells us the focus of the Hebrew chapter.

Okay, so you concede that the priesthood was not the focus of Hebrews; only now you have added a qualifier - 'the focus of the Hebrew chapter.'

However, even that does not agree with your presumption that the writer was focusing on 'the superiority of Christ's (not Mechizedek's) priesthood' - on the contrary, he first establishes the superiority of Melchizedek's priesthood as the foundation of Christ's priesthood. There was just no way he could have convinced anyone about the superiority of Christ's priesthood if Melchizedek's was played down in any instance - which is why he urged his readers to consider how great Melchizedek was in verse 4.

The writer was comparing 'like' for 'like', 'priesthood' for 'priesthood'.

No, he was not. Many people rush to that conclusion becauuse they do not have a clue about the power of priesthoods or the basis upon which they are established. If it was merely a matter of 'like for like', why would he use Melchizedek, which many anti-tithers have concluded was a 'pagan priest' contrary to what Scripture teaches?

Secondly, if it was merely a matter of comparing 'like for like' or 'priesthood for priesthood', were there no other priesthoods/priests in the Old Testament that could have been used for such a comparison? Have you asked yourself why the writer urges us to consider the greatness of Melchizedek in verse 4? What made Melchizedek 'great' - or greater than Abraham - or indeed greater than Moses - or greater than the Mosaic Law and the priests of the Levitical system? Was it merely 'like for like'? There is a plethora of priests in the OT for that comparison if the author was merely drawing on 'like for like' , and he would not have urged us to 'consider how great this man was' in verse 4.

No, Zikkyy - it is factually beyond a mere 'like for like'. People who assume it is merely 'like for like' are not asking serious questions around that epistle.

He was comparing the receivers of tithes i.e. Levi & Melchi one tithe receiver paying tithe to the other.

If that were so, what is the basis of that comparison, Zikkyy? So, 'one tithe receiver paying tithe to the other' - why? On what basis? Just for making a comparison of 'like for like'? Nope. Just think a little deeper than that.

it has nothing to do with those that were required to tithe i.e. the other 11 tribes of Israel vs Daddy Abraham.

I did not argue that it had anything to do with this or that or this versus the other. Go back and re-read my comments: I have argued that the one is NOT A CONTINUUM of the other; and in consistency with that, I have shown that Melchizedek's greatness has nothing to do with the 'like for like' inference you're making.

No argument here. Just as long as you don't say tithe was the focus

Rubbish! Would you ever have assumed I would make that fallacy?

@wordtalk
The people you wrongly label as anti-tithers are more aptly labelled as anti twisting of scriptures. What we have a grouse with is the wide spread wrong and fraudulent teaching of compulsary tithing and not the act of mis-led believers who are deceived into believing God requires a tithe from them. It is deception in the church we are against and not the act of giving expressed in tithes or whatever form.

@Pastor Kun,

Pastor Kun:

The people you wrongly label as anti-tithers are more aptly labelled as anti twisting of scriptures.

Well, I don't think this is a case of mis-labelling. I'm careful to not apply this label across board on just anybody who opposes tithing among Christians. There are some who are not able to or comfortable to express their giving in the forming of tithing - I have no problem with them as 'non-tithers'.

But for those who are not satisfied with allowing other Christians to tithe and will stop at nothing to heckle, label, insult, dribble here and there with fallacies and patently FALSE arguments (even shamelessly LYING for Jesus on top of that), I have absolutely no respect for these fellows - and it is these groups I often refer to as 'anti-tithers'.

On the whole, many of us share the same concerns -

1. To discourage manipulation and coercion in Christian giving

2. To ENCOURAGE healthy valid forms of Christian giving

3. To correct MISREPRESENTATIONS between all Christian groups - whether 'non-tithers, pro-tithers, anti-tithers', etc.

Now, it so happens that while we all do not have a problem with #1 above, not many ANTI-TITHERS are willing to take one step further to apply #2 above! Which is why I consider it the BIGGEST LIE among anti-tithers that if pro-tithers preach 'voluntary tithing', then nobody would be up in arms about it - that is just plainy false!

That said, can it be said that pro-tithers are all okay and they are not guilty of misrepresentations as much as anti-tithers? Far from it - many pro-tithers are as guilty as the MANY ANTI-TITHERS who twist Scripture for their ends (whether to win a debate or boast about their fictitious commitments to Christ that is non-existent). In this case, I have cited one example that many readers will be familiar with in Nigeria: Enoch Adeboye, the G.O. of Redeemed Christian Church of God. I have stated in no uncertain terms that he is one example of a 'pro-tither' that I absolutely do not agree with on HOW he teaches tithes in the Church.

Let me just say that my reference to 'anti-tithers' is apt, for I do not see how they can be said to be 'anti-twisting Scripture' when these anti-tithers have never been consistent to demonstrate a tjorough grasp of Biblical hermenuetics. On many occasions they have been caught flat-out twisting Scripture themselves, a couple of examples which I have shown here and elsewhere.

What we have a grouse with is the wide spread wrong and fraudulent teaching of compulsary tithing and not the act of mis-led believers who are deceived into believing God requires a tithe from them. It is deception in the church we are against and not the act of giving expressed in tithes or whatever form.

This is why I have often said that if ANTI-TITHERS are not against tithing per se, then they should be found ENCOURAGING tithing in itself, being careful to note that it is 'mandatory' or 'coercive' tithing or givng that they discourage.

Anti-tithers cannot claim that they are 'all for giving' while discouraging tithing as a valid expression of giving among many other forms of giving. It is one thing to argue against the wrong application of something - but leaving it at that is counter productive UNTIL anti-tithers clearly state that they ENCOURAGE tithing that is voluntary!

