₦airaland Forum

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

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

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers.

Hello,

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

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

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

Some more stuff about tithing take from here

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



Tithing is part of the Law

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

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

Are we under the Old Testament law today?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did tithing become part of the new covenant?

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

The Melchizedek argument

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

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

Was Jesus Melchizedek?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hebrews 7:4 states that Melchizedek was a man.

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

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

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

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

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

What did Jesus say about tithing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The principle of giving in the New Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sermon notes 9:00AM April 21, 2002

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

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

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

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

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

Let's look at this another way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Giving for "Dummies"

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

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

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

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

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

Bastage:
Huxley.

Yes. It is meant to be taken metaphorically and the physical form part of the passage is relatively unimportant.
The physical aspect is used merely to emphasise the importance of not sinning.

At the end of the passage, Jesus says: "Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other."

This reinforces the fact that the passage is to be read metaphorically. Jesus is not saying that man should literally take salt. He's saying "Don't sin. Be pure".

Bastage, thanks for the post.

But I keep asking, "What is the criterion for deciding which narrative to take literally and which metaphoricall?"

How would a first century reader have understood this text?

The salt bit is irrelevant. When a narrative is metaphorical, it is pretty clear from the text and wordings. For instance,

"You are the salt of the earth"
"Do not hide your light under a bushel"
etc, etc.

These are clearly metaphors.

However, are the following metaphors as well?

1) Jesus walking on water
2) Jesus casting demons into a herd of pigs
3) Jesus cursing a fig tree
4) Jesus disturbing vendors in the temple
5) Jesus riding on clouds during the 2nd coming

etc, etc.

What is the criterion?

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consequences of Two or Three Tithes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and many other religious and royal taxes

TOTAL: 40% BARE MINIMUM TOTAL TAXATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

olabowale:
Please point to a religiusly homogenous community that will allow a "traitor," of their religion to continue to live in their mist, without repacursion? Any religion of your choice. Even the no religious community.

That is why RELIGION is barbarism writ large.

m_nwankwo:
Sure, you should test everything that comes your way and arrive at your own conclusions. My point is simple: Jesus Christ, the son of God did not rise or resurrect with a physical body. It is imposssible to ascend to heaven which is spiritual with a body that is physical. Jesus resurrected in a bodily form that is non-earthly or non-flesh and blood or non-physical. Thus my assertion is not that Jesus did not ressurect in a bodily form, rather it is that the ressurection body is not a physical body but a "heavenly" body. Thus Jesus did not rise in the flesh. Jesus did not come down from heaven in flesh, he only picked the flesh in the womb of Mary, that is on earth and he cannot ascend to heaven in flesh since heaven is not made of flesh but of spirit. Jesus has to drop his flesh on earth. Flesh and blood cannot enter heaven. It is that simple. Best wishes.

If the physical body cannot go into heaven, why is Jesus evoking the thought of going into heaven in physical bodily form in the following?

Mark 9: 39 - 40

39 "Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me,
40 for whoever is not against us is for us.
41 I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.
42 "And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.
43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.[/b]44 where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'
45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell.
46 where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'
47And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. [b]It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48where " 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'
49 Everyone will be salted with fire.
50"Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other."


Is it really better to enter life cripple? Is there such a thing as a crippled spirit? What are we to make of these comment from Jesus if not to be read as literally as they appear?

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

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

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

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

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

Well done!

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

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

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

2) Is there evidence the early Christians practised tithings

3) Where are the NT doctrines that favour tithings

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

http://www.ptmin.org/

Malachi 3:

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

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

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

Robbing God
6 "I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed. 7 Ever since the time of your forefathers you have turned away from my decrees and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you," says the LORD Almighty.
"But you ask, 'How are we to return?'
8 "Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me.
"But you ask, 'How do we rob you?'
"In tithes and offerings. 9 You are under a curse—the whole nation of you—because you are robbing me. 10 Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it. 11 I will prevent pests from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not cast their fruit," says the LORD Almighty. 12 "Then all the nations will call you blessed, for yours will be a delightful land," says the LORD Almighty.


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

Is Tithing Biblical?

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

- -

- -

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

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

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


-
-

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


-
-
-

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

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

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


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

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


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

Let me do some research and find out what some present day chritian scholars think about tithing. Watch this space.

How can tithing be such a fraught issue amongst Christians. Isn't the "word of god" clear and unequivocal about this?

It has been traditionally believed amongst Christians that Jesus was descended from King David, and according to scripture and prophecy, the Messiah's bloodline with King David was an important feature of the character of said Messiah.

In what way was Jesus related to David? Was he related to David through is paternal or maternal lines? Did he share genetic material with Kind David?

No better time than now to re-examine the OT prophecies of Jesus again.

Bastage:
A nice long post from you there, but totally irrelevant and also deceitful in places. You haven't answered the question I've put to you but merely posted more fanatical, illogical hatred.

Let me just put you straight.
FACT: Nobody has been executed in a "liberal" country for treason for decades. People have been recently murdered for "apostacy".

