TV01:

I understand perfectly, and it's exactly what I expected from you !

Nope, you didn't. Go through again - and when I read answers, then I'll offer something.

Cheers.

pilgrim.1:

Nope, you didn't. Go through again - and when I read answers, then I'll offer something.

Answers to what exactly? Since I thought I'd answered the three questions posed, please be clear if there were 1. More questions and 2. Any I left unanswered.

Or alternatively, you could just offer whatever it is you believe to be of import.

God bless
TV

Here, let me help you:

I very much appreciate the texts you quoted. However, like I said, you really have not answered my question.

"1. Is there any scriptural command obliging any kind of giving at all in the NT?"

Yes, or No - and whichever was the case, this is why it is so from this and that text of Scripture.

If I have to go through each text you offered, we'd have to come round seeing that not all apply to money issues (Matt. 10:8 on healing, it's not about giving money).

TV01:

Anyone looking for a an amount attached to the outline for giving is probably missing the understanding of grace and maturity. Flip side of that coin would be to be somewhat legally minded in approach to NT Christian living.

I wasn't asking about what amount anyone wants to give, or of flip sides to what you're assuming. The one question was and is: where is the scriptural command obliging any kind of giving at all in the NT?

TV01:

Firstly, please note, that I am not delineating giving, or ascribing income streams to generosity, or quantifying earthly returns for sacrificial behaviour, nor being mystical about a "tithe" or anything else. Just talking about "giving" in response to a need (mainly) or to bless.

Perhaps we shall have cause to come to all that. My enquiry was simple enough - "2. Are there any blessings at all enunciated in the Bible for "giving" (tithes or whatever other type)?"

Perhaps I was expecting something like this:

Yes
No,
you don't know (or whatever else),
- and thus and so are the reasons why from Scripture.

Of course, it doesn't have to be in that format exactly for me to read yours as an answer. I understand that we all have different ways and appraoches to enquiries. However, I'm actually looking for simple straightforward answers from yours.

TV01:

I'm sure there are more examples, but that is just the gist of my thoughts. Giving engenders blessings both here and in the hereafter. But there is nothing to suggest that there is a direct formula or law commanding specific returns in this age.

Okay, if I should take that as an answer, then it only speaks to the point that you agree there are indeed blessings for "giving". Whether or not anyone is looking for a formula does not have any bearing at all in what I'm asking; and that is the roundabout argument that I stated I'm not in the least interested in.


With regards to the Melchizedek case, I think you're looking away from what the text says and points to. Please read it again. . . carefully, and it might become clear how you missed the point.

Cheers.

Here, let me help you:

You are too kind.

I very much appreciate the texts you quoted. However, like I said, you really have not answered my question.

I'm not entirely sure you actually want an answer. Your approach seems to be one of "tease and promise". The tease being altogether "school-girly", while the promise is never fulfilled. You start with a poser, but we never seem to get to what you are getting at. If as you often allude too, you have something of import to say, please do.

"1. Is there any scriptural command obliging any kind of giving at all in the NT?"

I would have hoped that the scriptures I posted, along with my previous posting show my thoughts are that it is part and parcel of the Christian life, especially as one matures in faith.

So, give. Give, money, food, drink, shelter, time, resources, help, counsel, advice, sacrificially, cheerfully, liberally, abundantly. Give honour, give praise, give worship, give glory.

Yes, or No - and whichever was the case, this is why it is so from this and that text of Scripture.

It you have a view either way, what restrains you from doing as you yourself suggest? Even the courtesy of stating why you ask would be helpful, so as to clarify and contextualise.

If I have to go through each text you offered, we'd have to come round seeing that not all apply to money issues (Matt. 10:8 on healing, it's not about giving money).

Not all? But some se? Not to mention that giving, as I've said is not only monetary.

You wrote;

My enquiry was simple enough - "2. Are there any blessings at all enunciated in the Bible for "giving" (tithes or whatever other type)?"

I replied;

Giving engenders blessings both here and in the hereafter.

Which part of that is indecipherable?

Okay, if I should take that as an answer, then it only speaks to the point that you agree there are indeed blessings for "giving". Whether or not anyone is looking for a formula does not have any bearing at all in what I'm asking; and that is the roundabout argument that I stated I'm not in the least interested in.

Stating that there are blessings for giving, does not buttress the case for tithing.

With regards to the Melchizedek case, I think you're looking away from what the text says and points to. Please read it again. . . carefully, and it might become clear how you missed the point.

Obliged for the direction. And having read and re-read, I have no further insight that leads me to re-state in anyway what I wrote.

So, in lieu of it becoming clear to me how I missed the point, perhaps you'd be so kind as too enlighten me.

I continually humour you in the hope that maybe you have something of relevance to say. Throwing out posers, disdaining the responses and not actually providing your own reading or insight does not suggest that you are actually interested in honest dialogue.

God bless
TV

@TV01,

TV01:

I'm not entirely sure you actually want an answer. Your approach seems to be one of "tease and promise". The tease being altogether "school-girly", while the promise is never fulfilled. You start with a poser, but we never seem to get to what you are getting at. If as you often allude too, you have something of import to say, please do.

I asked simple questions; if you had proffered as simple enough answers thereto, you'd not be losing sleep sweating to play the teaser yourself.

TV01:

I would have hoped that the scriptures I posted, along with my previous posting show my thoughts are that it is part and parcel of the Christian life, especially as one matures in faith.

So, give. Give, money, food, drink, shelter, time, resources, help, counsel, advice, sacrificially, cheerfully, liberally, abundantly. Give honour, give praise, give worship, give glory.

Don't skirt around the simple question. One could as well "give" their wives, yes? This is precisely the same thing I cautioned about roundabout arguments. My question was about money matters, not the swinging about giving. You and Hnd-holder have been hooting about "the topic is about tithing"; and now you've momentarily frgotten that to speak of give this or that.

TV01:

It you have a view either way, what restrains you from doing as you yourself suggest? Even the courtesy of stating why you ask would be helpful, so as to clarify and contextualise.

Is it too much to ask that you be simple enough instead of first skirting around and eventually away from the questions being asked?

TV01:

Not all? But some se? Not to mention that giving, as I've said is not only monetary.

Please be honest with yourself. Does that verse speak of money matters?

TV01:

Which part of that is indecipherable?

Did you miss what I commented on following that; or you're just deliberately trying to be funny?

TV01:

Stating that there are blessings for giving, does not buttress the case for tithing.

Neither does your premise buttress he case for giving as well.

TV01:

Obliged for the direction. And having read and re-read, I have no further insight that leads me to re-state in anyway what I wrote.

So predictable.

TV01:

So, in lieu of it becoming clear to me how I missed the point, perhaps you'd be so kind as too enlighten me.

Heb.7:8 - "And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. "

Please note that verse indicates a present instance (check the Greek 'μαρτυρέω' to see for yourself). What that points to is simply this: the priesthood of Melchizedek is a living priesthood, not one that has become obselete. In contrast to those who received tithes here ("here men that die receive tithes", Scripture is clear that the priesthood of Melchizedek is a present event ("but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth".

To further emphasize the point on tithing, we understand that the singular response of Abraham in Gen. 14:20 actually affected his progeny - as is clear in Heb. 7:9 & 10 -- "And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him."

Those who militate against tithes as a NT practice for Christians should calmly consider this portion of Scripture; or they should do one simple thing: proffer the verse in the Bible that states that Christians are NOT to tithe.

TV01:

I continually humour you in the hope that maybe you have something of relevance to say. Throwing out posers, disdaining the responses and not actually providing your own reading or insight does not suggest that you are actually interested in honest dialogue.

I do have interest in honest dialogue. It is your roundabout silly drivels that don't interest me in the least. If you're going to discuss, be a gentleman when and if you do so. If, however, you'd play your characteristic overblown image, I'm no stranger to putting you in your place. Dare me.

Cheers.

Who said christ or the apostles never talked abt thithing the bible says giv and it shall be given unto u, good measures shaken together and runing over shall the lord pour unto ur bosom. christ even gave parables on giving. the lord God almighty loves a cheerful giver. even in genesis when God told cain and Abel to bring the first friuts of their labour what does that imply? it implies that right from the begining God instituted the tithe, ure are showing ur appreciation to God for prospering you. remember God loves a grateful heart You giv unto God and he will in his power and might enlarge ur coast. remember that money given to God does not go into private pockets its used for the propagation of the Gospel of our lord and saviour jesus christ to all the ends of the earth. Which is the primary duty of every christian. may God help us to run our christain race to the end in Jesus ever living name AMEN.

Don't skirt around the simple question. One could as well "give" their wives, yes? This is precisely the same thing I cautioned about roundabout arguments. My question was about money matters, not the swinging about giving. You and Hnd-holder have been hooting about "the topic is about tithing"; and now you've momentarily frgotten that to speak of give this or that.

Good of you to remember, since you are working tirelessly to make tithing = giving !

[Please be honest with yourself. Does that verse speak of money matters?

I quoted various verses. Pick one that does not talk specifically about money and build a siegemound. Oh Miss, you can do better. Giving is varied, and even restricting it to money matters is answered by some verses I offered.

Giving encopmpasses money. To say that it is about giving leaves you blind-sided as you insist tithing = giving. So maybe we should tithe time, or any other resouce huh?

Neither does your premise buttress he case for giving as well.

Doublespeak!

Heb.7:8 - "And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. "

Please note that verse indicates a present instance (check the Greek 'μαρτυρέω' to see for yourself). What that points to is simply this: the priesthood of Melchizedek is a living priesthood, not one that has become obselete. In contrast to those who received tithes here ("here men that die receive tithes", Scripture is clear that the priesthood of Melchizedek is a present event ("but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth".

To further emphasize the point on tithing, we understand that the singular response of Abraham in Gen. 14:20 actually affected his progeny - as is clear in Heb. 7:9 & 10 -- "And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him."

Too much learning leads to brainfag - to paraphrase  !

Here => under the law (levitical priesthood). Both redundant Miss.
There => under a superior priesthood to the levitical type. Is Melchizedek High Priest now?

No it didn't affect his progeny, just showed their priesthood to be inferior to Melchizedeks.

Those who militate against tithes as a NT practice for Christians should calmly consider this portion of Scripture; or they should do one simple thing: proffer the verse in the Bible that states that Christians are NOT to tithe.

Calm down Miss. We have duly considered it. It does'nt mean a tithe is demanded of NT Christians. Neither have you shown that it does. Plus you further muddle your own position. As this would suggest it is mandatory, whilst you are trying to sell it as voluntary and the same as giving.

Same old sorry arse strategy. "Mixed grain theology". Mixing OT & NT, Law & Grace, shadows and fullness. With a nice little topping of implied blessings/curses. Lame. Did I say you can do better? I still believe you can

NT exhorts Christians to give. Nowhere does the NT command tithing. Unless of course you can show otherwise.

And no one is millitating against it. Just saying it's not mandatory and if voluntary, then no different to giving and thus a non-starter.

You sound really het up. Is everything alright?

God bless
TV

clemcykul:

Who said christ or the apostles never talked about thithing

No one. Christ mentioned tithing, but it was never mentioned or commanded to Christians. Non of the Apostles ever mentioned or commanded it. So thats a no on 3 of 4 points.

clemcykul:

the bible says giv and it shall be given unto u, good measures shaken together and runing over shall the lord pour unto your bosom. christ even gave parables on giving. the lord God almighty loves a cheerful giver.

Oh my. A nice little sermon on giving

clemcykul:

even in genesis when God told cain and Abel to bring the first friuts of their labour what does that imply? it implies that right from the begining God instituted the tithe,

Spoilt by confusing it with tithing and a mis-understanding of firstfruits. Oh dear.

clemcykul:

ure are showing your appreciation to God for prospering you.

That is, giving Him a cut? Sounds like a protection racket.

clemcykul:

remember God loves a grateful heart You giv unto God and he will in his power and might enlarge your coast.

Or maybe an investment scheme.

clemcykul:

remember that money given to God does not go into private pockets

I'd love to discuss the practical everday import of a tithe. But some people seem determined to stop us getting there. What would Melchizedek have used Abrahams tithe for? What is the tithe used for in this day and age? What is the scriptural blueprint for it's application?

clemcykul:

its used for the propagation of the Gospel

One of the biggest lies out there. Propagation of the gospel is not predicated on enforced or voluntary collection of money.

No where in the NT is money collected (mandatorily or voluntarily) to spread the gospel, pay salaries, build temples or any of the myriad other things money is applied to nowadays. But like I said, some don't want us to have that discussion, as it would equally disprove the erroneous notion that tithing is a Christian imperative.

clemcykul:

Which is the primary duty of every christian.

That is at best debatable, but even if it was, there is nothing to suggest that tithing is the way to do it.

clemcykul:

may God help us to run our christain race to the end in Jesus ever living name AMEN.

Amen.

@TV01,

I knew you'd so quickly pick on clemcykul and slice at his post. Anyhow, here's something for you to think through:

TV01:

Good of you to remember, since you are working tirelessly to make tithing = giving

Nope, you shouldn't be misreading issues into my reposte was the point.

TV01:

I quoted various verses. Pick one that does not talk specifically about money and build a siegemound.