By extension, there are people who argue for 'generosity' in a MANIPULATIVE and COERCIVE form. While we may agree that Christians are to be generous, should we tolerate every idea and every form of "generosity" for the sake of being "generous"? What about the guy who stole a generator and donated to Christ Embassy - was he not being generous in STEALING? And was Christ Embassy not being "generous" in receiving that stolen goods?

Or again, what about the gist of someone who stole and donated millions of Naira to Christ Embassy - was the "millions" not generously received by C.E.?

You see, if we argue for and in favour of 'GENEROSITY' - even 'voluntary generosity' - but just because some people are donated generously stolen goods for generously receiving stake-holders does not mean we should therefore become "anti-generosity" simply because generosity has been abused to enrich some pastors! That would be the day!

I have no problem with Christians tithing. It is NOT mandatory, coercive or compulsory. But I have serious problems with BOTH tithers and anti-tithers who try to MANIPULATE others with fallacies to win an argument for not tithing or for tithing. This is why I have said that everyone should be free to tithe or if they do not want to tithe. For anti-tithers to go around the globe heckling other Christians because they are too scared of the word 'tithe' in the church is as dubious as Judas who pretended to care for the poor while yet being a thief (John 12:4-6).

@wordtalk
On what basis should I encourage tithing on a voluntary basis? As it clearly has no basis in new testament christianity. Why can't I just encourage generous giving as a christian. That aside you know that the term tithing in church is widely believe to be 'mandatory'. Why should I encourage giving based on that term and not giving as one determines in his heart as taught to new testament christians.

wordtalk:

That's fine - and I could allow for that inference, even though for me it goes much further back and is a broader subject than its first mention in Genesis 14. We understand Abraham is arguably not the first man to have given tithes in history, just as Melchizedek is arguably not the first man to have been priest in human history even though the first mention of 'priest' in the Bible is in connection with Melchizedek in Genesis 14 as well. The same thing applies in saying that Abraham is arguably not the first prophet in human history even though the first mention of 'prophet' is in connection with Abraham in Genesis 20.

So, when people argue the concept of 'pre-law' this and that, the one thing I ask is that we try to not be so narrow on the subject to assume that the idea of 'first mention' in Scripture necessarily establishes 'first occurence' - it does not.

No problem with how far back in time you want to go, even if to a period before Genesis 1:1 It is not about Abraham being the first to tithe, i chose him cos his tithe was the most most discussed. I can easily choose a period much further back in time, so no wahala.

wordtalk:

What do you mean by 'tithing practice' and 'in place'?

Okay, let me put it this way; were the descendants of Abraham tithing? I mean from Isaac, Jacob, Jacob's 12 kids up to the time Moses stood before the people to deliver the law.

wordtalk:

How do you mean?

See response above.

wordtalk:

Okay, so you concede that the priesthood was not the focus of Hebrews; only now you have added a qualifier - 'the focus of the Hebrew chapter.'

It has always been about the Hebrew chapter and not the book. I had to add the qualifier when i observed i was being mis-understood.

wordtalk:

However, even that does not agree with your presumption that the writer was focusing on 'the superiority of Christ's (not Mechizedek's) priesthood' - on the contrary, he first establishes the superiority of Melchizedek's priesthood as the foundation of Christ's priesthood. There was just no way he could have convinced anyone about the superiority of Christ's priesthood if Melchizedek's was played down in any instance - which is why he urged his readers to consider how great Melchizedek was in verse 4.

The question is what was the ultimate aim or objective of the Hebrews writer? establishing the superiority of Melchi was a means to achieving an objective. Some peeps (not you) around here tend to see Christ and Melchi as equals, we need to make that distinction. Christ was very much the focus.

wordtalk:

No, he was not. Many people rush to that conclusion becauuse they do not have a clue about the power of priesthoods or the basis upon which they are established. If it was merely a matter of 'like for like', why would he use Melchizedek, which many anti-tithers have concluded was a 'pagan priest' contrary to what Scripture teaches?

Would you compare a priests with a musician just to prove that the priest is the greater priest? You still don't get it. My post was to address the focus of the Hebrew writer. I will attempt to explain by making reference to your post (below).   

wordtalk:

Abraham's tithes were not 'incorporated' into the Law; rather, Scripture shows that it was the Levitical tithes that were 'subsumed' into Abraham's tithes to Melchizedek. Read Hebrews 7:9

wordtalk:

If anything at all, Hebrews 7:9 shows that it was rather Levi who paid tithes IN ABRAHAM to Melchizedek.

When the Hebrew 7 writer made reference to tithe, he was not trying to justify which tithing act was superior, rather it was about those that collects the tithe i.e. Levi & Melchi. (edited) If he was attempting to consider which tithing act was greater, he should be talking about the payers as well i.e. the 11 tribes of Israel Vs. Abraham.

edit: the comparison was between two priests and not priest vs tithe payer. That's what i meant by 'like' for 'like'

Pastor Kun:

@wordtalk
On what basis should I encourage tithing on a voluntary basis? As it clearly has no basis in new testament christianity.

On what basis do you have any type of giving to be voluntary in the New Testament or in Christianity, as if the Old Testament did not teach voluntary giving in the first place? And on what basis would a NT apostle have taught Christian giving from within the Law of Moses - as Paul did in 1 Corinthians 9:13-14?