Do you think that dragging up the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition gives your argument credibility that people should be murdered today for their religious beliefs? Historical wrongs give you justification for an argument that isn't even related? Pathetic.



Pure, unadulterated bullshit. America cannot and will not execute a single Gitmo detainee. Even those that have committed blatant acts of treason against their own Western countries have not had the death sentence applied to them. But then I guess planting seeds of hatred based on lies is fair game for people of your outlook.

"Dilutional liberalism"? How about "Not agreeing that people should be murdered for their beliefs?" If that's dilutional liberalism I'll take it over murder any day.
You say I'm deficient of human qualities but someone who advocates the murder of their fellow man because he does not believe in the same god doesn't just make a person devoid of human qualities - it makes them lower than even the most base life-form on this planet.

Keep preaching your hatred and keep justifying murder, my friend, but don't expect those of us who realise what morality and humanity are to follow your disgusting ethos of extremism and fanatasism.

I guessed she got what was coming to her, huh?



@Huxley. I'm aware of the Rosenkrantzes. But take a look at the date they were executed. Well over 50 years ago and outside of the 30 year time period I speicified. That's half a century ago when the world was a much, much more different place. Such executions are not carried out now and any spies are jailed - not murdered. Even when the Cold War was at it's height (well after the Rosenkrantz case) nobody was executed in the US for spying.

But let's get one thing straight here. See through the smoke-screen that olabowale is trying to throw up to justify murder. There is a huge difference between executing someone for treason and murdering someone because they do not believe in the same god. Even if the US was now executing 50 spies a day, it would not give justification to his argument that apostates should be killed.

Agreed, again. Sorry I missed the 30 year timeframe you specified.

Bastage:
Lets not confuse the Old Testament with the New Testament. Both were written by different people in different times. Their use of metaphors are different.

A lot of the Bible has to be read metaphorically as it was no doubt originally intended.

The Old Testament examples you've given up there have their roots in even older Babylonian religions. Take Genesis for example - the Garden of Eden story is almost a direct copy of the older Enuma Elish. The story of Noah is a copy of the older Epic of Gilgamesh. It's almost certain that the Old Testament copies were created when the Hebrew scholars who composed them were in exile in Babylon - the home of the originals. They took those stories and gave them the moral twist that we see in the Bible.

The New Testament is blatant in it's use of metaphors. What else is a parable?

It's probable that early Christians saw a lot of metaphors in Biblical literature and very, very doubtful that they were literalists. One has to realise that much of early Christianity was composed of Gnosticism - a line of religious thought that thrives on symbolism and metaphors. It was not until the Catholic Church stamped out these other sections of Christianity that literalism became main-stream. Again, there are aspects of Christianity in the New Testament that are present in older religions - the Virgin Birth being one of them, the Resurrection another.

Literalism is (in my opinion) the refuge of the brain-washed. Not to question is not to understand.

I could not disagree with any of your comments above. Christianity essentially evolved from the pagan cults of the period. Pagan cults where rich in symbolism and allegory and none (few) of their tenets were meant to be taken literally. Hence, the similarity of Christianity with the pagan cults of the day.

The Apostle Paul, was mostly likely a Gnostic and would never have understood the life & death of Jesus in a literal sense. In fact, that is why in all his works, there is no mention of any of the earthly aspects of Jesus's life.

Bastage:
And when was the last time that the US sentenced someone to death for treason?
I would also remind you that your statement was that most liberal socities will seek the death penalty. Apart from the US (which I don't consider to be a "liberal" society anyway) give some examples where the death penalty has been applied for acts of treason. In fact, give some examples where it's been applied to acts of treason in the US. I'll even give you 30 years leeway so that you have plenty of room to manouevre.
The fact is, you won't be able to. Those examples exist only in your muddled, brain-washed head.

You talk utter idiocy and trash when you tell some-one to learn about good history when you obviously know nothing about the subject yourself.

LOL@ "Go back in history". Yeah? 2000 years ago to Roman times for your example? Pathetic. Wake up fool, this is 2008AD not the year 30AD.

Justify your bloodlust and yearning for murder all you want with foolishness but there are those of us out here in the real world who see you for what you are. Why not just say "Anyone who leaves Islam should be killed" and leave it at that? Basing your arguments on shallow, illogical idiocy makes you look even more of an extremist fanatic than you already are.

While I agree with some of your points,  I think there are cases in the US where citizens have been put to death for treason (= spying for the Russians). 

Bastage:
Just from a purely scientific viewpoint, educated people living in Jesus' time would have a pretty wide view of the world.
The Roman Empire took in much of Africa, nearly all of Europe and a lot of Asia. Archeology also shows people have been travelling to and fro between Europe/Asia and the Americas since long before the birth of Christ.

Although the Biblical passage in question is not pertinent to my statement, give credit where credit is due. The geographical knowledge of the people back then wasn't confined to a narrow strip of land.

To concentrate on the passage itself, it's not meant to be taken literally. It merely shows how Christ could not be tempted even when offered the greatest physical thing of all.