TV01, it doesn't cost anything to be honest. That verse does not speak about money matters, and you know it. Trying to offer it as a pretence for money matters is hideous when infact it does not. If someone quotes another verse for a principle, you'd characteristically be first to raise your hand and cry hooha.

TV01:

Oh Miss, you can do better. Giving is varied, and even restricting it to money matters is answered by some verses I offered.

Since giving is varied, WHY then has it been such a nightmare to you especially when the same GIVING is mentioned in connection with "tithing" (another type of giving)? What games are you playing here?

TV01:

Giving encopmpasses money. To say that it is about giving leaves you blind-sided as you insist tithing = giving. So maybe we should tithe time, or any other resouce huh?

You're such a silly laugh, honestly. You make a case so much for giving and tithing and then come back complaining against the same strains you're offering. Please go back and pick out where indeed I said (or "insist" that "tithing = giving". If you no longer understand English, what do you make out of this clause in my rejoinder: "any kind of giving at all in the NT"?!?

TV01:

Doublespeak!

The champion you are at that.

TV01:

Too much learning leads to brainfag - to paraphrase!

Interesting way to capture your ribald underachievment, another paraphrase perhaps?

TV01:

Here => under the law (levitical priesthood). Both redundant Miss.
There => under a superior priesthood to the levitical type. Is Melchizedek High Priest now?

Olodo! Go get you study tools and dust them to help you see your noise is not worth it. You agree it was "under a superior priesthood to the levitical type." Question: has the Melchizedek priesthood been set aside for a third type of "superior" priesthood?

TV01:

No it didn't affect his progeny, just showed their priesthood to be inferior to Melchizedeks.

Classic denial yet again. What then is the meaning of Heb. 7:9 & 10? Abraham's tithing to Melchizedek in no way affected Levi, NO?

TV01:

Calm down Miss. We have duly considered it. It does'nt mean a tithe is demanded of NT Christians. Neither have you shown that it does. Plus you further muddle your own position. As this would suggest it is mandatory, whilst you are trying to sell it as voluntary and the same as giving.

You make yourself sound so very cheap when you try to accuse and force issues into people's posts. I nowhere intended tithes as mandatory; and my point is simply that it is not taught in Scripture that tithing is disparaged or negated the way those who oppose it have been doing! That is why I offered that you guys bring forward such a verse where tithing has been forbidden, as well as offered the first question initially: "1. Is there any scriptural command obliging any kind of giving at all in the NT?"

When people have cheated behind the counter to force their premises denouncing tithing in order to militate against it, I have offered just one simple question where such a position is not at all found in the Word: show me the verse that says tithing is NOT to be a Christian observation.

TV01:

Same old sorry arse strategy. "Mixed grain theology". Mixing OT & NT, Law & Grace, shadows and fullness. With a nice little topping of implied blessings/curses. Lame. Did I say you can do better? I still believe you can

I remember who used that language to show how beggarly he is in his pretended "walk" and under-achievements when discussing Biblical issues. Indeed, I'm now so used to your crap that it would have been surprising if you didn't post that bunkum to show how beggarly your reading skills have become.

TV01:

NT exhorts Christians to give. Nowhere does the NT command tithing. Unless of course you can show otherwise.

Don't sob so loud - I didn't use the word "command" to discuss tithing. I only asked you to show where Scripture denounces tithing the way you have been cheating readers once and again. That too hard for your level of understanding?

TV01:

And no one is millitating against it. Just saying it's not mandatory and if voluntary, then no different to giving and thus a non-starter.

Oh, "no different to giving", you say? Don't make me laugh, loser! Are you not the same chap who's been making crap noise about equating tithing to giving? "No different to giving" - listen to yourself!

TV01:

You sound really het up. Is everything alright?

You must have been to the health center already. I'm cool. . . just don't have the time for your games.

Cheers.

Ah, ah Pilgrim. Such harsh lanuguage. As ever, I give place to you as to the weaker vessel !

TV01, it doesn't cost anything to be honest. That verse does not speak about money matters, and you know it. Trying to offer it as a pretence for money matters is hideous when infact it does not. If someone quotes another verse for a principle, you'd characteristically be first to raise your hand and cry hooha.

It talks about giving. But I'll humour you (again). Lets discard that particular verse. Any comment on the dozen others?

Since giving is varied, WHY then has it been such a nightmare to you especially when the same GIVING is mentioned in connection with "tithing" (another type of giving)? What games are you playing here

As in what you can give.

You're such a silly laugh, honestly. You make a case so much for giving and tithing and then come back complaining against the same strains you're offering. Please go back and pick out where indeed I said (or "insist" that "tithing = giving". If you no longer understand English, what do you make out of this clause in my rejoinder: "any kind of giving at all in the NT"?!?

Me, make a case for tithing. Have someone take a look at the blow to the head you have obviously sustained

Giving is outlined, exhorted and praised in the NT. Tithing is not.

On what basis are you championing tithing for NT Christians? Please demonstrate that your 3rd way is not mythic, and substantiate with clear explication from scripture, instead of tart posers such as "what does this mean" or what does that say" or your perennial favourite "where in the NT does it say blah, blah, blah".

The champion you are at that.

Thanks for the compliment, but girl truly you are in a class of your own. Unparalleled !

Olodo! Go get you study tools and dust them to help you see your noise is not worth it. You agree it was "under a superior priesthood to the levitical type." Question: has the Melchizedek priesthood been set aside for a third type of "superior" priesthood?

Olodo rabata sef!
Yes, the Melchizedek type was superior to the Levitical, but it was just a shadow". So yes the Melchizedek has been set aside for the fullness in Christ. Must 'fess up, I'm a bit of a "needs must" studier, but you could use some extra-mural classes. At your service girl !

Classic denial yet again. What then is the meaning of Heb. 7:9 & 10? Abraham's tithing to Melchizedek in no way affected Levi, NO?

NO, it did not! Please say how? Did the people tithe in respopnse to Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek or in accordance with the law?

I have repeatedly said, the whole import of the Abraham/Melchizedek encounter was to to show the superiority of the Melchizedek type to tthe levitical. Full stop. In return, read verses 11 & 12 of the same chapter you sightlessly quoted.

You make yourself sound so very cheap when you try to accuse and force issues into people's posts. I nowhere intended tithes as mandatory; and my point is simply that it is not taught in Scripture that tithing is disparaged or negated the way those who oppose it have been doing! That is why I offered that you guys bring forward such a verse where tithing has been forbidden, as well as offered the first question initially: "1. Is there any scriptural command obliging any kind of giving at all in the NT?"

I'm not just cheap, I'm also easy ! But you are making no headway dear! Try harder !

I have not disparaged, merely shown via end-to-end exigesis, that the notion of a mandatory tithe is wrong and that voluntary tithing cannot be differentiated from giving, and is thus a mute point. If you insist there is a difference, please show it, without resort to mixed-grain theology. Thank you.

When people have cheated behind the counter to force their premises denouncing tithing in order to militate against it, I have offered just one simple quest where such a position is not at all found in the Nion: show me the verse that says tithing is NOT to be a Christian observation.

Likewise, please show from scripture that tithing is a Christian observation. My dear, you can be so regressive. This topic has passed a thousand posts and all you can come up with is "show me one verse?" Naughty!

remember who used that language to show how beggarly he is in his pretended "walk" and under-achievements when discussing Biblical issues. Indeed, I'm now so used to your crap that it would have been surprising if you didn't post that bunkum to show how beggarly your reading skills have become.

I get it, you quite like me ! Must be said, I'm quite fanciable, but I no longer do proms !

Don't sob so loud - I didn't use the word "command" to discuss tithing. I only asked you to show where Scripture denounces tithing the way you have been cheating readers once and again. That too hard for your level of understanding?

Again, please state for the record, the basis that you consider tithing to be a Christian notion.

Oh, "no different to giving", you say? Don't make me laugh, loser! Are you not the same chap who's been making crap noise about equating tithing to giving? "No different to giving" - listen to yourself!

You have gotten so personal over this. Clear evidence of you failure to prosecute your position on sound scriptural reasoning. And liberally peppering with smilies doesn't hide the poor humour and frustration in your posts ! And by the way, I'd rather listen to myself than your relentless drone! Girl, you could could nag for Africa !

You must have been to the health center already. I'm cool. . . just don't have the time for your games.

I won't bore you with my latest sporting injury (lest I end up confused about what ails me ). But discussing with you would drive lesser mortals insane. I have the patience of a Saint me

Later

God bless ^{olodo's (of whom I am chief !)}
TV

@TV01,

TV01:

Ah, ah Pilgrim. Such harsh lanuguage. As ever, I give place to you as to the weaker vessel

Crying already? As before, I asked for a discussion, not your usual sly invectives.

TV01:

It talks about giving. But I'll humour you (again). Lets discard that particular verse. Any comment on the dozen others?

Scurrying away from the verse, are you? Why is it so difficult for you to admit honestly that the verse (Matt. 10:8) is not about money matters? Just because it mentions "giving" does not mean you have to assume it to establish a case it does not for your persuasion. There are other verses that mention the word "give" - and one doesn't have to suppose they're about money matters: (Matt. 10:42 - "give to drink"; Matt. 14:16 - "give ye them to eat"; Matt. 24:19 - "to them that give suck in those days!".

My comment on the dozen others still do not answer my question: "1. Is there any scriptural command obliging any kind of giving at all in the NT?" By quoting those texts, are you assuming they point to the Scriptural "command" and "obligation" to give any kind of giving at all in the NT? That is why I offered earlier that I refrained from commenting because you really didn't answer my questions. Instead, you scooted away from that question and began to talk about an "amount" and the "flip side" of issues I didn't ask you.

TV01:

As in what you can give.

Ol' boy, take style play this game gently. Try not dribbling round it.

TV01:

Me, make a case for tithing. Have someone take a look at the blow to the head you have obviously sustained

Are you so badly wounded you are seeing double now?

TV01:

Giving is outlined, exhorted and praised in the NT. Tithing is not.

And therefore where is tithing denounced?

TV01:

On what basis are you championing tithing for NT Christians? Please demonstrate that your 3rd way is not mythic, and substantiate with clear explication from scripture, instead of tart posers such as "what does this mean" or what does that say" or your perennial favourite "where in the NT does it say blah, blah, blah".

I've offered just an example; and if you haven't seen that already, no need trying to traipse your hogwash about and litter the thread. The one thing I've asked is still being asked: where do you find tithes denounced in the NT? If Scripture does not denounce, why have you been cheating readers into thinking so and yet have not been able to provide a simple verse for that argument instead of your pretended "blah-blah"?

TV01:

Thanks for the compliment, but girl truly you are in a class of your own. Unparalleled

I've severally cautioned that you "discuss" issues and avoid the invectives. Did you cinsider them as "compliments" when using them in yours against others?

TV01:

Olodo rabata sef!
Yes, the Melchizedek type was superior to the Levitical, but it was just a shadow". So yes the Melchizedek has been set aside for the fullness in Christ. Must 'fess up, I'm a bit of a "needs must" studier, but you could use some extra-mural classes. At your service girl

Ahh there! Lol, TV01, you seriously need to humble yourself when you read Scripture. Could I ask you to proffer the verse for what you conclude as "yes the Melchizedek has been set aside for the fullness in Christ"? You have a fine way of making a mess of your pretended scholarship, and I'd just like to see how your clean up this one.

TV01:

NO, it did not! Please say how? Did the people tithe in respopnse to Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek or in accordance with the law?

Oga, settle down and follow Scripture instead of letting your thoughts run ahead of declared statements in God's Word. The text does not suggest that Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek in accordance with the Law; nor does it even suggest that
"the people" tithe to Melchizedek in "accordance with the law". This is the one thing that always comes to the fore whenever you guys read the word "tithe" - you often assume it must be by LAW! And yet, the text in Heb. 7:9 & 10 did not mention
tithing in connection with the Law! Can you read at all, or you are hoping thia backhand game would score you the cheap point you're pretending to introduce where it does not exist?

That text is clear: "And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham" - and it does not warrant the "according to the law" that you're sweating to argue into it!

@TV01,

TV01:

I have repeatedly said, the whole import of the Abraham/Melchizedek encounter was to to show the superiority of the Melchizedek type to tthe levitical. Full stop. In return, read verses 11 & 12 of the same chapter you sightlessly quoted.

I've re-read verses 11 & 12 as advised, and brother it is establishing the same thing I offered you rather than negating it. Verse 11 says: "another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron" - and that
alone should make you understand that the Melchizedek priesthood has NOT been set aside as you pompously asserted earlier. The question concerning verses 8 - 10 is one about tithing - and that not based on the Law; but rather such as
preceded the Law! Great to know that the priesthood of Melchizedek is superior to the Levitical (or Aaronic) priesthood; but have you carefully asked why the apostle mentions the issue of tithing in that connection?

TV01:

I'm not just cheap, I'm also easy! But you are making no headway dear! Try harder !

Do I need to try anything to convince you about what you've just confirmed about your being cheap? You've merely tried to add another on top of that and there again confirmed the former, Lol.

