₦airaland Forum

KunleOshob:
@Viaro/ trauggot

Okay i am willing to accept that tithes was never "abolished" for christians as long a you also admit that tithing was never part of christianity ab initio so the issue of abolishing it does not even arise. Tithing was never taught by Jesus nor the apostles that were mandated to establish the faith and spread the gospel,

Hello KunleOshob,

I am at odds with your statement that Jesus never taught tithing - that is a denial of Matthew 23:23. I don't want to go about that long route again, maybe another day when we have an appropriate thread, viaro will stand ready to share why anti-tithers have no leg to stand in denying Matthew 23:23. The best you guys can say is that you do not like that verse, but not to posion the minds of simple readers by saying that Jesus never taught tithes. Please.

tithing was only smuggled into christianity between the 6th and 8th century by the RCC as a manipulative strategy of rasing additional funs for the use of there church.

That's wrong and borrowed from untaught theologians - it so happens that one of the loud mouths that has been recycling that drivel is Russell Kelly, Ph. D. . and I have sat him up on that false statement. The point was that if we care to look carefully, Christians were actually giving in the very same manner as they read in the OT scriptures - that is what Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 9, and nobody back then in early Christianity had issues with it. The problem is that some secular encyclopedias mislead people into thinking that tithing was a late 6th century doctrine in Christianity, but such encyclopedia would not tell you that they are discussing the political establishment of something that predated such a period.

So you guys are right as far as christianity is concerned it was not abolished as it was never a christian doctrine in the first instance but an obsolete teaching borrowed and and twisted from judaism.

No, it was not an obselete doctrine borrowed from Judaism - that is why I took some time to show that no sound theologian of repute uses hebrews 7:18 to cancel out or 'abolish' tithes. Why? Tithes were not borrowed "from Judaism", but rather it is the other way round - Judaism adopted it from an earlier source, which was not pagan in origin. It was for this reason that the author of Hebrews 7 wanted to make clear in verse 8 that his readers understood its continuity by showing that Levi also gave tithes in Abraham long before even Levi was born!

I know we all have our convictions about these things, but while i may respect yours, I cannot agree with you that tithes were "borrowed from" Judaism - that would be twisting the Word of God to make it say what it does not.

But I also recognise the concern of many Nigerians about this subject. Even though I'm at a disadvantage for not being in the country, I think we can help others understand the subject better by discussing clear pointers from Scripture rather than making unwarranted statements. The Malachi 3 passage has caused so many people a lot of trouble; but just above I have just shared another way of looking at the subject of robbing God which many people miss.

olowolekan:
It's sad that people put themselves in darkness despite very close to the ligth.You read it yourself from the Holy Bible and yet you cannot understand.You better repent and ask for mercy.Tithe is not optional .Anyone who does not pay tithe is a thief and is robbing God.This is the word of God.

Okay, let me try and share on this same issue about robbing God through tithes and offerings. This is one of the concerns of both tithers and anti-tithers (as well non-tithers and observers - just so I don't run the risk of putting everyone in a box).

Does Malachi 3 say that those who do not give tithes are robbing God? I, viaro, cannot deny that is what verse 8 declares: "Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings".

Now hang on a minute, so we don't start rushing off to verse 9 and dash ourselves some unwarranted curses in freelance style. I just want to say here that there are many, many ways to rob God than we think about tithes and offerings and . . yes, "money". Let me share a few, please:

(a)  while many people use Malachi 3 in various ways (whether for or against tithing and offerings), it seems that we often FORGET something vital - the people actually were bringing tithes and offerings to God, and the prophet Malachi actually acknowledges this fact!

(b)  so, if they were bringing tithes and offerings, why did God accuse them of robbing Him in verse 8 and then cursing them in verse 9? The answer is simple: it was rather a matter of QUALITY and not 'quantity'. Yes, brethren, we 'rob' God many times when the quality of our worship is tainted by all sorts things - I shall get back to this point, because I believe that was what Malachi was stressing in chapter 3.