The one thing that you guys have constantly ignored here is that there is no basis for condemning tithes in the entire Bible. NONE. The one who wants to give through tithing should do so; and the one who feels others should not (or 'must not') tithe have absolutely no basis for such an argument.

Why can't I just encourage generous giving as a christian.

Because that is a cliche that many anti-tithers have chosen to conveniently duck behind and wave as their perfect excuse for arguing against tithing. What exactly is 'generous giving' when it is an open secret that Christians on average are very stingy people whose average giving in the Church falls far less than 5%? We have all too often heard this talk about 'generosity' and yet the church is still as poor as the most miserable beggars on the streets of damascus while NON-BELIEVERS are shaming us with their generosity!

That aside you know that the term tithing in church is widely believe to be 'mandatory'.

No, I do not know that, nor do I believe that at all. That is merely a fat lie that anti-tithers have often recycled. The term tithing is not 'widely believed' to be mandatory - and even if something is erroneously held to be 'widely believed' as anti-tithers often make out, then we should endeavour to correct rather than condemn such terms.

Why is it that anti-tithers pretend that nobody has ever taught on VOLUNTARY tithing? Who are anti-tithers deceiving but themselves on such false assertions. Incase you don't know, here is a commonly held belief about tithing TODAY - 'Today, tithes (or tithing) are normally voluntary and paid in cash, cheques, or stocks, whereas historically tithes were required and paid in kind, such as agricultural products (that grown of the land, or fruit of the tree).' (source: Wikipedia).

Why should I encourage giving based on that term and not giving as one determines in his heart as taught to new testament christians.

Paul in teaching "new testament christians" took his teaching from the Law of Moses - 1 Corinthians 9:13-14. What is wrong with teaching Christians on giving by drawing from the Old Testament? Anti-tithers have often assumed that tithing means you cannot give from the heart; but the first lessons here is that ALL EXPRESSIONS OF GIVING IN BOTH THE OT and NT are based on one thing: THE HEART!!

So, if anti-tithers assume that all other forms of their so-called 'giving' are based on what one determines from the heart, does that exclude tithing? Did Abraham not give tithes to melchizedek on voluntary basis? Was Jacob's urge to tithe to God based on a 'mandatory' argument?

Zikkyy:

No problem with how far back in time you want to go, even if to a period before Genesis 1:1 It is not about Abraham being the first to tithe, i chose him cos his tithe was the most most discussed. I can easily choose a period much further back in time, so no wahala.

Aight.

Okay, let me put it this way; were the descendants of Abraham tithing? I mean from Isaac, Jacob, Jacob's 12 kids up to the time Moses stood before the people to deliver the law.

Okay, let me put it this way: did tithing originate with Abraham? Which is why I asked earlier: from where did Abraham and Jacob derive their knowledge of tithing - and why in Jacob's own case in particular did he feel that his tithes (or giving of a tenth) was to be prticularly to GOD?

Your argument is only presuming narrow escapes - if it was not mentioned in particular, then it was non-existent. If that were so, apply the same method of interpretation to the Trinity - if it was not mentioned with Moses, Isaac, Jacob, Abraham or even in the Law of Moses, then where did evnagelical christians get the idea of the Trinity to argue for in the New testament that the Protestant Church has embraced with both hands down through the ages?

The idea of 'not-mentioned' does not equate to 'non-exsitent', just as 'first-mention' does not establish 'first occurence'.

Zikkyy:

It has always been about the Hebrew chapter and not the book. I had to add the qualifier when i observed i was being mis-understood.

Let's not overflog this issue. On both points you're dead. . . wrong, sir. Hebrews and the chpater 7 of Hebrews are not about the priesthood, sir. The whole of Hebrews and chapter 7 in particular is about just one thing as its THRUST: the Son of God as the subject of the christian life and faith. Subtract from that and all else will fly in your face!

The question is what was the ultimate aim or objective of the Hebrews writer?

As stated again: "the Son of God as the subject of the christian life and faith."  If I read you beggar this question again, I will send the international community to your door. Try me!

establishing the superiority of Melchi was a means to achieving an objective.

Nicely put, and i agree with you. The 'means' is not the thrust or focus of main gist; but it was necessary to reach a greater subject, yes? Now, the 'means' does not take precedence over the core, focus, or thurst of the epistle; but that does not mean that we should down-pay it at any instance (which is why I do not agree with you that the focus of Hebrews was "the superiority of Christ's (not Mechizedek's) priesthood".

Some peeps (not you) around here tend to see Christ and Melchi as equals, we need to make that distinction. Christ was very much the focus.

Amen bro - preach it.

Would you compare a priests with a musician just to prove that the priest is the greater priest?

Em. . . nope. Now, let me see. . . where did I mention 'musician'? Haha. . . silly me, just kidding.

But seriously, Hebrews 7:4 cannot be ignored or played down because it holds a pivotal place in that chapter. That verse (ch. 7:4) undergirds so many other verses made in other chapters about Christ being the priest after the order of Melchizedek (ch. 5:6 & 10; ch. 6:20). The question is: what underscored Melchizedek's greatness for such a statement to be made? Surely, it was not 'like for like' as some may put it - it is far momentous than that!

You still don't get it. My post was to address the focus of the Hebrew writer. I will attempt to explain by making reference to your post (below).

   

Which one is it: the focus of the Hebrew writer or of that particular chapter 7? In both cases I contend it is the same throughout: "the Son of God as the subject of the christian life and faith."