TV01:

I have not disparaged, merely shown via end-to-end exigesis, that the notion of a mandatory tithe is wrong and that voluntary tithing cannot be differentiated from giving, and is thus a mute point. If you insist there is a difference, please show it, without resort to mixed-grain theology. Thank you.

If you'd only grow up. I did not suggest that tithing has to be mandatory - and if anything at all, you've been the one person that often punctuates your cheap underscholarship with akin words (forced, coerced, etc) as if that is what
the Bible teaches. Go through again and show where I mentioned the idea of a "mandatory tithe"; and if it is not what I've argued, why try to attempt reading that into my reposte and further confirm how ribald your thinking is? Try not suggesting things into my rejoinders - especially
where I've argued quite the opposite; otherwise you end up displaying your more leaf than fruit.

Now to even argue that "voluntary tithing cannot be differentiated from giving" is to remove the ground under your standing. You've simply argued in a roundabout way that "tithing cannot be differentiated from giving", albeit you might have to qualify it with "voluntary" to allay your fears.

Did you and Hnd-holder not cry hooha about what the topic of the thread is? You guys are simply a laugh. Is tithing = giving? Your summation above simply says "yes" - as long as you want to qualify it as "voluntary" tithing! That being the case, would you simply do what you're arguing - go give our tithes: whether you call it "voluntary tithing",
"simply tithing", or "no mandatory tithing" - do what you're saying and cease the empty theology that you've not been able to sustain from the Word of God.

TV01:

Likewise, please show from scripture that tithing is a Christian observation. My dear, you can be so regressive. This topic has passed a thousand posts and all you can come up with is "show me one verse?" Naughty!

If you've cheated others with over 1,000 posts on issues you couldn't show from the Word, it's not surprising that you're acting fried up because I asked you for just one verse where the Bible teaches your dishonest backhandedness. You couldn't proffer one - and all you could do is appeal to how long this thread has grown! Haha. . TV01, e don tay wey you dey play this hogwash games!

The priesthood of the NT with Christ as our high priest is clearly after the order of Melchizedek. Scripture teaches that Melchizedek's priesthood is an UNCHANGING priesthood (Heb. 7:15, 21 & 24 -- "it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, . . . But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood". That priesthood is predicated on one thing: "the power of an endless life" (vs. 16). Earlier in verse 8, rather than argue against tithes as "types and shadows" which have been done away with, it tells us that the Melchizedek priesthood "receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth". Infact, in order to negate that, those who argue against tithes would do well to show from Scripture that God denounces it in the NT. Where is such a verse for such denouncements?

Why would the Bible want us to read about "tithes" in that passage in Hebrews 7 in such language that does not at all suggest it has been abrogated or denounced the way tithe opposers have been doing? Not in one instance do we read about the same denunciation against tithes that opposers have been forcefully reading into the NT. Now, my question TV01 is: can you please show me that verse that denounces tithing the way you have been forcefully reading into the NT? Remember it does not predicate that tithing was based or predicated upon any law as you've tried to interject into Heb. 7:8. I just want you to remember that and not come back with your tired old excuses of a "mandatory" tithe that I never mentioned in my repostes.

TV01:

I get it, you quite like me ! Must be said, I'm quite fanciable, but I no longer do proms

I'm trying to like you; but I didn't realize I'd have to ask for a miracle to do so! Is this how lowly you present yourself to the unlucky girls who don't know how to separate the boys from the men (and in many cases have mistaken you for the latter)?

TV01:

Again, please state for the record, the basis that you consider tithing to be a Christian notion.

I'm still discussing the one example of Hebrews 7:8 with you. What's the point giving you a few more to choke on when you've hardly digested that one and instead making surprising denials thereto? Em, did you say again that "the Melchizedek has been set aside"? Would it be too much to ask that you go back to God's Word and settle your thoughts there?

TV01:

You have gotten so personal over this. Clear evidence of you failure to prosecute your position on sound scriptural reasoning. And liberally peppering with smilies doesn't hide the poor humour and frustration in your posts ! And by the way, I'd rather listen to myself than your relentless drone! Girl, you could could nag for Africa

Talk about your drab political snivels, I could have mistaken you for the sobber Tories after the pubs closed! My smiles were not to humour you - they were rather in response to your comic underscholarship and classic denials against clear declaratives in Scripture. What you do is deny what is stated, proffer nothing, make cheap excuses, make more denials where you can't offer verses for your arguments, and cap it with a pharisaic "God bless" like it would hide your whited sepulcher. Gosh! You make the sons of the Pharisees drool!

TV01:

I won't bore you with my latest sporting injury (lest I end up confused about what ails me ).

Oh dear! Did it take you this long to realize something was ailing you? I trust one of those mis-road girls called the ambulance in time for you, eh?

TV01:

But discussing with you would drive lesser mortals insane. I have the patience of a Saint me

Hehe. . we haven't even started and you're already losing your sanity! I've thoroughly enjoyed kidding you. . . just that what's left of you could be saved for Poseidon!

Cheerio!

@ Pilgrim.1,

Let me re-state clearly. Melchizedek =/= Christ. Melchizedeks priesthood is a Shadow of Christs. Just as the Aaronic one also pre-figured Christs.

The reference to the tithe and the sons of Levi was to show that the Melchizedek priesthood was superior to the Levitical. Finito. Not a hint to NT Christians to Tithe.

Hebrews clearly states that;
1. The Levites recieved tithes under the law
2. Said law is now done away with.
3. Their payment of tithes through Abraham denoted Melchizedeks priesthood as superior.
4. But even the Melchizedek type has been replaced bas "another has arisen" (of similar type).

And so I repeat. NT Christians are nowhere mandated to tithe.

If a NTC wishes to do so voluntarily, then fine, but such an act accrues no blessings (similarly, not doing so accrues no curses) unavailable to one who simply gives.

In that case voluntary tithing is no different to giving (which is also voluntary), and it becomes a mute point.

If you request a NT verse that denounces tithing, I'll say this;
1. Show me one that proclaims it as NT practice.
2. A thorough exigeses of the topic in context shows that it is at best a non-starter.

Quit the lip and admit the weakness of your position. I promise to be a gentleman and not gloat for too long  . I'll even applaud your hard efforts although usually lame and ultimately futile.

God bless
TV

^{Pilgrim.1, when are you going to admit to being an alter-ego?} _{What's a mis-road girl??}

otuwe:

*straining my eyes reading pilgrim's epistle*

Hope we no go share the glasses?

@TV01,

It's really sad that you'd so predicatably return with your assertive denials and yet make no point at all. I'll just take this in quick strides.

TV01:

Let me re-state clearly. Melchizedek =/= Christ. Melchizedeks priesthood is a Shadow of Christs. Just as the Aaronic one also pre-figured Christs.

This is where you're making a huge mistake. I haven't argued to make Melchizedek = Christ, have I? However, just to point out how colossal your failure here is:

(a) The Aaronic priesthood does NOT prefigure the priesthood of Christ. Certainly, there are a lot of elements in the Aaronic priesthood which may help us understand some aspects of Christ's heavenly ministry as high Priest. However, there's no gainsaying the fact that both priesthoods are contrasted rather than compared in Scripture - so you're making a huge mistake to see the former as a "pre-figure" of the latter. One critical distinction between them is that the priests in the Levitical priesthood always stood while ministering and offering sacrifices (Heb. 10:11); whereas Christ as High Priest isn't standing - He sat down after having offered Himself once for all (vs. 12), which is a huge contrast to what the Levitical priesthood offered.

Another pivotal contrast is given in Heb. 7:27 -- "Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself." The Levitical priesthood does not "prefigure" Christ's; rather, they stand in stack contrast!

(b) Melchizedek's priesthood is NOT a "shadow" of Christ's. The Bible is clear that Christ's priesthood is "after the order of Melchizedek" (Heb. 5:5-10). As is evident in Heb. 7:11, Christ was not called after the order of Aaron; but instead "after the order of Melchizedek". Rather than compare or contrast between Melchizedek's and Christ's priesthood, God's Word teaches that Melchizedek's priesthood was the very order to which that of Christ was called.

Earlier in Heb. 7:3, we are told in clear terms that Melchizedek's priesthood was not regarded as obselete - "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually." Nowhere in Scripture is there the remotest idea that "the order of Melchizedek" had become superannuated, and thus to be supervened upon by "another order" of priesthood. At least, it is clear in Scripture that was the case with the order of Aaron; but not with the order of Melchizedek - otherwise, Christ would not even then be called a Priest "after the order of Melchizedek" in the first place!

(c) The fallacy of your reasoning here is that you're trying to use two very different types and orders of priesthoods (Aaronic/Levitical and Melchizedek's) to "prefigure" the priesthood of Christ! What you have done effectively demonstrates how deeply flawed your study skills are in regards to God's Word.

It should not be a difficult thing to see if you've a good grasp of Biblical eschatology; in which case as you obviously don't, then you'd continue to make the same colossal mistakes and running headlong into assertive denials which have become your trademark.

TV01:

The reference to the tithe and the sons of Levi was to show that the Melchizedek priesthood was superior to the Levitical. Finito. Not a hint to NT Christians to Tithe.

This is why you're such a laugh! It is actually ridiculous for you to assume that the apostle tried to use tithes to demonstrate that Melchizedek's priesthood was superior to the Levitical one. There are other references than tithes that God's Word employs to contrast between either priesthoods and to establish the case of superiority of the one over the other. A few of such references to Melchizedek's superior pristhood "after the order of" which Christ was called include:

(a) the perfection of Christ - Heb. 5:9 & 10
(b) the immutability of God's counsel and His oath - Heb. 6:16-20 (see the oath in Psa. 110:4 and compare with Heb. 7:20-21)
(c) the weakness and unprofitability of the Law which made nothing perfect - Heb. 7:18 & 19

However, the one reason why God wants us to note the mention of tithes in Hebrews 7 is because Melchizedek's priesthood is an abiding priesthood (vs. 3 - "abideth a priest continually"; and in that connection the Bible is clear that tithes are still received in the Melchizedek's priesthood after the order of which Christ is called:

"And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth" (vs. 8)

The huge difference between the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods is one of continuity. In the case of the Aaronic priesthood, "they were not suffered to continue by reason of death" (vs. 23); while that of Melchizedek is predicated on "the power of an endless life" (vs. 16). If the Melchizedek priesthood was a dead and obsolete one as was said of the Aaronic, then Christ would not have been called "after the order of Melchizedek" in the first place! And the reason God's Word mentions tithes in Hebrews 7 is unmistakable in verse 8 - the Melchizedek priesthood (after the order of which Christ was called) "receiveth them", and the reason is given: "of whom it is witnessed that he liveth". You cannot mistake that unless you deliberately want to look away from Scripture and pretend that there's nothing in the NT that enunciates tithes for the Christian.

TV01:

Hebrews clearly states that;
1. The Levites recieved tithes under the law
2. Said law is now done away with.
3. Their payment of tithes through Abraham denoted Melchizedeks priesthood as superior.

In addition to what I've offered as to WHY tithes are mentioned in Heb. 7, let me remind you again: the Levites did not pay tithes through Abraham to Melchizedek under any LAW! Your ideas are a classic example of the lazy thinking of people who always want to see tithes as connected with a law! The Levites' payment of tithe through Abraham not only demonstrates Melchizedek's priesthood as superior, but more to the point is what is mentioned in connection with tithes in verse 8 - and I've discussed that just above.

The inspired apostle does not use tithes as the basis for arguing that Melchizedek's priesthood was superior to the Levitical one - and I've given a few reasons why that idea is crass. Rather, the apostle uses two undeniable facts to establish that superiority:

(a) Melchizedek: priesthood was predicated on the power of an endless life (vs. 16), and that he abides a priest continually (vs. 3);
(b) Levitical: "the weakness and unprofitableness" of the Law (vs. 18); and their inability to continue "by reason od death" (vs. 23).

That the Levites paid tithes through Abraham to Melchizedek is not the reason that establishes the superiority of the priesthood of the latter over the former; because even under the Law, the Levites themselves also paid tithes (Num. 18:25-30)! You can't miss the reason for why the apostle mentions tithes in Hebrews 7, as given in verse 8 for the attention of the Christian: "And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth."

TV01:

4. But even the Melchizedek type has been replaced bas "another has arisen" (of similar type).

That's not taught anywhere in the Bible. God never said that the Melchizedek priesthood has been "replaced" by another; otherwise it would mean that Christ was called "after the order of" someone else's priesthood which has "replaced" that of Melchizedek! You make assertive denials like the above because you have refused to open your eyes and read what Scripture clearly declares.

TV01:

And so I repeat. NT Christians are nowhere mandated to tithe.

You're simply cheating yourself with the use of "mandated" every time you read the word "tithes"! The NT does not present tithes or any type of givig as a "mandated" exercise. You've been cheating your adulators with that word because you cannot acknowledge the simple Biblical understanding that tithes are not a matter of "mandate", "force" or "coersion". When Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek, where do we read that he did so as a matter of having been "mandated"?

And the idea of a "mandated" giving that you've been so beggarly straining at can be corrected to free your imprisoned mind if you look closely into the Word. I've asked the question earlier: "1. Is there any scriptural command obliging any kind of giving at all in the NT?" Rather than answer the question, you skirted around it and so typical scooted away to something other than what I asked. If you so believe that Christians are not "mandated" to give anything, then strike out the following verse from your own Bible:

Rom. 15:27 - "It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things."

