₦airaland Forum

TayoD,

How are you? I trust all is well.
You seemed very keen to initiate this discussion and now you have become somewhat scarce?
Does that mean you have realised the unsustainability of you (previous) postion?

There apppear to be a few people arguing for a sort of dual citizenship. no way Jose!
I don't believe the plain reading of scripture in anyway supports this.

God bless

Hi TayoD,

Personally I think your insistence on equating the "tithe" with the "gift" that priests always have to offer to be somewhat tenuous.

In the preceding 23 odd pages we have looked at this subject exhaustively.

The "tithe is synonymous with gift" argument is all that lefts to those on the side of mandatory tithing for NT Christians (and when I say "those", I think it's pretty much you sir!).

But because I quite enjoy our discourse, have huge respect (and much love) for you as  person and truly believe you are quite sincere, lets stay with it.

I appreciate your insistence on magnifying God's Word over personal testimony or anecdotal evidence (although I believe BabyOsisi's testimony aligns with the Word).

So please show from scripture, the basis and support for your thesis, and lets take it from there.

God bless.

Hi Bari_Kade,

How succinct, letting scripture speak (resoundingly) for itself.

Much appreciated.


Hi Everyone,

It may help to distinguish true church work from the multitude of man-made organisational business that masquerades as service to God.


God bless

Hi Hrvesthrt,

hrvesthrt:
Tithing is an honor.

If you think so.
But it is not however, a command, law or obligation for a disciple of Christ.

hrvesthrt:
As a church treasurer I see the inside of what tithes do.

I was also a church treasurer, and what tithes do is underpin a wholesale departure from core Christian doctrine, support heresies such as the clergy/laity split, focus on temples salaried service, celebrity ministry and emphasis on programs; in  a nutshell the wholesale incorporation of mammon and a rejection of the power of The Holy Spirit as the way to effect Gods will.

hrvesthrt:
If no one tithed there would be no church.

The above statement displays a singularly lack of understanding of what "the Church" truly is and means.

Overall your posts mostly draws from your personal experience and observations. Whilst I don't seek to belittle this, there are as many personal experiences and observations as there are believers. Let us prayerfully search the scriptures for insight and direction, and may The Holy Spirit lead us into all Truth.

God bless

Drusilla, Bobbyaf, Davidylan, TayoD,

Hi all and good work. I just revisited this, as at the first it did'nt seem like it was picking up speed. I appreciate all (although I can't say I agree with all) your contributions. Very interesting reading.

In this as in a lot of threads, people tend to fall (give or take a little) into certain schools of thought.

I would entreat us all to subject our positions to God and the leading of the Holy Spirit. Let's be careful not to make idols of our doctrine or be puffed up with knowledge.

I trust that if we engage in this with the desire to truly Know Him and His will, He will certainly open our eyes.

God bless you all.

Hi TayoD,

TayoD:
I wouldn't want to disagree with you two (Drusilla and TV01), just for the sake of keeping this conversation going, but I want to point out one important fact that I think you both missed in your write-ups. Jesus wasn't offering us a suggestion when He made that statement, it was actually a command. To make matters more serious, He actually asked us to give unto Caesar as much as we will give unto God. Our dedication to Caesar must be total as much as our dedication to God is total. This is actually something that was difficult for me to swallow until God revealed to me from the scriptures that the secular Government is actually an extension of God's authority on earth, and you all know how much God frowns at violation of constituted authority.

I had to read (and re-read) the above statement a couple of times  .

Particularly this bit;

TayoD:
Jesus wasn't offering us a suggestion when He made that statement, it was actually a command. To make matters more serious, He actually asked us to give unto Caesar as much as we will give unto God. Our dedication to Caesar must be total as much as our dedication to God is total.

My disagreement with you on this point is unequivocal.

Matthew 22:21
They said to Him, "Caesar's." And He said to them, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."
Mark 12:17 
And Jesus answered and said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they marveled at Him.
Luke 20:25
And He said to them, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

For completeness, I've copied your previously referenced scripture and the parallel ones.
Pray tell, where does this demand equal dedication to Caesar (and the things of) or God (and the things of).
It quite clearly demands we render to Caesar the things that are his.

I know we have points of doctrinal difference, and to be honest, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing or even a problem. It's a walk, it's growth, it's a maturing. We are all, by the grace of God growing into The Head.
But on this one I think we are poles apart.

For starters, your reading of this contradicts other passages of scripture.
How about not being able to serve two masters for a start?
Have you considered the scale of the conflict of interest that equal devotion to state and God would create for any devout Christian believer?

We are to be "subject" to authorities.
That is obedient to the laws of the land, not agitators against civil government (even if despotic or tyrannical) or even where there is a culture of civil disobedience (i.e strikes, protest marches etc. etc are not for Christians). But not in any way that compromises our adhering to the clear leading of scripture.

The answer the Lord gave was in response to a question specifically about taxation.
Whilst I agree it can be applied more broadly (say voting etc), I do not see how it can be construed to mean dedication or devotion to the state.

I'd be interested to know how one applies this practically (which is where many of the unsound doctrines being preached these days hit the rocks).

A quick aside at this point:
The narrative speaks specifically to rendering taxes to Caesar, as they are his due.
Please explain why so many churches (in countries where it is provided for) take advantage of tax breaks or reclaims on tithes or offerings from members. Do Christians not use the infrastructure and facilities provided for by taxes just like every other law abiding citizen? It's particularly puzzling when these breaks make participating churches legally subject to the state. My stance is that taking Caesar denarius is to "unequally yoke" the church to the state.

So to this point at least, I don't think either Drusilla or myself where wrong, quite the reverse.

Allow me to briefly comment about Daniel.

1. He was not a politician, he was commandeered into service. He was a servant.
2. He served with a Christian conscience, diligently and faithfully.
3. He did not allow his service to compromise his devotion to God.
4. It was the refusal to obey a state ordinance that led him to being cast to the lions.

(please note, I would apply this equally to a civil servant or a career politician).

I'll stop for now so we don't digress or tackle too many points at once.

I'm interested to hear you expound further.

God bless

Hi TayoD,

Apologies for the delay. I actually posted something earlier, but I've no idea what might have happened to it?