So, why do I feel that 'priesthood' is not the focus of the Hebrew writer throughout that epistle or even in that chapter 7? BECAUSE the author indeed makes reference to priesthood in almost every chapter of that book! See the following -

- chapter 2 (v. 17)
- chapter 3 (v. 1)
- chapter 4 (v. 14 & 15)
- chapter 5 (v. 1 & 5)
- chapter 6 (v. 20)
- chapter 7 (v. 1, 3, 5, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, 2, 24, 26, 27, 28)
- chapter 8 (v. 1, 3, 4)
- chapter 9 (v. 6, 7, 11, 25)
- chapter 10 (v. 11, 21)
- chapter 13 (v. 11)

Inspite of all these, priesthood was not the focus of the writer of that epistle. Rather, he sets before the believer the priceless Son of God as the subject of the Christian life and faith.

When the Hebrew 7 writer made reference to tithe, he was not trying to justify which tithing act was superior, rather it was about those that collects the tithe i.e. Levi & Melchi. (edited) If he was attempting to consider which tithing act was greater, he should be talking about the payers as well i.e. the 11 tribes of Israel Vs. Abraham.

I think you get it wrong altogether. He was not trying to justify this or that about tithing. He rather treated tithing as consistently as other Biblical authors have treated it - that tithing is connected with just two MAIN THINGS: (a) priesthood, and (b) worship. This is why he also did not escape telling us about who pays and who collected tithes without setting it in contrast of this VERSUS that! It is quite erroneous to make it a matter of something VERSUS another, because then you would lose sight of what tithing pertains to, and why it is connected with priuesthood in the first place.

edit: the comparison was between two priests and not priest vs tithe payer.

I did not make any such comparison; nor can I agree with you on the above. It was not a 'comparison' between priests/priesthoods or between priest versus tithe payer. Rather, the chapter establishes WHY and HOW Christ is the subject of the Christian faith and life.

In Jewish thinking, once you begin to "compare" between two antithesis, you're offering the Jew a choice between two poles - usually under some punitive threats. This is not the style or aim of the writer of Hebrews - not in chapter 7 nor any other chapter. He does not make this to be "versus" that; but shows WHY and HOW the core subject is worth the only focus of the believer - the core subject being Christ, the Son of God.

That's what i meant by 'like' for 'like'

Okay, but even then I don't find it at all in that epistle. As I said, once you begin to make it a 'like for like' in any semblance, you only end up presenting nothing of substance to those who were his recipients. The basic questions they would be asking is not which is comparable to what or what is versus the other; rather, the basic question is WHY and HOW is Jesus Christ the focus of our lives and faith? The author therefore first establishes this foundation by asking them to consider Melchizedek's greatness - a question which is worth our consideration as well.

More later.

[b]@Wordtalk,

I'VE BEEN BUSY,BUT WAS GLADDENED TO HAVE YOUR REPLY OF WHICH IM NOT GOING TO WASTE TIME TO RESPOND,WE HAVE DISCUSSED A LOT BUT THEN IM NEVER TO TIRED TO REPEAT MYSELF,BUT THEN

LETS PICK IT ONE BY ONE,

FIRSTLY WITH THESE QUOTES BELOW,

And talking about a 'standard', yes indeed, Abraham's tithes lays the foundation for Biblical tithes historically (please note: I did NOT say that Abraham was the first in history to give tithes; rather, historically his gifts to Melchizedek lays the foundation for BIBLICAL TITHES)

1,YOU ADMITTED THAT ABRAHAM GAVE GIFTS TO MELCHIZEDECH( his gifts to Melchizedek) IN YOUR OWN WORD,

THIS SHOWS THAT YOU ARE AWARE THAT WHAT ABRAHAM DID,WAS NOT YET FOLLOWING A SET OUT STANDARD BY GOD, AND ALSO,  

I CAN SEE THAT YOU DID NOT DISCUSS THE IMPORTANCE OF WHY GOD MAKES IT A  LEGAL OBLIGATION BY INNAUGURATING A BINDING 'LAW COVENANT' THAT ALSO CONTAINED  THE  ' TITHING LAW'.

BUT FOR EMPHASIS SAKE LETS GO DOWN THE HISTORY,

THERE WAS ACTUALLY  A GENERAL TENTH PARTH WHICH IS OF PAGAN ORIGIN AND PRECEDES THE MOSAIC LAW’S TITHE BY MANY CENTURIES,

THE SEPARATION OF A CERTAIN PROPORTION OF THE PRODUCTS OF ONE’S INDUSTRY OR OF THE SPOILS OF WAR AS TRIBUTE TO THEIR GODS WAS PRACTICED BY VARIOUS NATIONS OF ANTIQUITY. THE LYDIANS OFFERED A TITHE OF THEIR BOOTY (HEROD. I, 89).

THE PHOENICIANS AND CARTHAGINIANS SENT A TITHE ANNUALLY TO THE TYRIAN HERCULES. THESE TITHES MIGHT BE REGULAR OR OCCASIONAL, VOLUNTARY OR PRESCRIBED BY LAW

In New Testament times the Roman Empire received the first tithe of ten percent of grains and twenty percent of fruit trees from its conquered subjects, including Judah. OUTSIDE THE RELIGIOUS JEWISH LAW.

NOW, WHY DID GOD CREATE A BINDING LAW FOR HIS PEOPLE,ISREALITE?

Gen 19:3-6

3 And Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain, saying, “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: 4 ‘You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to Myself. 5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. 6 And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”


isaiah 42:8

8 I am the Lord, that is My name;
And My glory I will not give to another,
Nor My praise to carved images.

Exodus 34 10-16

10 And He said: “Behold, I make a covenant. Before all your people I will do marvels such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation; and all the people among whom you are shall see the work of the Lord. For it is an awesome thing that I will do with you.
11 Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I am driving out from before you the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite
12 Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in your midst.
13 But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images

14 (for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God),

15 lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they play the harlot with their gods and make sacrifice to their gods, and one of them invites you and you eat of his sacrifice,

16 and you take of his daughters for your sons, and his daughters play the harlot with their gods and make your sons play the harlot with their gods.