(c)  so what examples in Malachi showed that the people were bringing tithes and offerings? Let's read a few:

[list][li]Malachi 1:8 - they offered polluted bread on God's altar[/li][/list]

[list][li]Malachi 1:11 - God was looking for a 'pure offering' from them[/li][/list]

[list][li]Malachi 1:13 - God clearly said that they brought Him an offering, but the quality of their offering was "that which was torn, and the lame, and the sick" - yes, they brought an offering, but it was such kind of polluted and sickly stuff that they offered[/li][/list]

[list][li]Malachi 2:13 - they also sullied the quality of their offering in other ways, and thereupon God rejected the kind of offerings they brought - 'this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand'.[/li][/list]

Please understand - Malachi 2:13 shows that the people indeed brought offerings to God; but verse 1 was particularly addressing the leaders ('O ye priests, this commandment is for you'). They are the very ones that stand to direct the quality of the worship brought to God by His people; therefore, if things are in such a dismal state, then God directs His controversy at the leaders.

Now, we come to Malachi 3 and see that it addresses both the people and the priests ("for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation" - v.9). But what exactly was the charge? Notice verse 8 does not accuse them of not bringing tithes and offerings - it simply said 'in tithes and offerings' - and we have see above in several verses that the whole complaint was about the quality of offerings that they brought in worship. Such quality affecting the worship that we bring to Him is why on many occasions He refuses them - ". . insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand" (Mal. 2:13).

So, okay, the people were bringing offerings - but it was the quality: it was sickly stuff, which we would not dare bring before our Governors. But more to the fact was that their very lifestyle stank before God - and that was why He rejected their offerings and would not receive it with good will from their hands. Let's see how this plays out in our Christian worship -

(a)   Malachi 2:13 shows us why God discountenances worship that robs Him: when we do not bring Him the glory due unto His name! Just imagine an altar covered with tears, with weeping, and with crying out - HOW does such a worship bring God the glory due unto His name?? What this means is simple -

[list][li]Churches where 'tithes and offerings' or any other 'offering' do not positively impact the worshippers in purity of life is absolutely robbing God! If the type of ministry that is before us is one that brings tears, weeping and crying out among Christians, the leaders should check themselves seriously! They are the ones robbing God of His glory when these leaders lay heavy burdens upon worshippers so that tithing and offerings are no longer joyful! I'm not accusing any church or anybody - but check to see what the quality of your worship entails: does it rob God of His glory? Is 'giving' (whether tithes or offerings) a matter of tears for worshippers and smiles for your leadership?[/li][/list]

[list][li]There are many ways to 'rob God' - the other passages in Malachi tell us so much about this. For instance, Mal. 2:11 tells us that another way we 'rob' God is when we profane His holiness and bring or endorse strange worship into our lives and worship! Yes, many Nigerians are concerned about this (which places me at a disavantage since I'm outside the country); but we don't need to look so far to see the 'profanity' and 'strange' stuff that many people notice have been openly endorsed into our Christian churches![/li][/list]


I could go on and outline so many other points about 'robbing' God, but the point is that it is not only by tithes and offerings that we do so. When we shamelessly deny God His due glory, and cause people to be in tears and weeping in their worship - we actually are endorsing a 'civilized' form of robbing God. That is where true repentance should be - and not in the concern of whether we bring money to any treasury!

Traugott:
@viaro: You flatter me. and thanks for the post above. Remain blessed!

Haha! patience bro. . I'd try and do that reply email later tonight - I'll try. Be very blessed.

^^Why did we look at these excerpts on Hebrews 7:18 in the above post? Simple: to show that no sincere theologian worth his degree or mark would use that verse to argue that 'tithes are abolished'. They know that if they have to follow the rules of Biblical exegesis (2 Peter 1:20), they cannot use that verse to make any accurate statement that it was referring to 'tithes', nor can they use it to argue that 'tithes' were weak and unprofitable, nor yet that therefore that verse declares that tithes are 'abolished'.

Indeed, there are a few anti-tithing schools of thought that try to argue that that verse says 'tithes are abolished', but when asked what is meant by "the weakness and unprofitableness thereof", they lose the very ground of their own argument! Why so?

First, because the Bible does not teach anywhere that tithes are mentioned as "weak and unprofitable" - NO VERSE IN THE ENTIRE BIBLE teaches such drivel.

Second, because tithes were never given for the purpose of making anyone "perfect", it cannot be argued that verse 18 was addressing tithes - it is not a salvific issue (because it was not an element of salvation).

Third, following the rules of Biblical exegesis where we compare verses with other parts of the Bible, we find that it was the Law that was "weak and unprofitable", and NOT TITHES. A quick check with major Bible references will show the cross-references to include Romans 8:3 ("what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh" and Acts 13:39 ("justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses".