To set the ball rolling may I say this;

"All things are lawful, but not all things are expedient, all things are lawful, but not all edify".

Would I say point blank that a Christian cannot seek political office or be active politically?
No, I would'nt, but I would definitely say, "only if you can do it without compromising your faith and more than that, do it in a way that glorifies God", then by all means.

Truth is, I don't see it. He Himself said "My kingdom is not of this world". The Jews were anticipating a political/warrior messiah. That is, salvation throught the commomnly accepted worldly norms. No! no!! and thrice no!!! The whole message of the gospel is about entering the kingdom of God, not grabbing political power in this one (either through the ballot box, or by "holy wars" ~ the spiritual oxymoron of the 21st century!) and making it over for The Lords return. The current system lies under the sway of the wicked one. It's not meant for recreation or re-engineering (thats for individuals, who will then inherit the new kingdom of God/heaven).

I do believe we are to be subject to civil authorities (even tyrannical or despotic ones)and obey the law, in as much as the do not contravene the holy law (or royal commandment) given to us by the Lord.

A quick post to start. Lots more, but I'm keen to hear what others have to say. And TayoD sir, what sayest thou?

God bless

Hi TayoD,

TayoD:
@TV01,

Indeed we are all 'Called' in the NT, however, the call to the five-fold ministry is what I believe we are talking about here. In this regard, there are special callings by Jesus into these ministries. Not all believers are pastors, prophets, evangelists, teachers or apostles. The call into any of these ministries does not make the believer more equal than the others, it only places him in a special position of authority and responsibility. And by the way, these callings have nothing to do with ability or how self-righteous the believer is, it is all by God's choosing and will.

There are various schoos of thought about the "five fold" ministry. I essentially see NT Christian service as primarily "teaching and pastoral". Everyone 's an evangelist. I am yet to be persuaded that the Prophet and Apostle as present in the OT and early church are still relevent. Although that is a thread in itself and one that's been simmering for a while now. Maybe someone, maybe someday!

TayoD:
In the case of Samson, you will notice that he never lost his strength all the while he was in fornication until his hair was cut off from him. His hair was like our bodies today where the Holy Spirit dwells. The only reason he lost his strength was because His access to the Holy Spirit was cut off, and not because he sinned. He had been in sin even before this fornication incident and he still had his power for as long has the vessel where the Spirit of God dwells was still present with him.

Well articulated point about Samson. Point taken. Thanks.

TayoD:
The Bible encourages us to regard with double honour those that labour in the Word. This is not to bring about a pulpit-pew dichotomy, but it is just in keeping with the spiritual law of giving honor to whom honor is due. The issue of maturity and consecration you talked about can also be utilized to divide the brethren. All we need is some balance and love to walk it right.

Indeed it does, but again readings of that verse may differ. Again something that merits more in-depth discussion, but my stance is that honour is given, because such elders take on the additional labour of studying and feeding others, as well as all the other things (family, children, work etc etc) that men have to engage in (and already serving as elders).

In a sense I think this ties in with my maturity/consecration point, as it will increase the former and demand more of the latter to take on this burden of " labouring in doctrine". It is not to divide, as studying to be approved and labouring in doctrine is open to all. But the scripture recognises that not all do so, and enjoins us to honour those who do.

Maturity is a consequence of one's walk and experience and like all children that will always differ between individuals. Consecration is also a very individual thing, possibly related too and impacted by one's maturity, but again, that will differ from person to person. I think it's way too personal to be divisive, but it's not to be confused with outward shows of piety, religiousity or spirituality.

Regards

God bless

Hi TayoD,

TayoD:
In my honest opinion, only one thing makes you a Man of God: God's Calling. The principle is exactly what is said of Aaron: "No one takes this honor unto himself, except he that is called, like Aaron".

In a sense I absolutely agree, although my position is that in NT Christianity all believers are called.

TayoD:
TV01 made a valid point when he said the character we expect to be found in a MOG is what is expected to be cultivated by each Christian. And from what has been pointed out before now, the appelation was addressed to someone like Elijah whom I believe lacked the fruit of the Spirit in his life (you can tell if you follow his ministry closely).

Again, I agree to a great extent, except to note that Elijah was under a different dispensation. Technically, no one at that time had the fruit of the Spirit, which is the outworking of the "indwelling Spirit of God". It was under the dispensation of the law and at a time when anointing external and with was with oil (although I fail to see the captivation by many with "anointing" in this dispensation).

TayoD:
The issue of miracles and the likes are all gifts from God which is irrevocable even if the MOG wallows in sin (the gifts and callings of God are without repentance). To illustrate, remember how Elisha called wild animals to devour little children because they were making fun of his bald head? That was God's power put to wrong use. Likewise Elijah devouring those soldiers with fire even though they had done him no wrong. These are people, like the devil using God's gifts wrongly. God still never took those gifts away despite the wrong use. They needed those gifts to fulfill their callings as MOGs.

I can't say I agree here. If this holds true, pray tell why did Samson lose his strength?

I am still of the opinion that the whole "MOG" concept is just another mis-appropriated, mis-understood mis-construed and mis-applied concept/term. It's the outworking of a desire to differentiate, but in a carnal way. I believe the only difference between Christians is maturity and consecration.

I stand to be corrected.
God bless

Hi TayoD,

As promised, a quick update on this as yet concluded discussion.
To be honest, I was waiting for Syrup & Allonym to update as promised.
I trust they'll be back and figure other considerations may at this time be more pressing.
Syrup, in your own time, you know we love to hear your thoughts. Allonym, how is/was the thesis? Hope all went well.

TayoD:
@TV01,I have been immensely blessed by your scholarship on this forum.  However, I must say that I am a little dissapointed by the argument you put forth above.  How does tithing take away from the grace and glory of God?  Mind you, God only deals with every man on the medium of grace.  Even Abraham, paid his tithe through grace and I believe the same applies to the Believer today.  Your statement also suggests that it is always convenient to serve God, and anything that brings some suffering and sacrifice can't be of God.  I believe you know better than this, and you probably didn't weigh the full import of your statement when you wrote it.  So, I will not labour to refute that argument unless you insist that you are absolutely right.
As to Dru, I have mentioned that I didn't mean to offend her and I thank you for bringing my attention to that piece.  Thanks Bro.