NOW, GOD DID EVERYTHING HE COULD TO BARRICADE OR MIX HIS PEOPLE ISREAL WITH PAGAN NATIONS, HE FORBIDS THEIR UNION IN MARRIAGE, HE FORBIDS THEIR WAY OF WORSHIP TALKLESS OF SHARING A PARTICULAR WAY OF WORSHIP WITH THEM,

HENCE, HE BINDS THEM WITH HIS LAWS,
BUT JUST READ WHAT YOU WROTE HERE,AND HEAR YOURSELF;

wordtalk;quote;

historically his gifts to Melchizedek lays the foundation for BIBLICAL TITHES

ARE YOU NOW SAYING THAT BIBLICAL TITHING WAS BASED ON PAGAN ORIGIN? WHAT GOD DETEST?

AND TO NOW, SINCE THE LEVITICAL TITHING ENDED ON THE CROSS, NOW ACCORDING TO YOU(his gifts to Melchizedek) WHICH FOLOWS NO AGREED LAID DOWN RULES BY GOD BUT COULD BE TRACED TO PAGAN ORIGIN AND CULTURE THEN

ARE YOU RECOMMENDING PAGAN PRACTICE TO CHRISTIANS? YOU CAN SEE HOW BEING DESPERATE CAN BE DANGEROUS?.

1. You will be hard pressed to show that Abraham's tithes were 'subsumed' into the Law Covenant;

2. You will be harder pressed to show that Abraham's tithes were 'gone with the Law'.

AND IN THE FIRST PLACE, ABRAHAM NEVER TITHED,  BECAUSE TITHING AS AN ACCEPTABLE BINDING CONCEPT FOR GODS PEOPLE ISREALITES, IS ONLY ON INCREASE,AND NOT ON MERE DIVIDIND OF TENTH PARTH OF PRESUMABLE SPOILS.

ANYWAY , YOU ADMITTED THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY A GIFT.

anti-tithers who argue that tithing is gone with the Law have a huge problem explaining WHY Paul used the same Law of Moses to teach CHRISTIANS about giving and supporting God's ministers in the New Testament!! Quite often,[color=#000099] when I have quoted 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 to show this fact,[/color] many anti-tithers have ducked, excused and scurried away from this fact only to expose the shoddy arguments they have been presenting.

YOU CAN SEE THE ANSWER HERE,

Quote
1 COR,9:6-14;BY SNOWWY

4Have we not power to eat and to drink?
6Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?
7Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?
8Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?  
9For it is written in the law of Moses, thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.
11If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?
12If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ
13Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?
14Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.'

quote from snowwy'

Note all the bolded. Why would Paul quote from the OT to a Gentile church especially regarding supporting they of the gospel?

I have asked what is the 'power over you' he talked about and their right to food and drink. The food and drink, ofcourse, at the expense of the flock.

ANSWER;

Quote
Why would Paul quote from the OT to a Gentile church especially regarding supporting they of the gospel?

WHY PAUL QUOTE FROM OLD TESTAMENT RELATES TO THE OLD WAY  LAW USED TO  GUIDE THE JEW,  (Vs 9,10) BEFORE CHRIST BUT CONSIST OF BOTH JEW AND GENTILES UNDER GRACE, SO OUR JUSTIFICATION IS THROUGH CHRIST.(14,in blue) should live of the gospel

Vs 14,THE MINISTERS ''SHOULD LIVE'' AND NOT ''MUST TOTALLY LIVE''
COMPARE TO vs (13) and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?or

(NCV).(vs13) Surely you know that those who work at the Temple get their food from the Temple, and those who serve at the altar get part of what is offered at the altar.
[/color]

WHY PAUL USED THE O.T TO EXPLAIN TO THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CAN BE SUMMARISED BELOW,WHICH THE CHRISTIANS MUST AKNOWLEDGE,;

Galatians 3:23,24.


23 Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed.

24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith.


Quote
I have asked what is the 'power over you' he talked about and their right to food and drink. The food and drink, ofcourse, at the expense of the flock.

SEE THE SAME 'POWER OVER YOU' AS IT IS RENDERED IN OTHER BIBLES,

(NKJV) 11 If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things?

12 If others are partakers of this right over you,are we not even more?

(NCV)11 Since we planted spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we should harvest material things?

12 If others have the right to get something from you, surely we have this right, too. But we do not use it. No, we put up with everything ourselves so that we will not keep anyone from believing the Good News of Christ.
13 Surely you know that those who work at the Temple get their food from the Temple, and those who serve at the altar get part of what is offered at the altar.

(NIV) 11 If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you?12 If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more?

(GNT )11 We have sown spiritual seed among you. Is it too much if we reap material benefits from you?

12 If others have the right to expect this from you, don't we have an even greater right?

WHY DID PAUL HAVE HIS OWN TRADE TO SUPPORT HIMSELF? DID HE CAPITALISE OR USE THE ADVANTAGE OF THE O.T?
AND WHY DID YOU STOP AT VERSE 14? NOW READ MORE FROM 15-18.