Fourth, that same Hebrews 7 does not once hint that 'tithes' were abolished nor were they weak and unprofitable - which was why Levi's tithes were subsumed within Abraham's tithes (verse 9); also why verse 8 declares a continuing act of tithes on the basis of the one who lives perpetually. Anti-tithers either have to acknowledge the veracity of verse 8, or categorically deny what it says without substance!

Fifth, even though verse 8 shows a continuity and NOT an abolishment ("there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth", it does not argue that it is compulsory! It rather draws out the heart of the believer in the very same way as Abraham's heart was drawn - voluntarily and NOT COERCIVELY! This is why the very next verse 9 declares that Levi gave tithes to Melchizedek without any Mosaic law to do so.

In all this, there could surely be more to expound upon, but I have tried to focus on Hebrews 7:18 to show that it does not argue that 'tithes are abolished' - no theologian of repute will use that verse to argue an abolishment of tithes, because it points to the weakness of the law such that it could not make anyone perfect in their relationship with God. Tithes were never given in the Bible to perfect or justify anyone - and the anti-tither who argues to the contrary would just have to show us which one verse in the Bible shows tithes as a salvific issue. NOT ONE VERSE!


Before I round off on that verse, let me share something on verse 8 from James Burton Coffman in his Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament -

[list]Verse 8
And here men that die receive tithes; but there one, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

The dying men who received tithes at the time this author wrote were, of course, the Levites, in whose enjoyment of the office there was a continual progression throughout history, as the generations of men rose, faded, and passed away, being succeeded by others. The "one" of whom it is witnessed that he liveth is thought by Westcott and others to be Melchizedek; but the peculiar structure of the words "that he liveth" seems to this expositor sufficient reason for understanding the words as a reference to Christ; for the exact words, "he ever liveth," are spoken of Christ in this very chapter (Hebrews 7:25). However, even allowing the opinions of learned men to be correct, and referring the words to Melchizedek, they would still apply to Christ, of whom Melchizedek was typical; and, therefore, we do not hesitate to make this passage a basis for advocating the practice of tithing among Christians.[/list]

[list]"There (in heaven) he (Christ) receiveth tithes!" (Hebrews 7:8); and this cannot be unless his disciples give them. Application of these words to Melchizedek, the type and not the antitype is a distinction without a difference; it would not have been mentioned here except for its bearing on the duty of Christians; and the words stand. The only disclaimer that this writer wishes to record here is that he does not wish to thrust this view dogmatically upon any other Christian. It is freely acknowledged that many differ with this view; but it is prayerfully hoped that others will allow this sincere expression of a viewpoint which the writer for many years has accepted as binding upon himself, and also that others will come to accept it for themselves, and come to know the joy of complying with it. More is said in the New Testament on the subject of giving than is said of faith or baptism, or the Lord's Supper; and the need of Christians to heed the word of God regarding giving is urgent and extensive.[/list]

Yes, viaro agrees with such an exegesis both in content and spirit. While we may have our disagreements and convictions, it is not quite a spiritual thing to maintain an 'inaccurate' statement on private interpretations that ignores the basics of Biblical exegesis (2 Peter 1:20). Even so, for those of us who are inclined to tithe happily, we ought to like remember the examples of Coffman and Pastor Tunde Bakare in not forcing our tithing convictions on any other Christian. I would rather share on the subject, and show in substance why anti-tithers are not helping others understand the subject - but whatever are my persuasions on Hebrews 7:8 and 18 are not to be thrust upon other Christians of whatever persuasions.

. . . my connection was slow, so I had to divide my posts. Here is the continuation -

viaro:
Could we compare notes from various sources on what some seasoned theologians have said on this very Hebrews 7:18? Did they unanimously argue that it was 'tithes' that were "abolished" in that verse, or rather something else? Let us see (I've had to borrow some notes and sources already posted on this forum):