The above was your response to my post below;

TV01:
Hi TayoD,

When one views the outworking of a "divinely mandated" tithe as detracting from the grace of our Lord and sullying the Glory of God, not to mention the bondage and suffering being caused to untold numbers of God fearing people, anyone with an ounce of reverence and compassion would be emotional. At the very least lets admit the issue is emotive. I think for the most part contributors have been judicious in their choice of words and at the same time accomodating of the "literary style" of others. Please go easy on Dru'.  Kindest regards.

That is not an arguement. That essentially summarises what I believe to be the outworking of preaching a divinely mandated tithe. Like I said earlier, I am more than happy to discuss it from both ends, the scriptural basis or the practical outworking.

Now back to the issues I believe you are awaiting responses too, posed here;

TayoD:
Syrup, TV01,

May I say that I have been immensely blessed by the knowledge and insights you two have brought to this discussion.  I have passively followed your discussions before now because I have been extremely busy.  However, I feel I need to respond to a common 'gray area' with respect to the codification of tithes into the New Testament, which seems open to so many interpretations.   

As a background, permit me to bring to your attention something which I believe you all know, and that is the fact that the Old Testament is a shadow and an adumbration of the New.  Every thing we see in the Old Testament (which is a shadow), must have it's reality in the New Testament.  With this in mind, the functions which the Priests carried out in the Old Testament (that is offering of gifts and sacrifices) must necessarily have its fulfillment in the New Testament.

We see a progressive revelation of the job of the Priest when Melchizedek stepped into the scene.  We see him receiving a 'tithe' of all the increase which Abram had.  The blood sacrifice was introduced in the levitical priesthood without the neglect of the tithe.  Both these Priesthood were shadows of the reality - the High priesthood of Jesus Christ which the Bible says is fashioned after the order of Melchizedek.

At this point, I feel I need to clarify TV01's concern about the fact that the emphasis in the new Testament is on the eternal nature of both priesthood (Jesus' and melchizedek's).  Please note that when the Bible talks about the "eternal"  aspect of both Priests, it is a reference to the nature of the priests (in Hebrews, the Bible talks about an endless life).  This has nothing to do with the functions of the Priests.

Jesus being a priest, must  necessarily offer 'gifts' and 'sacifices'.  The sacrifice was offered once and for all with, by and through His blood and this is fore-shadowed in the Old Testament by the blood of bulls and rams.  If the gift offered in the Old Testament was the tithe (and please note that this is consistent in both the levitical and melchizedek's priesthood), why would it be any diferent with the Priesthood of Jesus?

Now there are at least a few things you will need to clarify if you maintain a stand that the tithe is not the 'gift' that should be offered in the New Testament.

1.  The New Testament must reveal what the tithe foreshadows. 
2.  What exactly is the gift that Jesus offers today (and please, this is not to minimise the efficacy of His blood.  The sacrifice and the gifts are two different things altogether).
3.  If we see only the gift offered with melchizedek, and both gift and sacrifice offered in Levi, then why should Jesus offer only the blood and neglect the tithe which is the first revelation of the Priestly duties?  Logic and revelation dictates otherwise.

The above list is not by any means exhaustive, but I will like to get a feedback on them.

My best regards.

I'll come back to you as time permits, but for now let me say this;

The basis of your arguement is that "A priest must offer gifts and sacrifices".
The sacrifice element having being satisfied by the "once for all time" offering of the Lord, that leaves ythe "gift" element. You then make the gift element synonymous with (and insist it forshadows) the tithe.

Like I said earlier, I was waiting for the others to post. But to be honest, I neither see nor agree with the connections you made between gifts and tithing.

I'll explore a bit further in my next post, hopefully soon.

God bless

Hi Drusilla,

Drusilla:
No women should not be ordained to head churches.

But that is just my personal preference.

Following on from your quote above, may I ask why?

God bless

Hi Mlks-baby,

In response to your question (A Christian perspective).

My I start by stating that I unreservedly believe that women are of equal worth, value and significance in the sight of God. However, I also believe that God in His infinite wisdom has designed Man (Male & female) with gender specific roles and areas of influence in mind.

I believe this is borne out by creation order (contained within the biblical narrative & instruction), genetic makeup, behavioral traits and inclination and historical experience.

Ancillary to this I believe that it is important to
1. Delineate between the different spheres
2. Take a scriptural view in assigning merit/value to the different spheres.

For simplicity lets call the basic spheres are home, church and work (commerce & government).

I hold to the view that the home (and not the church) is God’s basic building block. Neither do I believe that church authority supersedes or has a mandate to usurp that established in the home. The home is to be headed by the husband. This order is to be carried over into the church, albeit on a slightly larger scale and with the functions (offices) of elders and deacons open to suitably qualified males. (no unscriptural “sole Pastor” leadership in my thinking). Indeed, a home even comprising of just a husband and wife is in a sense “church”.

With a husbands agreement a married woman should be free to aspire to any level of
achievement, be that academic, commercial or governmental as long as the pursuit it no way compromises God’s will and purposes.

As too the relative value of the spheres, I believe the home, the church and then work are the relative order of importance. Pursuit of agreed marital goals, family needs, fostering spousal harmony and raising godly children is always more important than a high-flying career (or endless church based activity), for both men and women. However, as I believe men should have prime responsibility for providing and women for caring, it’s a sacrifice that women may have to suffer more. Obviously there is room for agreement and manuvoure within these parameters.

Personally, while I am not yet married, I hope to be, and understand that “our” experience will be unique to us. Yet I am firmly convinced that with shared faith and beliefs, mutual love and understanding, a shared dependence on God and trust in His Word, all will be well (even is wifey earns more than me!).

May I close by saying that it was Christianity that emancipated women, not women’s lib, not feminism, nor any other civil rights movement. At a time in history when women were considered little more than chattel, God through the Apostle Paul commanded men to “love” their wives.

While I am not ignorant of the fact, that in the name of "Christianity" women have been oppressed (and in some places still are) by men men for centuries, I don't believe a swing to the opposite extreme is the answer. Gender equality is a misguided man-made concept. As for gender neutrality, that’s both inane and perverse,  the less said about that the better.