God's Word clearly teaches that it is the Christian's duty (read "mandate" if you please) to give financially - especially in the realization that we have been beneficiaries to the spiritual things ministered unto us. That's why the apostle does not state an opinion or his personal suggestion in Gal. 6:6 when he confirmed this point yet again: "Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things." Come back and tell me that is not a command or an obligation that Christians are called to betake themselves unto.

TV01:

If a NTC wishes to do so voluntarily, then fine, but such an act accrues no blessings (similarly, not doing so accrues no curses) unavailable to one who simply gives.

TV01, those who give are blessed over those who do not. The idea of "simply give"  with which you've imprisoned your mind on this subject is nowhere taught in Scripture! Giving in simplicity as an attitude (Rom. 12:8) is not to be confused with the act of worship that invites our giving as a sacrifice which pleases God (Heb. 13:16). The idea that "giving" and "not giving" are to be regarded on the same plane (neither this nor that) is actually a display of blind and cold-hearted rebellion of a queer kind to the Word of God.

When a believer honours the Lord with the his sacrificial giving as an ACT of worship, Scripture clearly teaches that such believers are blessed over those who do not have the revelation of doing so. Here are a few clear texts to the point (ask yourself if those who do not obey the principles in those texts receive the same blessing or response from God as those who obey them):

2 Chron. 31:10 - "And Azariah the chief priest of the house of Zadok answered him, and said, Since the people began to bring the offerings into the house of the LORD, we have had enough to eat, and have left plenty: for the LORD hath blessed his people; and that which is left is this great store."

Proverbs 3: 9 & 10 - "Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase: So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine."

Mal. 3:10 - "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it."

2 Cor. 9:6 - "But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully."

2 Cor. 9:10 - "Now he that ministereth seed to the sower both minister bread for your food, and multiply your seed sown, and increase the fruits of your righteousness"

There are several more, my dear TV01. The problem is that you've imprisoned your mind and have been pretending that sorry condition as "freedom". If you don't want to give your tithes because you can't see it for anything other than a "mandated" exercise, then keep that argument to yourself and don't pretend it as what is taught in the Word. When you start giving (tithes and offerings as a worship-sacrifice), you will definitely receive God's response in blessings in just precisely as the Word declares in the several verses offered just above (see again 2 Cor. 9:10).

TV01:

In that case voluntary tithing is no different to giving (which is also voluntary), and it becomes a mute point.

Your making "voluntary tithing" a mute point because you want to equate it to "voluntary giving" is a lazy way of reasoning. The question here is about TITHES, and it doesn't really score a point at all whether or not you want to play smart by qualifying it as "mandated" and/or "voluntary". You and Hnd-holder have severally been noising that whenever your comfort zones are squeezed. I don't see tithes as a matter of either mandated or voluntary. The bottomline is that people tithe, and God is not asking us to look for such qualifiers as you suppose before deciding on whether or not we should equate it the way you're often trying so to do.

TV01:

If you request a NT verse that denounces tithing, I'll say this;
1. Show me one that proclaims it as NT practice.

I've done precisely that - scroll up and see the point on Hebrews 7 that you so assertively deny because you have nothing to offer in answer to my questions.

TV01:

2. A thorough exigeses of the topic in context shows that it is at best a non-starter.

Trying to pretend your colossal failure as a substitute for Biblical exigeses does not make it a non-starter. What you've done here is the direct opposite of exigeses, which is eisegesis - and yours is a perculiar one at that, especially your denials of the unchangeable priesthood of Melchizedek!

Now could you be so kind as to proffer a text where God denounces tithes in the NT the way you and your adulators have been trying to cheat your readers with?

TV01:

Quit the lip and admit the weakness of your position.

This is typically the cry of lazy thinkers - always trying to pronounce others as "weak" when infact all you offer do not even rise to the dignity of a zero, with your minus points and assertive denials against Biblical declarations.

TV01:

I promise to be a gentleman and not gloat for too long.

It's not surprising you're still bleating after all the pompous display of a pretended scholarship which at best says nothing other than deny what you don't understand nor are willing to acknowledge is taught in Scripture.

TV01:

I'll even applaud your hard efforts although usually lame and ultimately futile.

No worries. It's just a sad case you make for your botched arguments (if you'd been hoping for an upgrade); although I should respect your subaltern trademark.

Rest your heart.

Modern Tithing is Based on Many False Assumptions



One denomination’s statement on stewardship is typical of what many others teach about tithing. It says that "tithing is the minimum biblical standard and the beginning point which God has established that must not be replaced or compromised by any other standard." It adds that the tithe is from gross income which is due to the church before taxes.

The following points of this essay contrast the false teachings used to support tithing with what God’s Word actually says.



Point #1: N. T. Giving Principles in Second Corinthians 8 and 9 are Superior to Tithing.



The false teaching is that tithing is a divine mandatory expectation which always must precede free-will giving.



Free-will giving existed before tithing. The following New Covenant free-will principles are found in Second Corinthians, chapters 8 and 9: (1) Giving is a "grace.” These chapters use the Greek word for "grace" eight times in reference to helping poor saints. (2) Give yourself to God first (8:5). (3) Give yourself to knowing God’s will (8:5). (4) Give in response to Christ’s gift (8:9; 9:15). (5) Give out of a sincere desire (8:8, 10, 12; 9:7). (6) Do not give because of any commandment (8:8, 10; 9:7). (7) Give beyond your ability (8:3, 11, 12). ( Give to produce equality. This means that those who have more should give more in order to make up for the inability of those who cannot afford to give as much (8:12-14). (9) Give joyfully (8:2). (10) Give because you are growing spiritually (8:3, 4, 7). (11) Give because you want to continue growing spiritually (9:8, 10, 11). (12) Give because you are hearing the gospel preached (9:13).



Point #2: In God’s Word the Tithe is Always Only Food!



The false teaching is that biblical tithes include ALL sources of income.



Use God’s Word to define “tithe.” Do not use a secular dictionary! Open a complete Bible concordance and you will discover that the definition used by tithe-advocates is wrong. In God’s Word “tithe” does not stand alone. Although money existed before tithing, the original source of God's "tithe" was never money. It was the “tithe of food.” This is very important: True biblical tithes were always only food from the farms and herds of only Israelites who only lived inside God’s Holy Land, the national boundary of Israel. The increase was gathered from what God produced and not from man's craft or ability.

There are 15 verses from 11 chapters and 8 books from Leviticus 27 to Luke 11 which describe the contents of the tithe. And the contents never (again), never included money, silver, gold or anything other than food from inside Israel! Yet the incorrect definition of "tithe" is the greatest error being preached about tithing today! (See Lev. 27:30, 32; Numb. 18:27, 28; Deut. 12:17; 14:22, 23; 26:12; 2 Chron. 31:5, 6; Neh. 10:37; 13:5; Mal. 3:10; Matt. 23:23; Luke 11: 42).



Point #3: Money Was an Essential Non-Tithed Item



The false assumption is that food barter usually replaced money.



One argument to support non-food tithing is that money was not universally available and barter from food must have been used for most transactions. This argument is not biblical. Genesis alone contains “money” in 32 texts and the word occurs 44 times before the tithe is first mentioned in Leviticus 27. The word shekel also appears often from Genesis to Deuteronomy.

In fact many centuries before Israel entered Canaan and began tithing food from God’s Holy Land money was an essential everyday item. For example money in the form of silver shekels paid for slaves (Gen 17:12+); land (Gen 23:9+); freedom (Ex 23:11); court fines (Ex 21 all; 22 all); sanctuary dues (Ex 30:12+); vows (Lev 27:3-7); poll taxes (Num 3:47+), alcoholic drinks (Deu 14:26) and marriage dowries (Deu 22:29).

According to Genesis 47:15-17 food was used for barter only after money had been spent. Banking and usury laws exist in God’s Word in Leviticus even before tithing. Therefore the argument that money was not prevalent enough for everyday use is false. Yet the tithe contents never include money from non-food products and trades.



Point #4: Abraham’s Tithe to Melchizedek Reflected Pagan Tradition.



The false teaching is that Abraham freely gave tithes because it was God’s will.



For the following reasons, Genesis 14:20 cannot be used as an example for Christians to tithe. (1) The Bible does not say that Abraham "freely" gave this tithe. (2) Abraham’s gift was NOT a holy tithe from God’s holy land gathered by God’s holy people under God’s holy Old Covenant. (3) Abraham’s tithe was only from pagan spoils of war and was required in many nations. (4) In Numbers 31, God only required 1% of spoils of war. (5) Abraham’s tithe to Melchizedek was a one-time recorded event. (6) Abraham’s tithe was not from his own personal property. (7) Abraham kept nothing for himself; he gave everything back. ( Abraham’s tithe is not quoted anywhere in the Bible to endorse tithing. (9) Genesis 14, verse 21, is the key text. Since most commentaries explain verse 21 as an example of pagan Arab tradition, it is contradictory to explain the 90% of verse 21 as pagan, while insisting that the 10% of verse 20 was God’s will. (10) If Abraham is an example for Christians to give 10% to God, then he should also be an example for Christians to give the other 90% to Satan, or to the king of Sodom! (11) As priests themselves, neither Abraham nor Jacob had a Levitical priesthood to support; they probably left food for the poor at their altars.



Point #5: First-Tithes were Received by Servants to the Priests.



The false teaching is that Old Testament priests received all of the first tithe.



The "whole" tithe, the first tithe, did not go to the priests at all. According to Numbers 18:21-24 and Nehemiah 10:37b, it went to the servants of the priests, the Levites. And according to Numbers 18:25-28 and Nehemiah 10:38, the Levites gave the best “tenth of this tithe” (1%) which they received to the priests who ministered the sin sacrifices and served inside the holy places. Priests did not tithe.

It is also important to know that, in exchange for receiving these tithes, both Levites and priests forfeited all rights to permanent land inheritance inside Israel (Numb. 18:20-26; Deut. 12:12; 14:27, 29; 18:1, 2; Josh. 13:14, 33; 14:3; 18:7; Ezek. 44:28). Even if tithes were New Covenant they would first go to the (Levites) deacons to assist the preachers and maintain the buildings.



Point #6: "It is Holy to the LORD" Does Not Make Tithing an Eternal Moral Principle.



The false teaching is that Leviticus 27:30-33 proves that the tithe is an "eternal moral principle" because "it is holy to the LORD."



The phrases “it is HOLY unto the LORD” and “it is MOST HOLY unto the LORD” are very common in Leviticus. However, almost every other use of these same two phrases in Leviticus has long ago been discarded by Christians. These phrases are used to describe all of the festivals, the sacrificial offerings, the clean food, the old covenant priests and the old covenant sanctuary. Especially read verses 28 and 29 in the same chapter.

While the “tithe of the tithe” (1%) which was given to the priests was the “best” of what the Levites received, the tithe which the Levites received was only “one tenth” and not the “best” (Lev. 27:32, 33).



Point #7: First-fruits are Not the Same as Tithes



The false assumption is that tithes are first-fruits.



The first-fruit was a very small amount of the first crop harvest and the first-born was the first offspring of animals. The first-fruit was small enough to fit into a hand-held basket (Deut. 26:1-4, 10; Lev. 23:17; Num. 18:13-17; 2 Chron 31:5a).

First-fruit and first-born offerings went directly to the Temple and were required to be totally consumed by ministering priests only inside the Temple (Neh. 10:35-37a; Ex. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 18:4).

The whole Levitical tithe went first to the Levitical cities and portions went to the Temple to feed both Levites and priests who were ministering there in rotation (Neh. 10:37b-39; 12:27-29, 44-47; Num. 18:21-28; 2 Chron 31:5b). While the Levites ate the tithe, the priests could also eat from the first-fruit, first-born offerings and other offerings.



Point #8: There are Four Different Tithes Described in the Bible.



The false teaching ignores all other tithes and focuses on an incorrect interpretation of the first religious tithe.



The first religious tithe, called the "Levitical tithe," had two parts. Again, the whole first tithe was given to the Levites who were only servants to the priests (Numb. 18:21-24; Neh. 10:37). The Levites, in turn, gave one tenth of the whole tithe to the priests (Numb. 18:25-28; Neh. 10:38). According to Deuteronomy 12 and 14, the second religious tithe, called the "feast tithe," was eaten by worshipers in the streets of Jerusalem during the three yearly festivals (Deut. 12:1-19; 14:22-26). And, according to Deuteronomy 14 and 26, a third tithe, called the "poor tithe," was kept in the homes every third year to feed the poor (Deut. 14:28, 29; 26:12, 13). Also, according to First Samuel 8:14-17, the ruler collected the first and best ten per cent for political use. During Jesus’ time Rome collected the first ten per cent (10%) of most food and twenty per cent (20%) of fruit crops as its spoils of war. One wonders what "churches" are trying to hide when they single out the one religious tithe which best suits their purposes and ignore the other two important religious tithes.



Point #9: Jesus, Peter, Paul and the Poor Did Not Tithe!



The false teaching is that everybody in the Old Testament was required to begin their giving to God at the ten per cent level.