15 But I have used none of these things, nor have I written these things that it should be done so to me; for it would be better for me to die than that anyone should make my boasting void.
16 For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for necessity is laid upon me; yes, woe is me if I do not preach the gospel!
17 For if I do this willingly, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have been entrusted with a stewardship. 18 What is my reward then? That when I preach the gospel, I may present the gospel of Christ[b] without charge, that I may not abuse my authority in the gospel.

WHY DID PAUL SAID THAT HE NEITHER DID NOT OR WRITE THAT IT SHOULD BE DONE ?


But 15,I have used none of these things, nor have I written these things that it should be done so

CAN YOU SEE YOURSELF, YOU CLAIMED THAT MANY HAVE SHY AWAY FROM THESE PARTICULAR VERSE,BUT IT WILL INTEREST YOU THAT THE PERSONWHO ACTUALLY QUOTE THESE 'ACTUALLY SHY AWAY' NOW ITS YOUR TURN,LET GO
ALS

'SPIRITUAL SEEDS' IS MENTIONED TO BE SOWED HERE (love,joy,peace,kindness,Goodness,  etc)
NOT CAR, OR TANGIBLE THINGS MAINLY BEEN SOWED, AND THIS IS THE ONLY EXAMPLE WHERE PAUL USE THE WORD TO SOW,MUST BE IN SPIRIT.  


[/b]

wordtalk:

Okay, let me put it this way: did tithing originate with Abraham? Which is why I asked earlier: from where did Abraham and Jacob derive their knowledge of tithing - and why in Jacob's own case in particular did he feel that his tithes (or giving of a tenth) was to be prticularly to GOD?

Your argument is only presuming narrow escapes - if it was not mentioned in particular, then it was non-existent. If that were so, apply the same method of interpretation to the Trinity - if it was not mentioned with Moses, Isaac, Jacob, Abraham or even in the Law of Moses, then where did evnagelical christians get the idea of the Trinity to argue for in the New testament that the Protestant Church has embraced with both hands down through the ages?

The idea of 'not-mentioned' does not equate to 'non-exsitent', just as 'first-mention' does not establish 'first occurence'.

It was just a question All i ever wanted from that question was either 'yes' or'no', i would have accepted a 'yes & no' You assume zikkyy is saying the descendant of Abraham were non-tithers, which is wrong. I've not taken a position.

So, reading your post above, can i say you are of the view that the descendants of Abraham tithed?

wordtalk:

Let's not overflog this issue. On both points you're dead. . . wrong, sir. Hebrews and the chpater 7 of Hebrews are not about the priesthood, sir. The whole of Hebrews and chapter 7 in particular is about just one thing as its THRUST: the Son of God as the subject of the christian life and faith. Subtract from that and all else will fly in your face!

Told you earlier, i wasn't going to argue this bit. Am okay just as as long as you don't say it was all about tithe

wordtalk:

As stated again: "the Son of God as the subject of the christian life and faith."  If I read you beggar this question again, I will send the international community to your door. Try me!

Okay sir

wordtalk:

But seriously, Hebrews 7:4 cannot be ignored or played down because it holds a pivotal place in that chapter. That verse (ch. 7:4) undergirds so many other verses made in other chapters about Christ being the priest after the order of Melchizedek (ch. 5:6 & 10; ch. 6:20). The question is: what underscored Melchizedek's greatness for such a statement to be made? Surely, it was not 'like for like' as some may put it - it is far momentous than that!

So, what made Melchi a great priest?

wordtalk:

Which one is it: the focus of the Hebrew writer or of that particular chapter 7? In both cases I contend it is the same throughout: "the Son of God as the subject of the christian life and faith."

So, why do I feel that 'priesthood' is not the focus of the Hebrew writer throughout that epistle or even in that chapter 7? BECAUSE the author indeed makes reference to priesthood in almost every chapter of that book! See the following -

- chapter 2 (v. 17)
- chapter 3 (v. 1)
- chapter 4 (v. 14 & 15)
- chapter 5 (v. 1 & 5)
- chapter 6 (v. 20)
- chapter 7 (v. 1, 3, 5, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, 2, 24, 26, 27, 28)
- chapter 8 (v. 1, 3, 4)
- chapter 9 (v. 6, 7, 11, 25)
- chapter 10 (v. 11, 21)
- chapter 13 (v. 11)

Inspite of all these, priesthood was not the focus of the writer of that epistle. Rather, he sets before the believer the priceless Son of God as the subject of the Christian life and faith.

Okay. No wahala. I guess that's another way of looking at it. Please note every comment i make concerning Hebrews is to chapter 7 only.

wordtalk:

I think you get it wrong altogether.

No. I think you got me wrong.

wordtalk:

He was not trying to justify this or that about tithing.

Exactly! it was never about tithing, and that's what i have been saying here. It has nothing to do with one tithing act or law being subsumed into another. Thank you.

wordtalk:

It was not a 'comparison' between priests/priesthoods or between priest versus tithe payer. Rather, the chapter establishes WHY and HOW Christ is the subject of the Christian faith and life.

As the writer's ultimate objective, yes it was not about comparison.

wordtalk:

The author therefore first establishes this foundation by asking them to consider Melchizedek's greatness - a question which is worth our consideration as well.

This is the part i am likely to have issues with if you decide to go further

A Yoruba/Ifa proverb:

Korowo koyena ki m lo lona

Philanthropy is the cost of money

Zikkyy:

   

It was just a question All i ever wanted from that question was either 'yes' or'no', i would have accepted a 'yes & no' You assume zikkyy is saying the descendant of Abraham were non-tithers, which is wrong. I've not taken a position.

This gentleman. . . why are you putting me on high jump? Please take a position  so we can know how to play our 'free-kick'.