A reversion to biblically prescribed mores in the relationships between men and women would solve a lot of the ills that affect society. Restore harmony between the sexes and believe it or not really empower women.


God bless

ps
~ Daughters are subject to daddy’s authority until such time as they marry. At her
   husbands behest, a wife may refer to her new spouse as “Daddee”
~ The successful applicants for the vacant “wife” position will be required to supply
    own chain and sink.  And remember, there’s only one pastor in my house, me!
~ Presumably, I shall henceforth be known as “TV01 no mates” on this forum.

Hi Albion,

Hear, hear, Thanks.

Hi Drusilla,

Hope all is well with you. Say on.

Hi TayoD,

When one views the outworking of a "divinely mandated" tithe as detracting from the grace of our Lord and sullying the Glory of God, not to mention the bondage and suffering being caused to untold numbers of God fearing people, anyone with an ounce of reverence and compassion would be emotional. At the very least lets admit the issue is emotive. I think for the most part contributors have been judicious in their choice of words and at the same time accomodating of the "literary style" of others. Please go easy on Dru'.  Kindest regards.

Hi Allonym,

Thank you. Please, if you have time and the inclination, kindly show that not only are "Pastors" not like OT Priests, neither are they like the Apostle Paul (or Moses or David, etc, etc, ), or any of the other figures that some use to validate their claim to what is a totally man made mandate.

God bless us all.

Hi Syrup,

I trust all is well.

When contributing, I think it important not to drag the conversation away from the issue in question or allow it to morph into a totally different discussion. I realise that sometimes that cannot be helped and may even be essential for a more robust discussion and deeper understanding. It's also worth noting that individual participation can vary a great deal in regards to frequency, consistency, impact and other ways, most especially on long threads such as this one.

With that in mind, allow me to say a few things.

~ Tithing
The question at the heart of this thread being “Is it mandatory for NT Christians to tithe”? The discussion has raised many questions and touched on many aspects of the faith.

The arguments for the continuation of the practice has so far been based on two things
1. The codification of tithing within the Mosaic Law
2. Abraham’s tithe to Melchizedek

To me, point 1 above is a simple Law vs. Grace issue. The basis for point 2 is that As the High Priesthood of Jesus is fashioned after that of Melchizedek, our worship response should be fashioned after Abrahams.

~ Priesthood
When you joined/rejoined (although I realise you may have been an interested observer up until that point) the thread, TayoD had postulated point 2 as the basis for continuing the practice. This of course brought the priesthood in to focus.

TayoD said this – (664)
"There is no change of the Priesthood in this case.  The Priesthood we have today is fashioned after the order of Melchizedek.  So everything we see in the Priesthood of Melchizedek must necessarily be present today.

And I said this – (663)
The Lords Priesthood is “after the order of Melchizedek”  => Eternal.

And this – (665)
The main thrust of the symbolism of Melchizedek’s priesthood is it’s eternal nature. In almost all the references to Melchizedek’s priesthood, the qualifier is “Forever” speaking of the eternal (unchanging) nature, and/or “after the order of”, denoting it as a type, in the same way that the Aaronic priesthood was also a type.

So while I wholeheartedly agree that The High Priesthood of The Lord is patterned/based/fashioned/akin/in the likeness of Melchizedek’s, I don’t agree with TayoD’s point, which to my reading is claiming it to be identical, and in all ways the same, to the extent that a believers worship response must be identical to Abrahams to be valid. (Which under-girds point 2 of the argument for).

Our difference was a question of exactitude. I am in no way denying the typology or symbolism of Melchizedek’s priesthood.

Example ~ Man is made in the Similitude of God. That does not make us in all respects the same. Jesus is “in the form of God”, “the brightness of His glory”, “the express image of His Person” and “in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily”. An altogether different kind of likeness wouldn’t you agree?

Now, is tithing a bad practice? Not of itself, no. The basis is what we are discussing here. Voluntarily deciding to levy, contribute or tithe, be that collectively or individually is personal. However, preaching it as divinely mandated, robbing God and engendering a curse if one fails to do it religiously, is what I disagree with.

Neither do I subscribe to the arrogation of the “storehouse principle” or the introduction of the “set-man concept” into NT Christianity as a way to enforce what I believe to be a thoroughly unscriptural practice.

So I am not legislating against it, merely advancing my views as to the proper basis for it. 

As for “reasons to” as opposed to “types of” in regards to giving, viewed neutrally, it’s a matter of individual liberty. So re-reading that, but not as an argument for enforced tithing, means it’s a mute point.

Maybe we’ve been discussing at slightly odd-purposes, or with different qualifiers.
Yours being “tithing is allowed” mine being “tithing is not divinely mandated”, being the reason for my saying “nothing enacted means nothing to abrogate” in response to your saying “God nowhere mentioned tithes to Abraham as a law handed down to him”

Shall we at least clarify this before we proceed? Anyway, you know I enjoy and am always edified by your posts.

God bless

Hi Syrup,

Greetings. Apologies, I was hoping to respond earlier, as ever it was a question of finding the time. Believe me, I missed all the footie on Monday and Tuesday.

I’ll start at the end.
Where in the NT is tithing abrogated?
Nowhere specifically. Why? Because nowhere in the OT is tithing given as a perpetual ordinance.

So let’s move on to some of your other points.

You wrote
First, my allusion to the meaninglessness of "simple giving" is in reference to your earlier quote that "Christians give, nothing more and nothing less." That sounds like divesting NT giving of its divine significance and almost makes no meaning of a matter of great import. Glad to read also that you recognise that giving is an act of worship; so then the talk of giving as merely nothing more and nothing is less is to sound like even that act of worship is meaningless. It were better to have recognised the significance of NT giving in its connection to worship and not to have sounded like it was just an empty exercise.

My response
I have repeatedly stated that Christians (simply) give. No more and no less. That is to emphasis the simplicity of it, not to deny it’s the response to a need, motivated by love and an act of worship.

You wrote
Second, to now refer to giving in the NT in terms of "degrees" and "attitude" is to confirm my point as that there are different "types" of NT giving. In fact, in this connection of the various types and contexts of giving, 4get_me has done a very good job earlier in his outline on this (preview by clicking here and scroll down to the 600th entry), and I agree with him on that. This is not to "ritualise" NT giving; and if anything at all, to see "degrees" of giving in the NT is to ritualise a simple act of worship in this connection as well. As surely as there are 'degrees' of giving, there are 'types' as well; and if the latter is a tendency to ritualise it, then the former is equally guilty of ritualising it as well.