The poor were not required to tithe at all! Neither did the tithe come from the results of man’s craft, hands and skill. Only farmers and herdsmen gathered what God produced as tithe increase. Jesus was a carpenter; Paul was a tentmaker and Peter was a fisherman. None of these occupations qualified as tithe-payers because they did not farm or herd animals for a living. It is, therefore, incorrect to teach that everybody paid a required minimum of a tithe and, therefore, that New Covenant Christians should be required to at least begin at the same minimum as Old Covenant Israelites. This common false assumption is very often repeated and completely ignores the very plain definition of tithe as food gathered from farm increase or herd increase.

It is also wrong to teach that the poor in Israel were required to pay tithes. In fact, they actually received tithes! Much of the second festival tithe and all of a special third-year tithe went to the poor! Many laws protected the poor from abuse and expensive sacrifices which they could not afford (see also Lev. 14:21; 25:6, 25-28, 35, 36; 27:8; Deu. 12:1-19; 14:23, 28, 29; 15:7, 8, 11; 24:12, 14, 15, 19, 20; 26:11-13; Mal. 3:5; Matt. 12:1, 2; Mark 2:23, 24; Luke 2:22-24; 6:1, 2; 2 Cor. 8:12-14; 1 Tim. 5:8; Jas. 1:27).



Point #10: Tithes were Often Used as Political Taxes.



The false teaching is that tithes are never comparable to taxes or taxation.



In the Hebrew economy, the tithe was used in a totally different manner than it is preached today. Once again, those Levites who received the whole tithe were not even ministers or priests -- they were only servants to the priests! Numbers chapter 3 describes the Levites as carpenters, metal workers, leather-craftsmen and artists who maintained the small sanctuary. And, according to First Chronicles, chapters 23-26, during the time of King David and King Solomon the Levites were still skilled craftsmen who inspected and approved all work in the Temple: 24, 000 worked in the Temple as builders and supervisors; 6,000 were officials and judges; 4,000 were guards and 4,000 were musicians. As political representatives of the king, Levites used their tithe income to serve as officials, judges, tax collectors, treasurers, temple guards, musicians, bakers, singers and professional soldiers (1 Chron. 12:23, 26; 23:2-5; 26:29-32; 27:5). It is obvious why these examples of using biblical tithe-income are never used as examples in the church today.

It is also important to know that Old Covenant tithes were never used for evangelism of non-Israelites. Tithing failed! See Hebrews 7:12-19. Tithes never stimulated Old Covenant Levites or priests to establish a single mission outreach or encourage a single Gentile to become an Israelite (Ex. 23:32; 34:12, 15; Deut. 7:2). Old Covenant tithing was motivated and mandated by Law, not love. In fact, during most of Israel’s history the prophets were God’s primary spokesmen – and not the tithe-receiving Levites and priests.



Point #11: Levitical Tithes Were Usually Taken to the Levitical Cities.



False teachers want us to think that all tithes were formerly taken to the Temple and should now be taken to the "church storehouse” building.



The “whole” tithe NEVER went to the Temple! In reality, the overwhelming majority of Levitical tithes never went to the Temple! Those who teach otherwise ignore the Levitical cities and the 24 courses of the Levites and priests. According to Numbers 35, Joshua 20, 21 and First Chronicles 6, Levites and priests lived on borrowed land like Jericho and Hebron surrounding the Levitical cities where they farmed and raised (tithed) animals. And it is clear from Second Chronicles 31:15-19 and Nehemiah 10:37 that the ordinary people were expected to bring their tithes to the Levitical cities. Why? That is where 98% of the Levites and priests lived with their families most of the time. See also Josh. 20, 21; Numb, 35; 1st Chron.6:48-80; 2nd Chron. 11:13-14; Neh. 12:27-29; 13:10 and Mal. 1:14 for Levitical cities.



Point #12: Malachi 3 is the Most Abused Tithing Text in the Bible.



The false teaching about tithes from Malachi 3 ignores five important Bible facts.



(1) Malachi is Old Covenant context and is never quoted in the New Covenant to validate tithing (Lev. 27:34; Neh. 10:28, 29; Mal. 3:7; 4:4). (2) In 1:6; 2:1 and 3:1-5, Malachi is very clearly addressed to dishonest priests who are cursed because they had stolen the best offerings from God. (3) The Levitical cities must be considered and Jerusalem was not a Levitical city (Josh 20, 21). It makes no sense to teach that 100% of the tithe was brought to the Temple when most Levites and priests did not live in Jerusalem. (4) In Malachi 3:10-11 tithes are still only food (Lev. 27:30-33). (5) The 24 courses of Levites and priests must also be considered. Beginning with King David and King Solomon, they were divided into 24 families. These divisions were also put into place in Malachi’s time by Ezra and Nehemiah. Since normally only one family served in the Temple for only one week at a time, there was absolutely no reason to send ALL of the tithe to the Temple when 98% of those it was designed to feed were still in the Levitical cities (For courses see 1 Chron. chapters 23-26; 28:13, 21; 2 Chron. 8:14; 23:8; 31:2, 15-19; 35:4, 5, 10; Ezra 6:18; Neh. 11:19, 30; 12:24; 13:9, 10; Luke 1:5).

Therefore, when the context of the Levitical cities, the 24 families of priests, under-age children, wives, Numbers 18:20-28, 2 Chronicles 31:15-19, Nehemiah 10-13, and all of Malachi are all evaluated, only about 2% of the total first tithe was normally required at the Temple in Jerusalem.

Both the blessing and the curse of Malachi 3:9-11 only lasted for Israelites until the Old Covenant ended at the cross. Malachi’s audience had willingly reaffirmed the Old Covenant (Neh.10:28, 29). “Cursed be he that confirms not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen” (Deut. 27:26 quoted in Gal. 3:10). And Jesus ended the curse. “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree” (Gal. 3:13).

Today the very lowest income class pays the largest percentage to charity. Yet most remain in poverty. Neither the lottery, nor the tithe is a magic get-rich-quick answer to replace education, determination and hard work. If Malachi 3:10 really worked for New Covenant Christians, then millions of poor tithing Christians would have escaped poverty and would have become the wealthiest group of people in the world instead of remaining the poorest group. There is no evidence that the vast majority of poor “tithe-payers” are ever blessed financially merely because they tithe. The Old Covenant blessings are not New Covenant blessings (Heb. 7:18, 19; 8:6-8, 13).



Point #13: The New Testament Does Not Teach Tithing.



The false teaching is that Jesus taught tithing in Matthew 23:23 which, they say, is clearly in the New Testament.



The New Covenant did not begin at the birth of Jesus, but at his death (Gal. 3:19, 24, 25; 4:4, 5). Tithing is not taught to the church after the cross! When Jesus discussed tithing in Matthew 23:23, “you” referred to Jewish obedience to the Old Covenant Law which he endorsed and supported until the cross (note “of the law” in 23:23). In Matthew 23:2 and 3 (the context of 23:23) Jesus told his Jewish followers to obey the scribes and Pharisees "because they sit in Moses’ seat." Yet He did not command Gentiles whom He healed to present themselves to the priests and obey the Law of Moses (compare Matt. 5:23, 24 and 8:4). And churches do not collect tithes from garden herbs as Jesus commanded.

There is not a single New Testament Bible text which teaches tithing after the cross – period! Acts 2:42-47 and 4:32-35 are not examples of tithing to support church leaders. According to 2:46 the Jewish Christians continued to worship in the Temple. And according to 2:44 and 4:33, 34 church leaders shared what they received equally with all church members. (This is not done today). Finally Acts 21:20-25 proves that Jewish Christians were still zealously observing all of the Mosaic Law 30 years later –and that must include tithing—otherwise they would not have been allowed inside the Temple to worship. Therefore, any tithes collected by the early Jewish Christians were given to the Temple system and not to support the church.



Point #14: Limited Old Covenant Priests Were Replaced by All Believer-Priests.



The false teaching is that New Covenant elders and pastors are simply continuing where the Old Covenant priests left off and are due the tithe.



Compare Exodus 19:5, 6 with First Peter 2: 9, 10. Before the incident of the golden calves, God had intended for every Israelite to become a priest and tithing would have never been enacted. Priests did not tithe but received one tenth of the first tithe (Numb. 18:26-28; Neh. 10:37, 38).

The function and purpose of Old Covenant priests were replaced, not by elders and pastors, but by the priesthood of every believer. Like other ordinances of the Law, tithing was only a temporary shadow until Christ (Eph. 2:14-16; Col. 2:13-17; Heb. 10:1). In the New Covenant every believer is a priest to God (1 Pet. 2:9, 10; Rev. 1:6; 5:10). And, as a priest, every believer offers sacrifices to God (Heb. 4:16; 10:19-22; 13:15, 16). Therefore, every ordinance which had previously applied to the old priesthood was blotted out at the cross. Since Jesus was not from the tribe of Levi, even He was disqualified. Thus the original temporary purpose of tithing no longer exists (Heb. 7:12-19; Gal. 3:19, 24, 25; 2 Cor. 3:10-18).



Point #15: The New Covenant Church is Neither a Building nor a Storehouse.



The false teaching is that Christian buildings called "churches," "tabernacles" or "temples" replaced the OT Temple as God’s dwelling places.



God’s Word never describes New Covenant churches as "tabernacles," "temples" or "buildings" in which God dwells! God’s church, God’s dwelling place, is within the believers. Believers do not "go to church" -- believers “assemble to worship.” Also, since OT priests did not pay tithes, then tithing cannot logically continue. Therefore it is wrong to call a building "God’s storehouse" for tithes. (1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 6:19, 20; Eph. 1:22, 23; 2:21; 4:12-16; Rev. 3:12). For "storehouse" compare 1 Corinthians 16:2 with 2 Corinthians 12:14 and Acts 20:17, 32-35. For several centuries after Calvary Christians did not even have their own buildings (to call storehouses) because Christianity was an outlaw religion.



Point #16 The Church Grows by Using Better New Covenant Principles.



The false teaching implies that principles of grace giving are not as good as Old Covenant principles of giving.



Under the New Covenant: (1) According to Galatians 5:16-23, there is no physical law which controls the fruits of the Holy Spirit. (2) Second Corinthians 3:10 says that the Old Covenant has "no glory" when compared to the "surpassing" glory and liberty of the Holy Spirit. (3) Hebrews 7 is the only post-Calvary mention of tithing and it is an explanation of why the Levitical priesthood must be replaced by Christ’s priesthood because it was weak and unprofitable. Study Hebrews 7 and follow the progression from verse 5 to verse 12 to verse 19. (4) The manner in which tithing is taught today reflects a failure of the church to believe and act on the far better principles of love, grace and faith. Mandatory giving principles cannot, has not and will not prosper the church more than principles guided by love for Christ and lost souls (2 Cor. 8:7, .



Point #17: The Apostle Paul Preferred That Church Leaders Be Self-Supporting.



The false teaching is that Paul taught and practiced tithing.



As a Jewish rabbi, Paul was among those who insisted on working to support himself (Acts 18:3; 1 Thess. 2:9, 10; 2 Thess. 3:8-14). While Paul does not condemn those who are able to receive full-time support, neither does he teach that full-time support is the mandatory will of God for advancing the gospel (1 Cor. 9:12). In fact, twice, in Acts 20:29-35 and also in 2 Corinthians 12:14, Paul actually encouraged church elders to work to support needy believers inside the church.

For Paul, "living of the gospel" meant "living by gospel principles of faith, love and grace" (1 Cor. 9:14). While Paul realized that he had a "right" to some support, he concluded that his "liberty," or freedom to preach unhindered was more important in order to fulfill his calling from God (1 Cor. 9:12, 15; 2 Cor. 11:7-13; 12:13, 14;1 Thess. 2:5, 6). While working as a tent-maker, Paul accepted limited support but boasted that his pay, or salary, was that he could preach the gospel for free, without being a burden to others (1 Cor. 9:16-19).



Point #18: Tithing Did Not Become a Law in the Church until A. D. 777.



The false teaching is that the historical church has always taught tithing.



The earliest Christian assemblies patterned themselves after the Jewish synagogues which were led by rabbis who, like Paul, refused to gain a profit from preaching and teaching God’s Word. There are many books on Jewish social life which explain this in great detail.

From Christ’s death until Christianity became a legally recognized religion almost 300 years later, the majority of great church leaders took self-imposed vows of poverty. This is historically documented! They took Jesus’ words to the rich young ruler in Luke 18:22 literally “sell all that you have, give it to the poor, and follow me.” Most church historians agree that these early church leaders for at least the first 200 years worked for a living and were self-supporting. A Christian leader could not tell a Roman census-taker that he was a full-time preacher of an “outlaw” religion.

Clement of Rome (c95), Justin Martyr (c150), Irenaeus (c150-200) and Tertullian (c150-220) all opposed tithing as a strictly Jewish tradition. The Didache (c150-200) condemns traveling apostles who stay longer than three days and ask for money. And travelers who decided to remain with them were required to learn a trade. These early opponents of tithing are not quoted by tithe-teachers.