Let's see -

https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/article_divider.gif

(1) The Abbotts believe that it refers to the Mosaic Law ~
[list]Verse 18
"The commandment going before; the former commandment,--that is, the Mosaic law."
(John S. C. Abbott and Jacob Abbott)[/list]

https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/article_divider.gif

(2) John Wesley largely agrees with the Abbotts that it refers to the Mosaic Law ~
[list]"Verse 18. For there is implied in this new and everlasting priesthood, and in the new dispensation connected therewith, a disannulling of the preceding commandment - An abrogation of the Mosaic law. For the weakness and unprofitableness thereof -For its insufficiency either to justify or to sanctify"
(Wesley, John. "Commentary on Hebrews 7". "John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible")[/list]

https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/article_divider.gif

(3) John Gill says it refers to the 'ceremonial law'
[list]For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment. . .
Not the moral law; though what is here said of the commandment may be applied to that; that is sometimes called the commandment, (Romans 7:12,13) . . . [>snip<] . . but the ceremonial law is meant, which is the commandment that respected the Levitical priesthood, and is called a carnal one, and is inclusive of many others, and, which distinguishes that dispensation from the Gospel one: . . .[/list]

https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/article_divider.gif

(4) The Geneva Study Bible agrees with John Gills that it refers to the ceremonial law ~
[list]7:18 ⁹For there is verily a disannulling of the ^hcommandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
[list](9) Again, that no man object that the last priesthood was added to make a perfect one by joining them both together, he proves that the first was made void by the later as unprofitable, by the nature of them both. For how could those material and transitory things sanctify us, either by themselves, or by being joined with another?[/list]
[list](h) The ceremonial law. [/list][/list]

https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/article_divider.gif

(5) Ray Stedman believed it referred to the priesthood and the law ~
[list]The glorious result of this is stated in verse 18: the former regulation (the priesthood and the law) is set aside as weak and useless since it cannot cleanse from sin or provide power to obey. A better hope is brought in to replace it which will do what the law and the priesthood could not do---enable us to draw near to God. In 10:22 the writer will exhort his readers to do this very thing, since it is now fully possible because of the Melchizedek priesthood of Jesus.
(IVP New Testament Commentary Series by Ray C. Stedman)
[/list]

https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/article_divider.gif

(6) Barton W. Johnson interprets it as 'the old law and the Aaronic priesthood' ~
[list]7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment. The old law and the Aaronic priesthood are abrogated because of their imperfection. They could not make men perfect.
(Johnson, Barton W. "Commentary on Hebrews 7". People's New Testament)[/list]

https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/article_divider.gif

(7) A. W. Pink believes it refers to 'the entire system of the Mosaic institutions' ~
[list]"For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before". The reference here is to the entire system of the Mosaic institutions. That system is here spoken of as "the commandment going before". It was of Divine appointment and authority, yet was it only designed "until the time of reformation" (Heb. 9:10). The "going before" signifies the introduction of the new Priest in fulfillment of the promise in Psalm 110. The commandment going before was that which regulated the worship of God and obedience to Him prior to the Christian dispensation; but this had now been cancelled and a new law of worship given.
(A. W. Pink, Commentary on Hebrews 7:17-19)[/list]

https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/article_divider.gif

([color=Black]8[/color]) James Burton Coffman in his Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament argues that it refers to 'the whole system of Moses ~
[list]Verse 18
For there is a disannulling of a foregoing commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness.
This turns attention to the very nature of the Levitical system of which that priesthood was the support and center. It was not of caprice that God annulled the old covenant, for it deserved to be annulled because of its weakness and unprofitableness. God had never considered the Levitical system to be complete, final or efficacious in itself; but "it was added because of transgression, until the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made" Gal. 3:19).
The law expired, therefore, by limitation, when Jesus was revealed as that "seed" so long anticipated. The weakness and unprofitableness of that foregoing commandment refers to the whole system of Moses; and Macknight explained the weakness of it thus, . . . ."[/list]

https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/article_divider.gif

(9) John MacArthur (himself an anti-tither), teaches that it refers to 'the whole ceremonial system' ~
[list]"For there is verily an annulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness of it." God set aside the old standard. Now watch. Now put a parenthesis at the beginning of verse 19. "(For the law made nothing perfect), but the bringing in of a better hope by which we draw near unto God." Or you'd use and. Lemme read it this way. "For there is verily an annulling of
the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness of it. (For the law made nothing perfect), and the bringing in of a better hope, cross out did, by which we draw near unto God." You see?
God says, "I am setting aside the old one, and I'm bringing in a new one; and in the new covenant, you have what? Access to God.