My response
Degrees => Marked by the sacrifice required
Attitude => Marked by cheerfulness & liberality
Both referenced previously and clearly outlined in 2 Corinthians 8 & 9.

So, in stating my point regards degrees of and attitude too giving, I was not by design or default confirming your point about “types”. Personally, the closest I come to “types” is “reasons”.  To grade or categorise giving and then ascribe benefits to the various types is to my mind ritualising. I hope you see my distinction, although I appreciate you may not share it.

For the sake of completeness I re-visited 4get-Me’ “types of giving” outline. 
I don’t see how give/share/communicate/minister/sacrifice and other such terms can be read to imply categorisation. Only my simple reading,  but it seemed to be a play on nuance. In the “Benevolence to Poorer Folk” category,4get_me goes on to state “We are to give to everyone who has need, both collectively or individually”, which effectively remerges his previously made “type” distinctions.

In the forth category “tithes & Special Offerings” He opens by declaring them “personal”. How? Surely something that you insist is a non-negotiable divinely mandated imperative is not personal. If the law of circumcision had not been abrogated, would we consider this a personal matter? While the law was in force, was it? The Lord Himself born under the law, subjected himself to this ordinance.

After claiming that some term tithe “evil” or are “averse” to it, 4get_me goes on to say that he “takes it upon himself”. Anyone is free to do this, as Jacob also did. Which of course begs the question “Why did Jacob take a vow to tithe, if it was already a divine ordinance?

This may also be a good point to re-visit my reason for posting to this thread. Voluntarily deciding to give a tithe (10%), or a portion (any percentage) and refer to it as tithe, I have no issue with and is not my point of entry into this discussion. The issue under discussion is whether a tithe (10%) is divinely mandated?

Reading 1 Corinthians 16 clearly shows that the referred to collection was a collective response (Corinth) to a particular corporate need (Jerusalem). If an individual or assembly wish to adopt this practice, fine, who is to quibble?  4get_Me goes on to say “he does so at designated times, based on how God has prospered him”. That is not tithing as under discussion by any stretch of the imagination. And at best it’s more in the style of Jacob than Abraham.


Which brings me to this;

You wrote
If you'd carefully read your response in those lines it would be apparent to you that you didn't take anything away from my point. Tithes preceded and was later incorporated into the Law. My point: you cannot therefore use the Law as the prism for scrutinizing and nullifying what preceded it especially in regards to tithes. God nowhere mentioned tithes to Abraham as a law handed down to him; the patriarch spontaneously gave tithes of all to the priest of the Most High God after the latter pronounced the blessings and ascribed praise to God. Abraham's response to Melchizedek's pronouncements is an act of devotion by faith and love - yes?

Point taken about circumcision and the Sabbath. Divinely mandated ordinances, later incorporated into the law. Fulfilled in Christ and dispensed with by grace. Nothing of any real essence that I disagree with here.

So, as for tithing, you make the point for me by stating “God nowhere mentioned tithes to Abraham as a law handed down to him”. Simply put, nothing enacted means nothing to abrogate. doesn't that bring us full circle?

Briefly revisiting the point about priesthood, shadows, types and the like. Suffice to say, my point was that the High Priesthood of the Lord is akin to Melchizedek’s, in it’s being eternal. That I believe is the Bibles emphasis, along with distinguishing the superiority of this type over the Aaronic type. Attempting to read Abrahams one time act of thanksgiving/worship of tithing the spoils of victory (which was customary at the time), as a divine ordinance and incorporate it as an essential part of the Melchizedek type (albeit incumbent upon believers) is to me going beyond what is written. The significance of that act was to denote the superiority of Melchizedek’s priesthood over the Levitical one.

God bless

Hi All,

I have a few question and I'm hoping that if we can come to an agreement/concensus, we can progress this discussion and narrow the area of focus.

Question 1 ~ Are we all agreed that recourse to the Mosaic law can in no way be used to justify tithing in this present age?

Question 2 ~ If we are agreed on 1. above, would it be fair to say we are discussing the current validity of tithing based on it's being mentioned in the scriptural references to Melchizedek's Priesthood?

Thanks.

God bless

Hi Syrup,

Good to hear from you. As ever your posts demand serious thought. In fact, there has been a part of this I've been grappling with which your post speaks to.

I'll respond to the first part immediately and hopefully others as time allows.

You said
To state that "Christians give, nothing more and nothing less" makes even the giving as meaningless as a blank paper. The Bible takes seriously any type of "giving" by God's people, whether in the OT or NT, and there are lots of texts showing that there is a divine significance to whatever passes from our hands and hearts for the Lord's cause.

My response (2 Corinthians 8:5-6, appended below)
Christians give. First themselves to God, and then by the will and grace of God, they give themselves (and of their substance) to others. Giving is a devotional act motivated by love, first for God and then as an outworking of this, love for others. What would prompt you to call "simple giving" meaningless? The only question I see is one of degrees (and attitude chapter 9:6-7, appended below), not types? To assign types to giving is to ritualise it. Do I read you correctly as implying “giving is an end in itself”? I fail to see why this would be necessary. Neither was I be implying that God does not take it seriously, just how simple and uncluttered the outworking of faith and love are.

Acts 17:24  God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.

I sure you are familiar with the scriptures that make it very clear that God’s primary concern is how we treat the poor, the needy and the oppressed. Unchanging in its emphasis though both the OT & NT. (So numerous, I won’t append any verses here unless you insist).

You further said
It is not a concern for people's needs that primarily forms the basis of our giving - it is rather an act of worship springing from the heart that is the foundation of every type of giving expressed in the Bible. The needs of people are only secondary and do not take precedence over the act of worship.

My response
Giving to the needy is the act of worship. I don’t see a distinction. And forgive me if I’m reading you incorrectly, but the way you’ve termed it makes it sound like a ritual sacrifice?

You said
Tithing preceded "the Law of a fleshly commandment", and if it is disavowed by those who read it only in connection with the Mosaic Law, then even the NT "giving" is not a spiritual grace at all but also a work-based theology cloaked in the lingo of grace.