Cyprian (200-258) tried unsuccessfully to impose tithing in Carthage, North Africa around A. D. 250. However at his conversion Cyprian gave away great personal wealth to the poor and lived under a vow of poverty. His idea of tithing included equal re-distribution to the poor. And –we must remember— his ideas of tithing were not adopted.

When tithe-teachers quote Ambrose, Chrysostom and Augustine as so-called “church fathers” they conveniently leave out the first 200 years of church history. Even after Christianity became legal in the fourth century many of the greatest spiritual leaders took vows of deep poverty and preferred to live unmarried lives in monasteries. If these tithe-teachers are quoted, then the church should also be told what kind of lives they usually led.

While disagreeing with their own theologians, most church historians write that tithing did not become an accepted doctrine in the church for over 700 years after the cross. According to the very best historians and encyclopedias, it took over 500 years before the local church Council of Macon in France, in the year 585, tried unsuccessfully to enforce tithing on its members. It was not until the year 777 that Charlemagne legally allowed the church to collect tithes. That, my friend, is the history of tithing found in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Americana and the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia for everybody to read. These historical facts ought to prove something to somebody.



CONCLUSION:

In God’s Word, “tithe” does not stand alone. It is the “tithe of FOOD.” The biblical tithe was very narrowly defined and limited by God Himself. True biblical tithes were always: (1) only food, (2) only from the farms and herds, (3) of only Israelites, (4) who only lived inside God’s Holy Land, the national boundary of Israel, (5) only under Old Covenant terms and (6) the increase could only be gathered from what God produced.

Therefore, (1) non-food items could not be tithed; (2) clean wild game animals and fish could not be tithed; (3) non-Israelites could not tithe; (4) food from outside God’s holy land of Israel could not be tithed; (5) legitimate tithing did not occur when there was no Levitical priesthood; and (6) tithes did not come from what man’s hands created, produced or caught by hunting and fishing.

I invite church leaders into an open discussion of this subject. The careful and prayer-full study of God’s Word is essential for church growth. May God bless you in that study.

(I encourage you to reprint and distribute this article.)

@ pilgrim.1 & TV01, it would be nice for you guys to bring down the tone of your responses. I believe the intention is to share with & edify each other. I must confess this thread has been a blessing so am pained when i read some unnecessary and derogatory comments from each of you.

Now on the issue of tithing, i recognise TV01 point and recently tilted towards that persuasion. I used to tithe thought i understood why but to me it was like a law i.e. "under the law". Then i started giving (i.e. not observing tithing) and really at this point i gave more than i used to when i "tithed", but i still studied and wanted to understand more. So when i found this thread i come in frequently to read the contributions. TV01 persuasion until recently has been very sound and he showed good understanding of the issues.

However, pilgrim.1 has brought in a totally new perspective to the debate and i had to go study Hebrews 7, after reading her responses. My Life application study bible translates Hebrews 7: 8 "In the one case, the tenth is collected by men who die: but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living" and verse 9 "One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham". In my opinion the key to unlocking this debate lies in Hebrew 7:8 and would want responses from the Bible scholars in the house on this verse, from as many translations as possible.

In addition i agree with pilgrim.1 that those who give are blessed above those who don't and more specifically the differentiation between those who give simply as an attitude and those that give as an act of worship in other words sacrificial.

Am not much of a theologian but Hebrews 7:8 could suggest that there is a place of Tithing for a NT believer or the church. I still would want to read more responses on that verse and chapter. I would not subscribe to this "law", "mandatory" or "voluntary" theories. Tithing as showed by Abraham was not "under the law" and a christain today is not "under the law", so a Christain could Tenth (Tithe) but not in response to or under the law.

My question however lies on the applicability to us today. Must i pay my tenth (tithe) on a monthly income, or must it be from increases i.e. bonuses etc. How can i ascertain if Abraham continuously paid this Tenth or if it was a once and for all thing. In addition my Tenth is it from first fruits (i.e yearly) or is it again from my monthly income.

Furthermore, is there a guide on where i should pay my tenth to, can i choose to give my tenth to charities, or those in need amongst us in the body of Christ, or must i pay it to the ministry i belong to and actively support. The easy answer is to pay the Tithe to where i worship and not worry about how it is used, though i believe its used properly, i also know am accountable for the resources God has blessed me with and see a lot of opportunities to bless people that the "Big" ministry cannot see, i should be able to use my resources to bless the brethren and not only give to my ministry.

I really would want responses along this line, am sorry if am deviating or expanding the thread, but to me the question is bigger than just "Tithe or Not to Tithe". The 2 schools have presented good arguments, so to let move on. If we "Tithe" how should it be pratised and if people are to give freely how should it also be pratised, is there a place for sacrificial giving in the proponents of that school. Lets expand this debate a bit.

Well i do agree with you in that case.

I have always believed through study that Tithe is not what it is said to be today.

Anyone can choose if they want to be part of today's tithe without being blessed or cursed.

However, we must always give and beyond our tenth. We must care for those that do God's work in the church and yet don't have jobs, the poor brethren. The poor in the world. We must always be prepared to give and give out of care and love not just to be blessed.

Peace

@ Pilgrim,

Hiya, hope you are well.

I read with interest your (in my opinion), totally flawed interpretation of Hebrews 7 to mean two things;

1. That the two OT types Priesthood are not types and excelled by Christs and
2. That Hebrews teaches that tithing is a NT practise.

Both are wrong and tragically so.

Let me ask you this;

1. If Melchizedeks priesthood is unchanging, where is Melchizedek now? What capacity does he minister in today? Why was he replaced? Why would he be?
2. If the writer of Hebrews was referring to "Christ" when he said that "here he recieves them of whom it is witnessed that he lives", please tell me how Christ recieves tithes in this age.

I could go on and on about how beyond poor, perverse even, is your reading of scripture on this subject. I could even abandon it seeing you determination to force-fit tithing at all costs. Not to mention your bellicose rant at me personally. But in the interest of those following I'll humour you somewhat and persevere.

God bless
TV

@bulutu,

Many thanks for your helpful insight and brotherly caution. I've always tried to hold dialogue and discuss with people on the various topics where I've made my inputs. However, on several occasions I've offered TV01 that his usually caustic reposte would not be to our mutual interest; and since he would have none of the reminders to behave, my rejoinders to his were also partly to bring that issue to his attention as many times as he chose to be rather belligerent. I apologise if that has been a bit worrisome to readers of this thread; but the earlier he quits the invectives, the sooner he would find me a pleasant person to discuss with.

That said, I do hope that we would do our best to progress this topic. Hebrews 7:8 is not the only verse in the NT that speaks of tithing to me as a Christian. The one reason why my several entries so far has been on that verse is to emphasize the very fact that tithes are said to be received by the One "of whom it is witnessed that he liveth." If the Melchizedek priesthood had become obsolete, Christ would NOT have been "called after the order of Melchizedek" in the first place! We should all understand the weight of that verse and move on from there, rather than argue against it and yet having nothing serious enough as an alternative to offer in explication of that verse.

As you'd requested, let's look at Heb. 7:8 in other translations:

(ESV) -- "In the one case tithes are received by mortal men, but in the other case, by one of whom it is testified that he lives."

(ASV) -- "And here men that die receive tithes; but there one, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth."

(Darby) -- "And here dying men receive tithes; but there one of whom the witness is that he lives."

(NIV) -- "In the one case, the tenth is collected by men who die; but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living."

The question is: do these renderings come close enough to the Greek construct? I'm no Greek scholar by any stretch, but I believe they precisely convey the sense expressed in the original language. The principle of balanced interpretation of Scripture found in 2 Pet. 1:20 has always been helpful on any subject being studied, and no less so in this case.

In context, there are a few things that are presented here for our attention:

(a) As I've shared earlier in my previous reposte, the apostle does not argue merely that tithe was the pivotal subject that shows the superiority of the Melchizedek priesthood. More than that, the one reason why TITHES are there discussed is to show that the Melchizedek priesthood is a living one. There is no instance in the entire Bible to suggest that it is an obselete priesthood, as we read in the case of the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood. This is the reason why God on oath called Christ a Priest "after the order of Melchizedek" (Psa. 110:4).

(b) That the tithes by NT believers are not rejected but rather received by One who still lives. This is what exactly is expressed in that verse, and the Amplified Version has so captured it well for our easy reading:

(Amp) -- "Furthermore, here [in the Levitical priesthood] tithes are received by men who are subject to death; while there [in the case of Melchizedek], they are received by one of whom it is testified that he lives [perpetually]." (emphasis mine)

That is not a translation, but rather an emphatic rendering to make the sense even more graphic. In this connection, Christians who tithe are demonstrating just one thing among several: they bear witness to the superiority of the Melchizedek priesthood in the very same way that Abraham did. Here, I want to ask a salient question to help our thinking: What did Jesus mean when He said: "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad" (John 8:56)? Just a thought.

(c) We should understand yet again that TITHES are not and do not have to be a matter of COERCION! Many people opposed to tithing very often start and end with the LAW; and that is why they make very little of Abraham's tithing. If anyone does not want to tithe because he/she does not believe in its power and revelation, that's just okay. I'm not required to fight them simply because I believe in it; but my persuasions that it is offered to the Christian is what I've been sharing so far.

Perhaps, we all need to come to terms with the fact that even that verse does not present tithing as a matter of compulsion. I trust it is no longer difficult for us to see that our High Priest who is called after the order of Melchizedek does not "demand" tithes, but rather invites us to understand that it is an intricate aspect of our worship to God. Are we to tithe? Yes, as Christians we should - and beyond Heb. 7:8, there are other verses that demonstrate the power and truth in that aspect of our worship.

I'm willing to share and be open for further talks on this, though. Yet, up until now I'm still asking where exactly the NT denounces tithing the way we have been reading from those who virulently reject it wholesale.

Regards.

@TV01,

Hi again. I'll try and be patient with you and let the invectives pass for the moment. I'd only appeal to you to be as cordial as would enable this discussion to progress.

TV01:

Hiya, hope you are well.

I read with interest your (in my opinion), totally flawed interpretation of Hebrews 7 to mean two things

I would be willing to see my rejoinders as you take them IF and ONLY IF you could proffer alternative and well-reasoned answers enunciating why you find them "totally flawed."

TV01:

1. That the two OT types Priesthood are not types and excelled by Christs

Please read again the profound oath God made concerning Christ in Psalm 110:4 --

"The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek."

Two things I'd like you to note:

(a) Christ was called to be a Priest "after the ORDER of" Melchizedek, and not after Himself.
     This is why we read in Heb. 5:5 & 6 that He did not glorify Himself to be made Priest seperately from that to which He was called.

(b) Christ was made Priest after the order of Melchizedek FOR EVER!
     The Melchizedek priesthood was not said anywhere in Scripture to have been "replaced" or become "obsolete" as you have severally suggested.

TV01:

2. That Hebrews teaches that tithing is a NT practise.

It was not denounced anywhere in the NT; and I've shown how and why Christians would do well to tithe - not as a "MANDATE" or a "COERCED" exercise; but rather as an intricate part of our sacrificial worship in the new covenant.

TV01:

Both are wrong and tragically so.

As above, please offer something more to the point so I could follow why you're persuaded so.

TV01:

Let me ask you this;

1. If Melchizedeks priesthood is unchanging, where is Melchizedek now? What capacity does he minister in today? Why was he replaced? Why would he be?

We're focusing on the Priesthood itself, rather than on the man Melchizedek himself. That is precisely what we have to see in the statement offered in Hebrews where it is repeatedly said that Christ was called a Priest "after the ORDER of Melchizedek" (see again Psa. 110:4 and Heb. 5:10). That "order" of priesthood was not "set aside" for, or "replaced" by, another priesthood - because it is based on just one thing: "the power of an endless life" (Heb. 7:15-17)!

The high priests under the Aaronic priesthood were several men who were ordained after Aaron passed away. But even when Aaron died, the Aaronic priesthood continued beyond his death as long as the old covenant was still standing. See the following:

Exo. 40:15 - "And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.

Lev. 16:32 -- "And the priest, whom he shall anoint, and whom he shall consecrate to minister in the priest's office in his father's stead, shall make the atonement, and shall put on the linen clothes, even the holy garments".

The Aaronic priesthood did not become obsolete with the death of Aaron - it continued beyond his death. In the same way, your questions (where is Melchizedek now? What capacity does he minister in today?) simply show that you're looking at the man himself, rather than on the priesthood! Christ was not called after the man Melchizedek; but we read rather that He was Priest after ORDER of the priesthood itself.

TV01:

2. If the writer of Hebrews was referring to "Christ" when he said that "here he recieves them of whom it is witnessed that he lives", please tell me how Christ recieves tithes in this age.

I've outlined the essential point of reference to Heb. 7:8 earlier, and also offered a few more points thereto in my reposte to bulutu's. Would it be too much for you to proffer answers to the question I asked about the import of Jesus' statement in John 8:56? (Scroll up to my rejoinder to bulutu's and see the question).

In addition I would say this: unless you are trying to argue directly opposite to what that verse says, I think your question again demonstrates that you're looking away from Scripture. Heb. 7:8 is particularly in reference to the significance of the Melchizedek priesthood, which Scripture clearly teaches has not been "replaced" at all. I also requested that you please offer the verse that teaches clearly that Christ has replaced the Melchizedek priesthood - am still waiting.