So, reading your post above, can i say you are of the view that the descendants of Abraham tithed?

Since you said you would have accepted 'yes & no', then  offer you what you accept: 'yes & no'.

Okay, seriously, Zikkyy.

My bearing on this question in particular is that Abraham's tithes had great import on his progeny. So, on the one hand, his descedants indeed tithed; on the other hand, we do not read anywhere in the Bible that they did so in person.

Told you earlier, i wasn't going to argue this bit. Am okay just as as long as you don't say it was all about tithe

Okay, so I'll pass. Sorry about drawing on that again.

---

Zikkyy:

So, what made Melchi a great priest?

The question would rather be: what made Melchizedek great? It was not the greatness of his priesthood but rather the greatness of the man himself that the writer urged us to consider: 'consider how great this man was' (Heb. 7:4).

And you've given the answer already: it was his priesthood.

Melchizedek was not 'great' on account of being a leader or king - if that were so, Abraham also was reverred among the people as a "might prince" (Gen. 23:6 - the Heb. suggests the title was more than that - it was something akin to a princely ĕlôhı̂ym, that is, 'a princely god').

It was not even that Melchizedek occupied both offices of king and priest - there were other examples of people who appear to hold both offices of kingship and priesthood simultaneously which the Hebrew writer could easily have made reference to.

However, the one thing it seems the writer wanted to impress on his reader to highlight Melchizedek's greatness was the fact that Melchizedek was the priest of 'El Elyon' - the Most High God (Heb. 7:1). Indeed, as converted Jews who were familiar with Judaism, their interest would immediately be heightened at this consistent usage - because they would recognize that the 'greatness' of Melchizedek rests on the character of a priesthood described as "an unchangeable priesthood" (Heb. 7:24).

That was what gave Melchizedek his 'greatness' above every other consideration - a priesthood that is "unchangeable". If it could be shown that Melchizedek's priesthood was only transcient and not 'unchangeable', then even the man himself would bear nothing significant about him and would only have passed on into the sands of history like every other priests.

The Melchizedekan priesthood is not founded on a law of carnal commandment - but after the power of an endless life (Heb. 7:16). It puts this priesthood altogether on a different pedestal in nature from the Aaronic priesthood. It meant simply that Melchizedek is suggested to have received his priesthood direct from God and not through any intermediary such as Moses who inaugurated the Aaronic priesthood.

The 'priest of the Most High God' (Heb. 7:1) - that title gave Melchizedek his greatness.

Many anti-tithing theologians do not see this that is why they fallaciously conclude that Melchizedek was a pagan priest.

Okay. No wahala. I guess that's another way of looking at it. Please note every comment i make concerning Hebrews is to chapter 7 only.

Aight, no problem.

---

Zikkyy:

No. I think you got me wrong.

Okay, apologies.

Exactly! it was never about tithing, and that's what i have been saying here. It has nothing to do with one tithing act or law being subsumed into another. Thank you.

Thank you!

No, where is that other gentleman, BERNIMOORE? I hope you see that there's just nothing in the Bible to hang your conclusion on the assumption that Abraham's tithes were subsumed into the Levitical tithes?

As the writer's ultimate objective, yes it was not about comparison.

Okie-dokie.

This is the part i am likely to have issues with if you decide to go further

What issues would you have?

@BERNIMOORE,

Many thanks for our rejoinder and analysis.

Just a side note: I find it really boring to read comments all typed in BOLDED CAPITALS ALL THROUGH! I can bear the use of such for emphasis here and there - but I'm just wondering if there was any particular reason for your style?!?

Nonetheless, I tried to carefully go through your rejoinder, but came to the conclusion that you had misapplied texts here and there to arrive at what inconsistencies that have no bearing on Biblical exegesis and hermeneutics.

For me, Biblical hermeneutics has a huge import in exegeting a passage of Scripture - if for nothing other than that there should be a holistic approach that stands up every time a new question emerges on any subject. This is particularly what I find missing in your analysis.

Anyhow, since you have raised quite a lot of concerns, I'll try to quickly treat them individually in detail as time permits.

@BERNIMOORE

So, here are a few observations in response to your rejoinder.

BERNIMOORE:

1,YOU ADMITTED THAT ABRAHAM GAVE GIFTS TO MELCHIZEDECH( his gifts to Melchizedek) IN YOUR OWN WORD,

Yes, they were gifts to the priest and a direct response in worship to God. They were not a 'tax' as many have erroneously presumed. If they were not gifts but rather 'tax', then the character of Abraham's tithes would have been dramatically different from how we read of it in Scripture.

BERNIMOORE:

THIS SHOWS THAT YOU ARE AWARE THAT WHAT ABRAHAM DID,WAS NOT YET FOLLOWING A SET OUT STANDARD BY GOD, AND ALSO,

On the contrary, I am aware that what Abraham did was a direct 'worship response' to God - 'standard' or 'legal obligation' or not. You probably missed this point because you had skipped a basic exegetical principle.

It was after Melchizedek pronounced the blessing in Genesis 14:19-20a that Abraham gave tithes to him. This altogether deflates the idea that Abraham's tithes were 'pagan' or following a 'pagan custom', as some theologians have erroneously argued without Biblical foundation.

We would have to look at what the Biblical texts say, and draw our exegetical conclusions from those texts rather than from taking great leaps here and there and chancing on ideas that have no bearing to the texts.