My response
Both the Sabbath and circumcision predate the Law and where to be everlasting covenants. They where also incorporated into Mosaic law. But the NT makes it clear that such rituals avail nothing (Colossians 2:16, Galatians 5:6 & 6:15) as all these former practises prefigure (and are fulfilled in) Christ and are types/shadows of spiritual realities. I think I amply showed (or should I say that 2 Corinthians 8/9 does), that giving is a grace.

2 Corinthians 8:1 Moreover, brethren, we make known to you the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia: 2 that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded in the riches of their liberality. 3 For I bear witness that according to their ability, yes, and beyond their ability, they were freely willing, 4 imploring us with much urgency that we would receive* the gift and the fellowship of the ministering to the saints. 5 And not only as we had hoped, but they first gave themselves to the Lord, and then to us by the will of God. 6 So we urged Titus, that as he had begun, so he would also complete this grace in you as well. 7 But as you abound in everything--in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in all diligence, and in your love for us--see that you abound in this grace also. 8 I speak not by commandment but I am testing the sincerity of your love

2 Corinthians 9:6 But this I say: He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. 7 So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work. 9 As it is written: "He has dispersed abroad, He has given to the poor; His righteousness endures forever."* 10 Now may* He who supplies seed to the sower, and bread for food, supply and multiply the seed you have sown and increase the fruits of your righteousness, 11 while you are enriched in everything for all liberality, which causes thanksgiving through us to God. 12 For the administration of this service not only supplies the needs of the saints, but also is abounding through many thanksgivings to God, 13 while, through the proof of this ministry, they glorify God for the obedience of your confession to the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal sharing with them and all men,

Please read this in conjunction with John 1:16-17

John 1:16 And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

I was hoping that at some stage we would move on to discussing the outworking of Christian giving and tithing in this age. But one thing apparent, is that some see the tithe as a spiritual thing transcending the covenants, and it such it stands alone and is still in force. I for one find that hard to marry with what I see as NT practise. Maybe it would help is someone could show some other precept/principle which is similarly applicable/treated.

God bless

Hi Otokx, Thanks, I am encouraged. Hope all is well. God bless.

Hi TayoD,

Thanks for the response. Mine follows.

Quote.
"There is no change of the Priesthood in this case.  The Priesthood we have today is fashioned after the order of Melchizedek.  So everything we see in the Priesthood of Melchizedek must necessarily be present today.  You will notice Melchizedek didn't offer any sacrifice in the Genesis account.  I believe this could be the Spirit of God's intention to make us see that the sacrifice in the New Testament will be something done at one time and not a daily sacrament has practised in the Levitical Priesthood".

Response
The main thrust of the symbolism of Melchizedek’s priesthood is it’s eternal nature. In almost all the references to Melchizedek’s priesthood, the qualifier is “Forever” speaking of the eternal (unchanging) nature, and/or “after the order of”, denoting it as a type, in the same way that the Aaronic priesthood was also a type. The typology inherent in the Levitical priesthood is at least equally relevant. The Pentateauch takes great care to detail the rituals and sacrements of the Levitical priesthood. At the very least, the space devoted to it in scripture would beg this consideration.

Please note Melchizedek was “made like the son of God” not vice versa. Melchizedek was a man and not divine. Melchizedek was/is not seated at the right hand of the Majesty on high. What covenant did Melchizedek ratify? With what blood? The type denoted by Melchizedek fails to speak of access to God or purification of the conscience.

Even in Hebrews, more space is devoted to the shadow pattern of the Aaronic priesthood.  Both Aaron & Melchizedek’s priesthoods are symbolic. So we differ from your opening sentence, the High Priesthood of The Lord is not fashioned after Melchizedek’s. Rather both Aarons & Melchizedek’s are types of priesthood whose fullness is in Christ. To my mind, an insistence that tithing has to continue in order to fulfil the “gift” aspect is tantamount to saying that the Lords sacrifice was in some way incomplete. Even the gift offerings you mention where always livestock or produce, covered in the Lords once for all sacrifice. The gifts where never monetary.

And of course there was no sacrifice, the sacrifice is for atonement (for sin), of which there is not mention in Melchizedek’s priesthood as it was but a type. This aspect is prefigured in the Aaronic priesthood.

Abraham gave Melchizedek “a tenth of the spoils” on one occassion. There is nothing to suggest this was a recurring devotional practice. No mention of it in the life of the heirs with him (Isaac & Jacob) of the promise.

Quote
"Within the Mosaic law, the tithe was meant primarily for the levites.  The tithe is offered to God now through the local assembly which represents God's house (remember where the tithe should be brought according to Malachi).   Do you realise we have no direct access to God even in this dispensation?  Our access is Jesus Christ and that is why we pray in His name.  Likewise, our gifts are offered to God through Him.  Though the gifts are given to the local assembly, we have a messenger of God within that Assembly who receives it and disburses it as required by the New Testament for the administration of the church and to meet the needs of the poor".

Response
The command to bring the tithe into the storehouse was given to Jews, under the OC, and related to a physical temple. We are Christians, under a new dispensation and there are no physical buildings. God does not need or require physical sacrifices or gifts.

Acts 17:24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.

I maintain my position that there are no “Messengers” of God within (running) the local assembly. The NT nowhere requires funds for the running of a church organisation. In scripture, money only ever moved  in response to physical need of the brethren. Nothing else.

Quote
"The fact that the tithe is a 'legal' requirement does not make it less a gift.  It is morally required of me to take care of my household, but at the same time, the recipients of my God-given duties consider my gesture as a gift.  Even though we are to pay our tithes, we are supposed to do it with a willing and gracious heart.  God will not force anyone to pay it".

Response
Do you consider your taxes a gift? Or your duty to your household as moral only? 1Timothy 5:8 says otherwise. It is at once a divine obligation, cultural imperative and a legal requirement. And I don’t think that anyone thinks that parents providing for their offspring (or Husband for his wife) is a gift gesture.