Besides, if Christ has "replaced" the Melchizedek priesthood so that it is no longer relevant, please tell why Scripture states unequivocally that Christ was called on OATH by GOD Himself to be a Priest "after the order of" Melchizedek. Why do you suppose that God would have promised on oath to call His own Son after that which was obsolete, and to do so in very strong terms? See Psa. 110:4 yet again:

(a) "the LORD hath SWORN, and will NOT REPENT"
(b) "Thou art a priest FOR EVER after the order of Melchizedek"

Was God calling His Son to a priesthood which you supposed was obsolete, TV01?

TV01:

I could go on and on about how beyond poor, perverse even, is your reading of scripture on this subject.

No problem. Like I said, I'll let the invectives pass for the moment.

TV01:

I could even abandon it seeing you determination to force-fit tithing at all costs. Not to mention your bellicose rant at me personally. But in the interest of those following I'll humour you somewhat and persevere.

I don't think anyone else is complaining the way you've been doing. Just to assure you, I'm not force-fitting anything at any cost - and that's why I'd rather discuss and offer answers to questions and enquiries. I've severally cautioned that you take care to leave out the "rants" in yours; so why complain if you were served the very same thing you gave others?

Don't take it personal if you can't offer a discussion. But do enjoy your day anyhow you choose. God give us all more grace.

Regards.

@topic; everyone is required 2 pay tithe in d bible as in it should b d 10% of ur income didnt say wat type of christainity its meant 4 contemporary or otherwise.

@posters; would b really nice if u guys would pls summarize ur posts so it could b read personal opinion_{long posts is really scary and i dont think many people read them. but most people just scroll down 2 d next short post}

Hi @chiegemba,

chiegemba:

@topic; everyone is required 2 pay tithe in d bible as in it should b d 10% of your income didnt say what type of christainity its meant 4 contemporary or otherwise.

Lol. Well, I haven't come across any verse that says we are REQUIRED to pay tithes; and no, tithing is not a matter of 10% of one's income for the Christian. Do you have something (a verse, text, etc) that shows it is REQUIRED?

chiegemba:

@posters; would b really nice if u guys would please summarize your posts so it could b read personal opinion_{long posts is really scary and i don't think many people read them. but most people just scroll down to the next short post}

Actually, there are some subjects that need to be discussed at length rather than stated in soundbites.

buluti:

@ pilgrim.1 & TV01, it would be nice for you guys to bring down the tone of your responses. I believe the intention is to share with & edify each other. I must confess this thread has been a blessing so am pained when i read some unnecessary and derogatory comments from each of you.

Apologies for any offence. And I'm happy you are otherwise being blessed.

buluti:

Now on the issue of tithing, i recognise TV01 point and recently tilted towards that persuasion. I used to tithe thought i understood why but to me it was like a law i.e. "under the law". Then i started giving (i.e. not observing tithing) and really at this point i gave more than i used to when i "tithed", but i still studied and wanted to understand more. So when i found this thread i come in frequently to read the contributions. TV01 persuasion until recently has been very sound and he showed good understanding of the issues.

I started as a tither as well. But my persuasions to the contrary came after months of study, prayer and discussion. There is nothing to suggest "tithing" is a NT Christian notion. However you must come to that conclusion yourself. Taking a stance based on anothers persuasion is the reason many Christians are manipulated by man-made doctrine.

I would also say that the discussion on tithe goes way beyond the doctrinal, and on to the practical. But please stay tuned and hopefuly we'll discuss this end-to-end

buluti:

However, pilgrim.1 has brought in a totally new perspective to the debate and i had to go study Hebrews 7, after reading her responses. My Life application study bible translates Hebrews 7: 8 "In the one case, the tenth is collected by men who die: but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living" and verse 9 "One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham". In my opinion the key to unlocking this debate lies in Hebrew 7:8 and would want responses from the Bible scholars in the house on this verse, from as many translations as possible.

A new perspective? That's one way of putting it. In any event, it's not one that teaches NT Christians to tithe.

I'd also disagree that the whole notion rests on Hebrews 7:8, although I'd say that understanding it in context won't contradict all the other scripture which makes tithing a mute point or redundant practice.

Let me ask, Who are those referred to in that verse? It's clearly The Levitical HP and the Melchizedek HP. As I've said the juxtaposition of those two types is to show the superiority of the Melchizedekal over the Aaronical/Levitical.

Verse 2 & 4: Clearly show it was the spoils that were tithed. Not income, or [previously owned chattel belonging to Abraham
Verse 5: shows that the Levitical priesthood collected tithes under the law.
Verse 6: Shows that MZD was paid a tithe by Abraham
Verse 7: Shows that as MZD blessed Abraham, his HP is therefore superior to the Levitical one.
Verse 8: Shows the superiority in terms of an endless life (MZD), and that "here" (at that time under that dispensation - the law), mortal men recieve the tithe, but in the earlier case one without geneology and an endless life (MZD), recieved them. The emphasis is on the superiority of the Melchizedekal type, as the Levites tithed to Melchizedek (via Abraham).
Verse 9 & 10: Again emphasising the superiority of the Melchizedekal type over the Levitical.
Verse 11 & 12: Shows that the Lords HP is after the order of MZD. It also notes a changing of the law (under which tithe was commanded).

So how one can read this as an instructive for NTC to pay a tithe is beyond rational comprehension. It is doing no such thing. Neither is it a new perspective on the tithe, but merely a mischevious way of justifying it.

buluti:

In addition i agree with pilgrim.1 that those who give are blessed above those who don't and more specifically the differentiation between those who give simply as an attitude and those that give as an act of worship in other words sacrificial.

No one has claimed that those who give are not blessed for doing so. I don't believe that giving has to be sacrificial to counts as a worship response. Plus lets not forget that giving is a grace.

buluti:

Am not much of a theologian but Hebrews 7:8 could suggest that there is a place of Tithing for a NT believer or the church. I still would want to read more responses on that verse and chapter. I would not subscribe to this "law", "mandatory" or "voluntary" theories. Tithing as showed by Abraham was not "under the law" and a christain today is not "under the law", so a Christain could Tenth (Tithe) but not in response to or under the law.

Could you please tell us how or why you think Hebrews 7:8 suggests that? Pilgrim.1 is trying to make that claim, but it isn't so.

In exploring the tithing issue, we looked at whether it was commanded or not. If it's not commanded, then it can only be voluntary, if it's voluntary, what makes it different from giving (to whatever degree)? If it is distinct from giving, how so? If there are benefits, what are they?

If you tithe in "response", may I ask in in response to what? Is that which engenders a tithing response, different from that which leads to give (again to whatever degree). Can I overstress that giving is a/by grace?

The tithing as "worship response" is one of the more bemusing arguements I've heard. Perhaps I've just misunderstood?

buluti:

My question however lies on the applicability to us today. Must i pay my tenth (tithe) on a monthly income, or must it be from increases i.e. bonuses etc. How can i ascertain if Abraham continuously paid this Tenth or if it was a once and for all thing. In addition my Tenth is it from first fruits (i.e yearly) or is it again from my monthly income.

1. It's not applicable to NTC.
2. No and no.
3. You cannot, as he didn't.
4. It was a symbolic occurence, later expounded on as contrasting priesthoods.
5. Ah firstfruits, another misinterpreted OT practise.

buluti:

Furthermore, is there a guide on where i should pay my tenth to, can i choose to give my tenth to charities, or those in need amongst us in the body of Christ, or must i pay it to the ministry i belong to and actively support. The easy answer is to pay the Tithe to where i worship and not worry about how it is used, though i believe its used properly, i also know am accountable for the resources God has blessed me with and see a lot of opportunities to bless people that the "Big" ministry cannot see, i should be able to use my resources to bless the brethren and not only give to my ministry.

If you agree with the arguements for tithing based on Abraham/Melchizedek, that would have to be to the HP. That is The Lord Himself.

Give in response to a need (or to bless if you so choose)

Nobody is baptised into a "ministry". Christians belong to the "Body". Prioritise your family, the Body and then those outside. And I agree, you are accountable for what God has placed in your trust. The end of Matthew 25 may also help. God never blessd anyone for over-arching ministry projects. Rather just succour the needy.

buluti:

I really would want responses along this line, am sorry if am deviating or expanding the thread, but to me the question is bigger than just "Tithe or Not to Tithe". The 2 schools have presented good arguments, so to let move on. If we "Tithe" how should it be pratised and if people are to give freely how should it also be pratised, is there a place for sacrificial giving in the proponents of that school. Lets expand this debate a bit.

I hope the abovde has helped. But please study and pay yourself. And no, these are all pertinent questions.

There is no NT outline for tithing, but plenty for giving. But I for one would like to hear how proponents feelo a tithe should be utilised. Hopefully they won't hide behind "it's a woship response".

God bless
TV

pilgrim.1:

Hi @chiegemba,

Lol. Well, I haven't come across any verse that says we are REQUIRED to pay tithes; and no, tithing is not a matter of 10% of one's income for the Christian. Do you have something (a verse, text, etc) that shows it is REQUIRED?

Probably d word "Required" wasnt d most appropriate word to use here but in d bible Malachi 3:8-10 says
[b]8[/b]Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.

[b]9[/b]Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.

[b]10[/b]Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

But as a Christian doesnt exclude contemporary christians tithe is tithe. But it doesnt mean that its mandatory 2 pay it but it is wise 2 do so cause dere is a reward 4 dat .

And d part in d bible where it says d 10% of ones income would look it up and post it 2. sorry don't have it memorized

Actually, there are some subjects that need to be discussed at length rather than stated in soundbites.

not disputin that but still could still be in summary because if one writes a whole page or two very few people would have enough patience to read it. besides what good would that have been if nobody or very few people reads it? "just sayin not tryin 2 criticize anybody's writin"

@ Pilgrim,

I won't let you weary me ! Recourse to long posts and slieghts of hand won't prove your point.

Christ being a Priest after the order of MZD, is to denote the unchanging nature and it's endless life. Period.

The MZD HP is contrasted as superior to the Levitical/Aaronical.

Keep insisting that the NT does not denounce tithing, why should it. It was instituted under the law - since done away with - and the one off payment by Abraham of the spoils of war (90% to the King of Sodom), was symbolic to show the superiority of MZD over Levi as priesthood types, not a pattern action for NTC to follow, and there is nothing to suggest that.

Trying to morph the discussion into something else by being semantic over non-essentials won't play.

Two types of Priesthoods copntrasted. Levitical and Melchizedekal. Melchizedekal shown to be superior to Levitical. Christ is after the order of Melchizedek. Period.

The Tithe was one of the points used to show the Melchizedekal as superior. Not a primer for NTC.

The writer of Hebrews was merely contrasting the Priesthoods and to a lesser degree the law and the superiority of Christinaity over Judaism.

It was not denounced anywhere in the NT; and I've shown how and why Christians would do well to tithe - not as a "MANDATE" or a "COERCED" exercise; but rather as an intricate part of our sacrificial worship in the new covenant.

Again, your ingenuity is staggering. a tithe of 10% = Sacrificial worship. How warped is that? Intricacy in worship? Listen to yourself.

Presumably the tithe being so intricate & crucial, and 10% being sacrificial was missed by both Paul and the Macedonians in 2 Corinthians 8/9?

I wish you had the integrity to come out and tell us what denominational teaching that is, and what part you play in your tradition? That is bluster at best.

Whether it's the Priesthood or the occupant, there is nothing to suggest tithing is incumbent or in any way considered as sacrificial worship for NTC. And Hebrews 7 does not suggest so.

More than that, the one reason why TITHES are there discussed is to show that the Melchizedek priesthood is a living one.

More evidence of your totally ignoring 1 Peter 1:20 that you proclaim so loudly.

Tithes are used to show the Melchizedek Priesthood is a living one? You cannot be serious? How does tithe denote life? Or everlasting in nature?

There is no instance in the entire Bible to suggest that it is an obselete priesthood, as we read in the case of the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood.

Again, trying to be semantic about corallary issues in order to appear to be right won't cut it.
We all know Christs priesthood is after the order of Melchizedeks, mentioned - just the once, and symbolic of Christs HP - but that doesn't suggest tithe as a NT Worship offering.

(b) That the tithes by NT believers are not rejected but rather received by One who still lives. This is what exactly is expressed in that verse, and the Amplified Version has so captured it well for our easy reading:

This is so wrong as to be meaningless. How does the Lord recieve tithes?

Perhaps, we all need to come to terms with the fact that even that verse does not present tithing as a matter of compulsion. I trust it is no longer difficult for us to see that our High Priest who is called after the order of Melchizedek does not "demand" tithes, but rather invites us to understand that it is an intricate aspect of our worship to God. Are we to tithe? Yes, as Christians we should - and beyond Heb. 7:8, there are other verses that demonstrate the power and truth in that aspect of our worship.

Will you please quit about compulsion? Everyone is agreed it can't be by law. You keep harping on about non-issues to make it appear that you have a case. You don't

And no it doesn't show it at all. It was symbolic to denote superiority. End of story.