BERNIMOORE:

I CAN SEE THAT YOU DID NOT DISCUSS THE IMPORTANCE OF WHY GOD MAKES IT A  LEGAL OBLIGATION BY INNAUGURATING A BINDING 'LAW COVENANT' THAT ALSO CONTAINED  THE  ' TITHING LAW'

No, I did not delve into all that because it would be tantamount to a refraction away from the gist of the subject. And I did not find your own explanation consistent with basic exegetical principles.

In exegeting a passage on a subject, you don't make huge leaps here and there and muddle things up. Basic questions have to be asked and dealt with on their own before attempting to tie them up to adjuvant questions or subjects.

In this case, the basic question would be: 'Why did God inaugurate a Law covenant?' - a question which is raised and very well answered in the New Testament. Deal with that FIRST, before seeking to address what is contained in the Law and the relationships and bearings upon the covenant people that received the Law.

Let's unravel your and contextualize your query. You seem to have assumed that God made 'it' (i.e., 'tithing'?) a 'legal obligation'. HOW?? Your answer follows immediately: "BY inaugurating a binding 'Law covenant'" - which makes it sound as if the reason why the Law was inaugurated is because of tithing. That may not have been your intention, but the way you worded it would lead to no other conclusion.

God did not make tithing a legal obligation "by inaugurating a binding Law covenant". No. The reason why the Law was given to Israel is enunciated in the New Testament -

[list]"Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary." (Galatians 3:19)[/list]

That verse answers your query concerning why God inaugurated the Law covenant - it was added (or 'inaugurated') BECAUSE of transgressions, not because of 'tithing' (compare Rom. 7:7 - 'if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin').

BERNIMOORE:

I CAN SEE THAT YOU DID NOT DISCUSS THE IMPORTANCE OF WHY GOD MAKES IT A  LEGAL OBLIGATION BY INNAUGURATING A BINDING 'LAW COVENANT' THAT ALSO CONTAINED  THE  ' TITHING LAW'

Now, on the other hand, your inference that the 'BINDING LAW COVENANT' also contained 'THE TITHING LAW', I would simply say that tithing is merely 'a commandment in the law' as Heb. 7:5 makes plain. We cannot confuse between 'law' and 'commandment', for the latter is contained in the former - it is "a commandment" among many other commandments, statutes, ordinances, precepts and decrees which are found within the Law.

For this reason, the idea of a 'tithing law' is just plain rubbish, because nothing in the entire Bible suggests that there is a body of 'tithing law' or 'law of tithing' that is contained within the 'Law covenant'. Instead, we have 'commandments' concerning tithing contained within the Law.

True, there are other 'laws' about Israel's offerings contained within the Law of Moses, such as -

- the law of the burnt offering (Lev. 6:9)
- the law of the meat offering (Lev. 6:14)
- the law of the sin offering (Lev. 6:25)
- the law of the trespass offering (Lev. 7:1)
- the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings (Lev. 7:11)
- the law of the beasts, etc. (Lev. 11:46)
- the law of the plague of leprosy (Lev. 14:57)
- the law of jealousies (Num. 5:29)
- the law of the Nazarite (Num. 6:13)

However, tithing is simply a commandment - not a 'law'. It is one commandment among many other OT commandments contained within the Law of Moses, and one cannot begin to intelligently make a case for the idea of a 'tithing law' as there is no such thing in Scripture.

Why is this important? For the one reason that many people see nothing other than 'the Law of Moses' when discussing Biblical tithes, and then hastily jump to the error of a so-called and non-existent 'tithing law'. When such an idea of a 'tithing law' is brought to the fore, then you already know that the other mention of tithes in the Bible will most definitely be excused.

BERNIMOORE:

I CAN SEE THAT YOU DID NOT DISCUSS THE IMPORTANCE OF WHY GOD MAKES IT A  LEGAL OBLIGATION BY INNAUGURATING A BINDING 'LAW COVENANT' THAT ALSO CONTAINED  THE  ' TITHING LAW'.

Having dealt with the question of the importance of 'WHY' God added (or 'inaugurated') the Law, let me briefly answer the other related concern you raised about WHY tithing features in the Law.

Again, the answer is lucidly given in one verse - Deut. 14:23: so that Israel may "learn to fear the LORD thy God always".

That we may learn to fear God ALWAYS - that is the most essential BIBLICAL ANSWER to the question of 'the importance of WHY' God included tithing in the Law - it has nothing to do with the idea of 'pagan origin' and all that trash talk. Those who run to the idea of 'pagan tithes' and 'pagan customs' are only demonstrating weak exegetical principles and closing their eyes to God's Word.

BUT FOR EMPHASIS SAKE LETS GO DOWN THE HISTORY,

THERE WAS ACTUALLY  A GENERAL TENTH PARTH WHICH IS OF PAGAN ORIGIN AND PRECEDES THE MOSAIC LAW’S TITHE BY MANY CENTURIES,

If God had given 'pagan customs' as the answer to the importance of WHY tithing features in HIS LAW to HIS PEOPLE, then I would have had no counter arguments to offer. However, when God Himself gives us a clear answer in Deut. 14:23 to the query you raised, then we must necessarily reject the fallacy of 'pagan-this' and 'pagan-that' which are often dribbled through the back door into Genesis 14 for Abraham's tithes.

In one of my articles (see ''Abraham’s Tithes Are Not Pagan), I explained why 'the coherence between both the OT and NT passages do not lead to the inference of ‘pagan tithes’ in Abraham’s gifts to Melchizedek.' I am very aware of the historical antecedents of tithing among various people groups and nations and customs. But we are here more concerns with BIBLICAL INTERPRETATIONS of how Scripture evaluates Abraham's tithes to Melchizedek.