Now, the word disannulling, afaytises, has to do with the doing away of something that is established. It is used, for example of annulling a treaty, of annulling a promise, a law, a regulation, of erasing a man's name from something. It has to do with removing what is established. The whole paraphernalia of the sacrificial system, the whole ceremonial system is wiped out. It is annulled. It is done away with. God wipes it out; and He wiped it out for good in 70 AD when He destroyed the temple. The old system could reveal sin. It could cover sin. It could give a relative
measure of drawing near to God, but not full perfection. It brought nothing to conclusion. The priesthood of Jesus Christ made all that Israel looked forward to a reality. Access to God.
(John MacArthur, Jesus: The Superior Priest)[/list]

Now, with particular reference to the idea that tithes are "abolished", we may have more to say:

Enigma:
Oh, by the way "tithing" is indeed abolished.    That remains an accurate statement.

Clearly, that is not an accurate statement but your personal reiteration that lacks exegetical substance. Biblical exegesis does not depend or rest on personal re-emphasis of a statement that ignores the warning against giving any verse a "private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20 - "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation". What we have seen repeated here and again is the private interpretation that anti-tithers give to Hebrews 7:18 without even attempting to compare that verse with other verses of the Bible. Thus, your statement is most inaccurate as long as you want to continue ignoring the foundation of Biblical exegesis, and I shall show how.

Enigma:
2. "Tithing based on the law is abolished"

I believe this is referring to Mosaic law --- if not, correct me.

If it is Mosaic law, then Hebrews 7 clearly makes clear that that is abolished; it says the commandment to take tithes is is annulled being weak and unprofitable and part of law which made nothing perfect.

To reiterate that something is 'abolished' is to declare that we put an end to it completely. There is no other meaning to the idea of something being 'abolished' in Scripture, and to wave the excuse of "Tithing compulsorily is abolished" is plain insincere. Even so, to now argue that "Tithing based on the law is abolished" does not even come close to a proper understanding of that verse, Heb. 7:18.

In the first place, the whole of Hebrews 7 does not try to argue between voluntary and compulsory tithing, whether based on the Law or not. It does not even try to delineate between either ideas to show which one has been "abolished", because that is NOT what verse 18 argues at all.

Secondly, perhaps it might be helpful to understand what verse 18 specifically argues. If it was arguing that tithes were 'weak and unprofitable', then we should ask why the same tithes was spoken of in a positive manner in verse 6 - "he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises". . would the highlighted words be pointing to the weakness and unprofitableness of tithes? No, certainly not.

Third, let us understand WHY anti-tithing theologians argue an abolishment of tithes from Hebrews 7:18, and then see why such an argument is baseless in light of Biblical exegesis. A few of our common English translations render that verse in the following ways ~

     'For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before
     for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof' (KJV).

     'The former regulation is set aside because it was weak
     and useless' (NIV)

     'So a previous physical regulation and command is cancelled
     because of its weakness and ineffectiveness and uselessness'
     (Amplified)

It is clear there that this verse does not mention 'tithes' as having been 'abolished' (or 'disannulled', 'cancelled' or set aside). If it was not 'tithes' that was meant in that verse, then what possibly could be meant by any of the following as highlighted there, viz:

       *   'a disannulling of the commandment going before'?
       *   'former regulation is set aside'?
       *   'a previous physical regulation and command is cancelled'?

Could we compare notes from various sources on what some seasoned theologians have said on this very Hebrews 7:18? Did they unanimously argue that it was 'tithes' that were "abolished" in that verse, or rather something else? Let us see (I've had to borrow some notes and sources already posted on this forum):

I have a few moments to spare, so let me come in here and set (or reset) the basis of sustaining this discourse. This is going to be in series, so perhaps it might've been more enabling to open a thread to share more on this concerns particularly about tithes and not suffer the topic of the present one to slide.

Anyways, Enigma has his rights to express his disagreements on Hebrews 7:18 (as well KunleOshob et al do). At least, so far we agree on a few points: that a number of tithers do so on the idea of tithes being compulsory; but let us not forget that a good other number of tithers also do so voluntarily without seeing it as compulsory. Thus far, in this thread there is an agreement among us that tithes are NOT compulsory in so far as the Christian testimony and life are concerned, and we should not be on the same spot arguing non-essentials there. It seems a rather odd excuse to repeat that 'compulsory' stuff here over and over again when it is plain that is not the crux of the matter.

Yet, let me first deal with this point in Enigma's that is just a distraction than anything else:

Enigma:
Third: Let's go back to the "tithe" given by Abraham for a minute; this was a one off historical event; there was no covenant with it; it was voluntary; the Bible does not say that Abraham ever repeated it; most crucially, the Bible never made that form of tithing an obligation or requirement.