Please show it (no doubt with your usual wuru wuru) beyond Hebrews 7:8. And the other verses that demonstrate the "power & truth" of tithing as an act of worship. No doubt you'll continue your boast of "revelation", but never actually share anything in a straightforward and impossible to deny manner.

I also note your new tactic of selective cutting and pasting to make it sound like I said something I did'nt and then write a treatise rejecting it. Whatever. I won't turn tail no matter how dirty you make it. You simply have no case and your assertion for a NT tithe as an act of sacrificial worship (sounds wierder the more I read it, utter bunkum), is baseless and without merit.

God bless
TV

@TV01,

Let me bring you round a few things you expressed in your rejoinder to bulutu's. Before that, just so that we don't run the risk of misreading you, perhaps it might be best to clearly state your points out instead of the abbrevations - they may not be very helpful when it comes to critical analysis of what you try to convey (especially the "Levitical HP and the Melchizedek HP" - does HP stand for [b]H[/b]igh [b]P[/b]riest?). Just an observation.

TV01:

I started as a tither as well. But my persuasions to the contrary came after months of study, prayer and discussion. There is nothing to suggest "tithing" is a NT Christian notion. However you must come to that conclusion yourself. Taking a stance based on anothers persuasion is the reason many Christians are manipulated by man-made doctrine.

I started out as someone who did NOT tithe, until I came to understand (after prayer, much study and discussions) that tithing is not a man-made doctrine. It is morally wrong to make sweeping statements as there is nothing to suggest "tithing" is a NT Christian notion, especially when you haven't offered anything on the points already made thereto.

TV01:

I'd also disagree that the whole notion rests on Hebrews 7:8, although I'd say that understanding it in context won't contradict all the other scripture which makes tithing a mute point or redundant practice.

Here's another mistake you often make. The whole notion does not rest on Hebrews 7:8. The reason why I have thus far limited my discussions to that verse is because you have offered absolutely nothing to demonstrate where TITHING is denounced in Scripture the way you have been doing all along!

TV01:

Let me ask, Who are those referred to in that verse? It's clearly The Levitical HP and the Melchizedek HP. As I've said the juxtaposition of those two types is to show the superiority of the Melchizedekal over the Aaronical/Levitical.

If the Melchizedek priesthood is superior to the Aaronic (as surely it is), where in Scripture do we read that the Melchizedek priesthood has been "REPLACED"?

TV01:

Verse 2 & 4: Clearly show it was the spoils that were tithed. Not income, or [previously owned chattel belonging to Abraham

And did the spoils not belong to Abraham?

TV01:

Verse 5: shows that the Levitical priesthood collected tithes under the law.

Did Hebrews 7:9 & 10 say that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek under the LAW?

TV01:

Verse 6: Shows that MZD was paid a tithe by Abraham
Verse 7: Shows that as MZD blessed Abraham, his HP is therefore superior to the Levitical one.
Verse 8: Shows the superiority in terms of an endless life (MZD), and that "here" (at that time under that dispensation - the law), mortal men recieve the tithe, but in the earlier case one without geneology and an endless life (MZD), recieved them. The emphasis is on the superiority of the Melchizedekal type, as the Levites tithed to Melchizedek (via Abraham).

What is the import of these words in that verse: "but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth." Why do you suppose that the apostle would use tithes of all things to demonstrate the superiority of the Melchizedek priesthood to the Aaronic and Levitical?

TV01:

Verse 9 & 10: Again emphasising the superiority of the Melchizedekal type over the Levitical.
Verse 11 & 12: Shows that the Lords HP is after the order of MZD. It also notes a changing of the law (under which tithe was commanded).

Abraham's tithing was not by any LAW or COMMAND! In the same way, the tithes Levi paid through Abraham to Melchizedek was not by LAW! I'm still interested in the verse you offered for your assertion that the Melchizedek priesthood has been "REPLACED".

TV01:

So how one can read this as an instructive for NTC to pay a tithe is beyond rational comprehension. It is doing no such thing. Neither is it a new perspective on the tithe, but merely a mischevious way of justifying it.

When you come round understanding that your assertive denials against the Melchizedek priesthood is not borne out by Scripture, then you'll see the point of the verse we've been discussing thus far.

TV01:

No one has claimed that those who give are not blessed for doing so. I don't believe that giving has to be sacrificial to counts as a worship response. Plus lets not forget that giving is a grace.

The Bible clearly states that our giving is a SACRIFICE (Heb. 13:15 & 16)! It is your tendency to make denials that I'm still calling your attention thus far. If you can afford to be humble enough to acknowledge God's Word, your problems will then be minimized.

TV01:

Could you please tell us how or why you think Hebrews 7:8 suggests that? Pilgrim.1 is trying to make that claim, but it isn't so.

I haven't read you proffering answers to most of my questions as yet.

TV01:

In exploring the tithing issue, we looked at whether it was commanded or not. If it's not commanded, then it can only be voluntary, if it's voluntary, what makes it different from giving (to whatever degree)? If it is distinct from giving, how so? If there are benefits, what are they?

Repeating the same tired old questions that ave been answered. I've offered that you drop the qualifying adjectives by which you've been cheating readers in your arguments. Tithing is NOT a question of "MANDATED" or "COMMAND" or "COERCION" or "FORCE"!! Tithing did not begin and end with the LAW! Why strenously make it a matter of COMPULSION where God's word does not do so for the Christian?

Trying to offer the passive adjectives of "voluntary" to qualify tithing is simply removing the basis for your arguments already. Whether "voluntary tithe", or "free-choice tithe" or any other qalifiers, the one thing you've been offering is a denunciation of [u]TITHE[u]! And that is the one thing I've been requesting of you: please show me the verse in the NT that denounces tithe the way you have been doing!

TV01:

If you tithe in "response", may I ask in in response to what? Is that which engenders a tithing response, different from that which leads to give (again to whatever degree). Can I overstress that giving is a/by grace?

Did Abraham give tithe to Melchizedek as a matter of COMPULSION or as a matter of GRACE?

TV01:

The tithing as "worship response" is one of the more bemusing arguements I've heard. Perhaps I've just misunderstood?

But you've also been using similar arguments to bemuse others as well.

TV01:

1. It's not applicable to NTC.
2. No and no.
3. You cannot, as he didn't.
4. It was a symbolic occurence, later expounded on as contrasting priesthoods.
5. Ah firstfruits, another misinterpreted OT practise.

It's soooo easy to make assertive denials where you have nothing to offer. People have genuine questions, and your denials are not going to help either you nor anyone come close to an understanding of what you often hurriedly circumvent.

TV01:

If you agree with the arguements for tithing based on Abraham/Melchizedek, that would have to be to the HP. That is The Lord Himself.

And what is soooo wrong with that?

TV01:

Give in response to a need (or to bless if you so choose)

Another queer way of skirting round the issue. Let me ask you: what NEED in Melchizedek prompted Abraham to give the former tithes? Why is it that you must often narrow your thoughts and refuse to see what other aspects God's Word presents on any subject?

TV01:

Nobody is baptised into a "ministry". Christians belong to the "Body". Prioritise your family, the Body and then those outside. And I agree, you are accountable for what God has placed in your trust. The end of Matthew 25 may also help. God never blessd anyone for over-arching ministry projects. Rather just succour the needy.

Is NEED the primary object of ANY type of GIVING in Scripture? Again, I ask: what "need" did Melchizedek have or express that prompted Abraham to give him TITHES?

TV01:

There is no NT outline for tithing, but plenty for giving. But I for one would like to hear how proponents feelo a tithe should be utilised. Hopefully they won't hide behind "it's a woship response".

If you are open to a discussion, I'll be more than willing to share. Since you have chosen to be this silly, what is the point humouring you? And again, TV01. . . your sly invectives are not helping this discussion. I think for the umpteenth time this is going to be sounded. I'm not going to put up anymore with that attitude from you if you don't have the cordiality of a gentleman to discuss.

chiegemba:

Probably d word "Required" wasnt d most appropriate word to use here but in d bible Malachi 3:8-10 says
[b]8[/b]Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.

[b]9[/b]Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.

[b]10[/b]Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

But as a Christian doesnt exclude contemporary christians tithe is tithe. But it doesnt mean that its mandatory 2 pay it but it is wise 2 do so cause dere is a reward 4 that .

And d part in d bible where it says d 10% of ones income would look it up and post it 2. sorry don't have it memorized


not disputin that but still could still be in summary because if one writes a whole page or two very few people would have enough patience to read it. besides what good would that have been if nobody or very few people reads it? "just sayin not tryin 2 criticize anybody's writin"

Hi again,

I think we shall have good cause to come to Malachi 3. Good to note that we can balance issues now - as tithing is not a matter of "REQUIRED" (lest people see it as asking that it is a matter of "COERCION" and "COMPULSION".

Regards.

Quote from: TV01 on Today at 12:53:16 PM
I started as a tither as well. But my persuasions to the contrary came after months of study, prayer and discussion. There is nothing to suggest "tithing" is a NT Christian notion. However you must come to that conclusion yourself. Taking a stance based on anothers persuasion is the reason many Christians are manipulated by man-made doctrine.[color=#990000][/color]

I started out as someone who did NOT tithe, until I came to understand (after prayer, much study and discussions) that tithing is not a man-made doctrine. It is morally wrong to make sweeping statements as there is nothing to suggest "tithing" is a NT Christian notion, especially when you haven't offered anything on the points already made thereto.

I stated my experience and my opinion, then advised that he not take my word as gospel, but seek truth for himself, whats sweeping or morally wrong with that?

Plus you haven't made the point of it being a Christian notion. You have just mishandled scripture in an attempt to do so.

Here's another mistake you often make. The whole notion does not rest on Hebrews 7:8. The reason why I have thus far limited my discussions to that verse is because you have offered absolutely nothing to demonstrate where TITHING is denounced in Scripture the way you have been doing all along!

Tiothing was only mandatory under the law. If the law is done away with and it was no where else instituted, why would it have to be denounced. Ask yourself where it was ever instituted as a practise above or beyond the law, and in a way that makes it part of NT worship.

If the Melchizedek priesthood is superior to the Aaronic (as surely it is), where in Scripture do we read that the Melchizedek priesthood has been "REPLACED"?

More of your sleight. Stop trying to make an issue of Priesthood. 2 types one superior, Christs like the superior one. I'm starting to believe you really are a girls blouse.

And did the spoils not belong to Abraham?

Utterly muddled. So spoils are Abrahams, gives 10% to God and 90% to Sodom?

Did Hebrews 7:9 & 10 say that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek under the LAW?

You can't even win an arguement you make on your own terms and have with yourself? Who is arguing for law based tithing? Again, the paying of tithe by Abraham to Melchizedek was to demonstrate the superiority of his Priesthood over the Levitical. As easily seen in context.

What is the import of these words in that verse: "but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth." Why do you suppose that the apostle would use tithes of all things to demonstrate the superiority of the Melchizedek priesthood to the Aaronic and Levitical?

I outlined this for you earlier. Because the lesser is blessed by the better. Abraham paying a tithe signified his acceptance of the superiority as referenced later in Hebrews.

Abraham's tithing was not by any LAW or COMMAND! In the same way, the tithes Levi paid through Abraham to Melchizedek was not by LAW! I'm still interested in the verse you offered for your assertion that the Melchizedek priesthood has been "REPLACED".

No one said it was by law. Please don't go puce barking up the wrong tree. There are only two types of priesthood, Christs ios lioke the second superior one. Stop terying to make this issue rest on an inconsequential corallary and blatant misinterpretation of scripture. Tithes don't demonstrate an endless life.

And I also note you selective (and still muddled) responses to posts.

The Bible clearly states that our giving is a SACRIFICE (Heb. 13:15 & 16)! It is your tendency to make denials that I'm still calling your attention thus far. If you can afford to be humble enough to acknowledge God's Word, your problems will then be minimized.

Forget Greek, try English. There's a difference between "sacrifice" and "sacrificial". It's always a sacrifice, but not always sacrificial a la ther macedonians. But as ever you chase down the non-essentials and write booming epistles about the inconsequential. You keep demonstrating that it's personal.

Repeating the same tired old questions that ave been answered. I've offered that you drop the qualifying adjectives by which you've been cheating readers in your arguments. Tithing is NOT a question of "MANDATED" or "COMMAND" or "COERCION" or "FORCE"!! Tithing did not begin and end with the LAW! Why strenously make it a matter of COMPULSION where God's word does not do so for the Christian?

Trying to offer the passive adjectives of "voluntary" to qualify tithing is simply removing the basis for your arguments already. Whether "voluntary tithe", or "free-choice tithe" or any other qalifiers, the one thing you've been offering is a denunciation of [u]TITHE[u]! And that is the one thing I've been requesting of you: please show me the verse in the NT that denounces tithe the way you have been doing!

Tithing is not mandatory. Thus it can only be voluntary. How does it differ from giving? What benefits accrue? In the absence of any answers to these, it can be seen only as the same and any seperate classification or need as mute. I keep it simple, why can't you. Windy and wrong!

Quote from: TV01 on Today at 12:53:16 PM
If you agree with the arguements for tithing based on Abraham/Melchizedek, that would have to be to the HP. That is The Lord Himself.

And what is soooo wrong with that?

Please tell us how now.

God bless