Quote
Tithing is still a work of grace.  Abraham was not under the law, but he paid his tithe.  There is work through grace.  Paul said he worked harder than others because of the grace of God.  Grace prompts you to do good works, though you are not justified by the works.  I agree with you that we are meant to give to the poor and needy.  However, I see in the New Testament that this giving is done through the church.  That is why the Seven were appointed in the Book of Acts to administer the church finances to serve the poor.  We are meant to give to the church with the church administering these gifts as required.

Response
Tithing is not grace it’s law or at best custom. Abraham paid a tithe once. I’m not quibbling about how offerings are administered within the local assembly, but even here, individuals have leeway to give as they see fit outside the body. And according to 1 timothy 5:8, and my reading of scripture, the family needs are prioritised over church and public giving.  The NT church is to have all things in common. (I suppose the notion of a tithe allows people to neglect this by claiming to have fulfilled their obligation of 10%).

Quote
"The scriptural basis for the set-man is there in the New Testament.  In the Book of Revelation, Jesus made a dinstinct separation between the Chruches and the Pastors/Messengers.  This sghows that He has appointed one person (the Pastor) as the overseer of the local assembly.   In the Book of Acts, we saw a deliberatiion of the church in chapter 15, that the final say was by the pastor of the church in Jerusalem - James.  The elders may have had something to say, but the final decision was with James.  By the way, all the five-fold ministries are subject to the Pastor.  Every action of any christian must be done via a local assembly.  That's the revelation of the New Testament".

Response
TayoD, how can you skip the clear reading of the epistles to Timothy and Titus, the whole narrative of Pauls work in establishing assemblies and declare that because the Lord sent an angel or messenger (not a Pastor in any possible interpretation) to the churches, that that messenger was the leader of the congregation. You also claim this as evidence for a clergy/laity (leader/follower) split, which is  nowhere to be found in scripture. James was an elder. He may well have been wiser, more mature or experienced, but had no more authority and no higher position than any of the other elders.  And no, the Apostles where not subject to him or to any other pastor. “Apostle” was a foundational role (now defunct along with Prophet) used to establish the church (after which they would have been elders in their local assemblies as Peter described himself. After all could James possibly have been senior to Peter?). The letter you referenced was from the Apostles, Elders and brethren. No “singular pastor” authority was mentioned. The church today has Elders (in plurality) and deacons.  The church's job is to witness (evangelise) and teach. And by the way, pastor/shepherd/elder/bishop/overseer are all different renderings of the same role. No hierarchies. Whilst I agree that there is to be order and authority in the local assembly, this does not have pre-eminence over or the right to usurp the order God has established in the home.

Thanks for the discourse, I really appreciate it. It's really challenged me.

But my position remains ~ No tithe, no set-man.

God bless.

Hi TayoD,

Thanks for the post and the kind words. I'll try and state my position a little more fully. Responding first to paragraphs 1-3 of your last post.

Hebrews 7:12 – For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law

Tithing was introduced 1. for the Hebrews/Jews.  2. As part of the Mosaic law and 3. specifically for the Levitical priesthood (in absence of a physical inheritance along with the other 11 tribes).  Said law and priesthood have now being changed. I fail to see how one can  conclude that tithing must as a rule always accompany priesthood? We are agreed that tithing predates the law. Historical records show that it even predates Abra(ha)m’s time. Does this and the fact that it was incorporated into the Mosaic law mean that it has to be retained under the covenant of grace? NT reference to tithing is always on the basis of 1-3 above.

The Lords Priesthood is “after the order of Melchizedek”  => Eternal.
The Lord is a High Priest (typified by Aaron in the OT), but priesthood is universal to all believers in this age. And please note Levites where not priests, they did not minister to God. Only the house of Aaron (taken from the tribe of Levi ministered to God as priests).

The tithe was primarily for the Levites (for the sake of simplicity lets ignore the orphan, widow, stranger and feasting aspects for now), of which a further tithe was given to the High Priest. How do you conclude that the tithe was a gift to God? The High  Priest only ever received 10% of the 10%?

Kindly explain how the tithe is offered to God as a gift by The Lord in the current dispensation?

In His role as High Priest, The Lord is at the right hand of God making intercession for the saints. Your stance seems to suggest He is also offering physical gifts in the form of tithes?

Your argument (at least in part) is based on your opinion that “tithes equate to gifts”? The tithe was a legal requirement. Gift would more aptly describe, offerings termed “heave”, “freewill”, “thanksgiving” and the like. Gifts are always freely given.

Please offer additions/corrections/alternatives if you will, but as a NT Christian I see only two gifts I can offer to God (apart from my self).

1. Hebrews 13:15 - Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name. ~Thanks & praise!

2.The only other way to give to God is to give to the poor and needy. The orphans, the widows and the strangers mentioned earlier.

NT Christians give, nothing more and nothing less. It is always according to one’s hearts desire and expected as a normal part of the Christian life, particularly as one grows in grace. Giving is actually a spiritual grace in direct contradistinction to tithing, which is a work, based on the law of a fleshly commandment. 2 Corinthians 8-9 expounds this beautifully.

As for paragraphs 5-7 of your post, it sounds plausible, but is mostly conjecture and supposition. Scripture always bears itself out. If you care to support this with scripture, we can talk more.

Paragraph 8. No, Abram did not inquire, you then link that to a “set-man” and the local assembly concept of ask no question? There is no scriptural mandate for this “set-man” idea. An assembly of believers is never accountable to or led by one person. It is always a plurality of elders, except in Gods basic unit, which is the family, led by the husband.

Like I said in response to your first post, interesting reading. But I am yet to be persuaded.

God bless

Drusilla/Gwaine,

I've enjoyed listening in on your discussion.

"Another Jesus"?

In fact quite a few of them. While we all fall short, but it's hard not to see that there are wholesale attempts to "re-invent" The Lord and "re-engineer" the faith, so the gospel no longer challenges or confronts, so there's no longer a cross. Whatever your state, you can find a church that will comfort and not challenge you.

The Bible is littered with examples of those (usually the very people one would consider custodians of the oracles of God) who insist on worshipping God on their own terms.

The modern day outworking seen in half truths and heresies like the "prosperity gospel" previously mentioned.

And yes, I witness that a Holy Spirit led reading of the scriptures definitely helps one discern, but even a literal reading of scripture must make one wonder at some of the excesses?

With another Jesus, comes another gospel and another spirit.

Thought provoking. Please, if you have more insight to share, I'd like to hear it.