Are you then saying that this event did not physically happened?  How do you think early bible reader would have understood this narrative - metaphorically or literally?

Further,  what is the criterion for judging events in the bible as to whether they should be understood literally or not?

Let me hazard an attempt:

A narrative in the bible should have a strong sense of scientific plausibility.  If it is not, then the narrative should be treated as metaphoric or allegorical.

What do you make of this criterion?   Is it necessary and sufficient for assessing biblical narratives?

Does your interpretation of the Satan-Jesus narrative meet this criterion?

Would the virgin birth narrative meet this criterion?

How about the Genesis narratives, the Jonah narratives,  the resurrection narratives, etc, etc?

Has this account got a ring of truth about it?

Do you share any of these values of the Christian god?

6) Advocated the killing of recalcitrant children (Matthew 15: 4)

8-) Advocated eternity in hell (Matt. 13:40-42, 2 Th. 1:7-9, Rev. 20:10, Rev. 14:10, Jn. 3:18; 6:35, 40; Lk. 23:43; 24:47)

10) Advocated passiveness to unwarranted aggression and oppression.(Luke 6: 24-31, Matthew 5: 37-45)

11) Killed an innocent tree for not having fruits out of season (Matthew 21:18-19; 20-22 and Mark 11:12-14; 20-25)

13) Advocated the maiming of bodily parts to avoid sin. (Matt 5: 27, Mark 9: 39 - 40)

Is George Bush right to go after the Taliban?

Does JC know what causes sin?

pilgrim.1:
Could you just tell me what you hope to gain from this exercise?

Help rid the world of falsehoods which for many generation have been the scourge of humankind.

For those Christians who read their bible, it might come as no surprise that their god has stipulated a number of guidelines and values that should guide his followers.   Here are some of them;


1)  I did not come to bring peace BUT a SWORD. (Matthew 10:34)

2)   Do NOT go into the towns of the Gentiles (Matt 10: 5)

3)   I was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:22-28)

4)   Abandon your family and follow me. (Matt 8:21, Matt 10:21. Matt 10: 34-37,  Matt 19: 29, Matt 23:9
Matt 24: 19,  Mark 10: 29 - 30,

5)  Caused suffering to innocent animals by inflicting demons on them (Matt 8:28; Mark 5:1; Luke 8:26)

6)  Advocated the killing of recalcitrant children (Matthew 15: 4)

7)  Advocated  and upheld the laws of the Old Testament (Matt 5)

8-)  Advocated eternity in hell (Matt. 13:40-42,  2 Th. 1:7-9,  Rev. 20:10, Rev. 14:10, Jn. 3:18; 6:35, 40; Lk. 23:43; 24:47)

9)  Advocated a life without planning for the morrow (Matt 6: 31- 34)

10)  Advocated passiveness to unwarranted aggression and oppression.(Luke 6: 24-31,  Matthew 5: 37-45)

11)  Killed an innocent tree for not having fruits out of season (Matthew 21:18-19; 20-22 and Mark 11:12-14; 20-25)

13)  Advocated the maiming of bodily parts to avoid sin. (Matt 5: 27, Mark 9: 39 - 40)

14)  A bar on the divorce from remarrying (Matt 5:32)




To what extend is the ordinary Christian life governed by these injunctions or which of these do Christians agree with?

pilgrim.1:
Has atheism done so?

Atheism does not claim omnipotence/omniscience.

Can god create an object that would be too heavy for him to lift?

What is a sin against the HS?

pilgrim.1:
I asked a simple question, and if the best thing to keep doing is to be so passionate pretending not to notice, would I be obliged to keep playing these games? Is that what one should be tends to being honest?

Sorry, what question did you ask? I did not intend to avoid it. Can you restate it, pls?

Pilgrim, how many of these do you live by and advocate?

1) I did not come to bring peace BUT a SWORD. (Matthew 10:34)

2) Do NOT go into the towns of the Gentiles (Matt 10: 5)

3) I was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15:22-28)

4) Abandon your family and follow me. (Matt 8:21, Matt 10:21. Matt 10: 34-37, Matt 19: 29, Matt 23:9
Matt 24: 19, Mark 10: 29 - 30,

5) Caused suffering to innocent animals by inflicting demons on them (Matt 8:28; Mark 5:1; Luke 8:26
)

6) Advocated the killing of recalcitrant children

7) Advocated and upheld the laws of the Old Testament (Matt 5)

8-) Advocated eternity in hell

9) Advocated a life without planning for the morrow (Matt 6: 31- 34)

10) Advocated passiveness to unwarranted aggression and oppression.

11) Killed an innocent tree for not having fruits out of season

13) Advocated the maiming of bodily parts to avoid sin.

pilgrim.1:
On condition that he repented - did he?

It is concievable that he might have, given he was so close to the Catholic church. If he did, would he have been forgiven?

Can god create a square circle?

Apparently, the sin against the Holy Spirit is the ONLY sin that cannot be forgiven. This means that Hitler, as long as he did not sin against the HS was pardonable.

By the way, what is a sin against the HS?