God bless.

Hi TayoD,

Saw your post. I thought it made interesting reading, but I can't say I agree with your conclusions.

Are you saying that tithes are the "gift" part of the priestly ministry? and/or, that tithing is for the priesthood? and/or, that tithing is a reflection of what we think of ourselves as His work and our place in His creation?

You also seem to be saying that there is a mystery to the tithe, which goes something like this;
~ God spoke ten creation commands
~ one of which pertains to mankind
~ to "identify" with the creation (God as Creator?) we must "identify" with this particular command
~ We do this by giving a "tenth" (the best tenth)
~ The fact that a "tenth" was stipulated in the Levitical law "suggests" this is correct
~ It is expected of "each one of His creation"

I haven't read the book you referenced, but this explanation is totally new to me.
In fact, maybe I don't disagree, maybe I just don't get it?

I'd appreciate if you could elucidate some more.

God bless.

Elampiro, well said.
Gwaine, I read your reply to Elampiro's post (forgive me if I'm wrong) as you essentially agreeing?

Just like in the world many in "church" are very keen to remove gender distinctions.
The Bible while not ajudging men to be superior to women, clearly outlines different roles, areas of influence and expectations of men and women. Attested to by the complimentary differences in our make-up.

The whole "Reverend/Pastor Mrs" phenomenon (and I fall about laughing whenever I hear the "Prophetess to the nations" tag) is a shame. Subverting God's ordained order to the will worship of weak men and manipulative women.

The Lord knows those who are His.

God bless

Hi Gwaine,

Gwaine:
That was all I was after - to clarify from you how the OT precepts had
become redundant. And after all, we've come back to ground zero to
note that the "precepts" have not been redundant - as you proffered
with the examples of circumcision and Love of God. They may have
different forms of application in both covenants, but the precept as
such holds true.

Do I understand your point as being;
The law has not been made redundant, rather it has changed (Hebrews 7:12)?

So for example, Atonement still has to be made for sin, but I don't have to kill anything (Due to the once for all time sacrifice of the Lord) ? And things are more spiritual (i.e. circumcision) than physical?

If so, point taken. And I'm more than happy to concede that you are right.

In the context of the discussion, I was making the point about mis- (interpretation, application, use) of the OT precepts in the NT dispensation. So is atonement redundant? No. But sacrifice of livestock certainly is. Is anointing done away with ? No, but is it solely for one or a few? No!

I hope I've made myself clear.

As for the references to Judaic practice, I was being equally facetious.

God bless

Hi Gwaine,

Let me try and clarify my position.

The essence of the OT was Love of God and your neighbour. I don't see that as having changed in the NT. But we have moved from a works based/appeasement/ritual/lawkeeping way of doing so.

Circumcision is always a good metaphor. It was of "the flesh" now it's of "the heart".

So does the precept on physical circumcision still apply? No (that's my position anyway).
And does that in any way detract from Love of God or man? Again no.

As a general rule I find that anything from the OT that is relevant in the NT is usually mentioned in the NT.

I hope I've made myself clearer.

God bless

ps, If you do choose the "Jewish Priest" option, presumably you get to keep some of the offering?
However, I won't be seeing you at the synagogue. It'll have to be a proper temple or at least
a transportable Tabernacle.

Hi Gwaine,

Thanks for your rejoinder. In response to your post.

Gwaine:
So, how has the OT precepts become redundant?

As concisely stated by mrmayor, the whole of the OT is summed up in the Royal law of Christ. Love, for God and one another.

Am I saying that the OT is irrelevant in it's entirety? No, I am not. But clearly somethings do not apply. Not to mention that some things are being blatantly missapplied to the detriment of the faith and the brethren in this dispensation.

Point in question ~ "Touch not my anointed"

In the OT only Kings, Prophets & Priests were anointed. Now all who put their faith in Christ are. In the NT the word is used twice, once to assure us that we all have the anointing and once in relation to the sick. Not to mention that the three OT roles mentioned are in a sense inherent in all believers in this dispensation.

The use of TNMA to silence legitimate questions or testing amongst brethren is not biblical. As is it's use to elevate certain people beyond accountability, regardless of their actions or utterances.

Gwaine:
Are you quarrelling with some people or what?  

Nothing personal sir, but having experienced liberty in Christ, the thought of becoming a "slave to men" is anathema to me. I also realise it's my duty to contend earnestly for the faith once and for all delivered to the saints (i.e. me!). Am I always right? No. Do I get it wrong? Often. I am more than happy to be corrected when in error and assured when in doubt. I am subject to rebuke, chastening and scourging like everyone else.

Gwaine:
"No one"? Your statements are so broad yet sadly narrow in the sense that
there are lots of Christians actually sacrificing, suffering, enduring privation,
rejection and abasement in witnessing for the Lord Jesus.

Apologies for the broadness of my statement. "No one" was a bit sweeping, and not meant to be taken strictly as read. Apologies also to those who are truly witnessing for Christ. I trust they will not take offence, knowing it was not directed at them.

God bless

ps, What do you reckon? will 2 turtledoves adequately atone for my misuse of words? or maybe I could get away with a simple grain offering?

Hi Otokx,

otokx:
there is an erroneous doctrine which some lazy Christians have taking to, they are taught that giving to the church, pastors is the best form of investment

Well said. And so true.
1. First they reinvented the meaning and essence of the term "Pastor".
2. Then they re-engineered his mandate, and
3. reinforced this error by missaplying OT precepts like "Touch not my annointed", they
4. then bolstered this with "bless the man of God and God will bless you" teaching, and
5. nailed it with warped interpretations of authority and submission.

otokx:
They don't understand that the gospel is about things of eternal value.

No, because they are too busy plugging/being suckered by  the "give to get" teaching (and always in the here and now).

Having re-introduced redundant OT precepts, they couldn't help but bring the promises along with them. All material. All temporal.

One of the big differences in the NT is "Eternal Life in Christ Jesus"
No one want to so much as contemplate the sacrifice, suffering, privation, rejection and abasement that one may well have to go through to truly witnes for Him and lay hold of that.

It's religion for the greedy, venal and downright rapacious.
The cross has no meaning for such.

It's church Lord, but not as we know it!  .

God bless