True, Abraham's tithes were voluntary and not coerced - that is the whole point about any type of giving that the Bible sets before us as the expression of a worshipping heart. So powerful was that one act of Abraham that the Bible recognizes it as 'TITHES' in both the OT (Gen. 14:20) and the NT (Heb. 7:4 & 6). The argument of obligation does not even come in and is a distraction because you failed to notice that Levi also gave tithes in Abraham without any obligations or 'requirements' (verse 9).

So is it not redundant to argue whether that type of "tithing" done by Abraham is abolished --- since it was never established in the first place? You abolish something that was established --- not something that is voluntary.

Doesn't this completely deflate all your objections and make your point meaningless already? If you do not abolish something that is voluntary, does that not show that what Levi gave in Abraham was also VOLUNTARY in verse 9? The Levitical covenant and priesthood were not established upon tithes - I have repeated that point several times before; and this is where you should understand that the Law does not abolish what it does not originate in the first place! This is why the argument that 'tithing is indeed abolished' is both false and factually presumptive - and there's no need to be excusing here and there that you put it in quotation marks.

So it is semantic pedantry to seek to force the Abrahamic "tithe" into a statement "tithing is abolished" when the Abrahamic tithe was never established in the first place. This actually brings us to point four about how the author of Hebrews made his own statement

As long as nobody is "forcing" anything about Abraham's tithes into this discussion, that again is an insincere statement - a dishonest distraction that renders the rest of your objections unnecessary. Those who know what they are talking about will show you that they do not intend to "force" or thrust their own persuasions upon anyone, and I shall show a few examples (Coffman and Pastor Tunde Bakare).

Besides, the way Hebrews 7 presents the tithes of Abraham is far more significant than what anti-tithers try to make of it. To say that "the author of Hebrews does not make a big issue about the Abrahamic tithe" is patently false - rather, you should have said that anti-tithers are the ones who downplay the Abrahamic tithes. The author of the epistle to the Hebrews speaks most significantly about the tithes of Abraham in SEVERAL VERSES of that same chapter 7 alone! Here are some -

(a)  Abraham's tithes were in recognition of the greatness of Melchizedek (v. 4)

(b)  Melchizedek was not from the Levitical lineage but was still qualified to receive tithes of Abraham (v. 6), and consequently from Levi (v. 9)

(c)  three times that chapter mentions Abraham's being blessed in connection with the tithes (vv. 1, 6, & 7), to show that it was not the tithes that were "weak and unprofitable" in verse 18!

(d)  far more than that, the Abrahamic tithes was pointing to the superiority of the Melchizedek priesthood (vv. 4, 6 & 7), so that verse 8 points to the continuity of the principle of tithing rather than its abolishment!

If the author did not intend to point out these significances, we would never have read of them at all!

Enigma:
The biblical truth that New Testament teaching and doctrine is voluntary cheerful giving is jettisoned and replaced by fear, paranoia, even bondage!

That is no reason for you to make categorically false statements in your attempt to educate both yourself and others. It is true that tithing (or any other type of giving for that matter) is NOT compulsory - that much we can point out with a lot of references from the Bible - but to go as far as arguing that 'tithing is abolished' is to add falsehood to truth and poison the well! It does not matter that you are excusing your arguments under so many quotation marks - what is false is false and should not be mixed with truth to poison anybody. You can't be saying something is abolished and yet encouraging anyone to still engage in that same thing.

Traugott:
@Viaro: Once again, we're on the same page It's like we always think alike?

Sure thing - and I should acquiesce to your far more intelligent and succinct way of putting things.

Let me also quickly make this note:

I apologised to all readers and especially the owner/starter of this thread that the discussion has swung more to tithes than dealing with the request of the OP. Such is the nature of discussions sometimes in this motherboard of Nairaland, I guess.

However, just a note here about tithing: I sense that we all have a common agreement around these things - which is this: "Tithing is NOT compulsory". If we understand the import of that succinct statement and keep it healthily in view, it is my humble opinion that a lot of space would be saved rather than sharp contentions dividing the body of Christ.

Yet, there are other arguments that are clearly unhealthy to maintain -

    (a)  'tithing is abolished'

    (b)  'tithing is compulsory'

    (c)   'tithing is unbiblical'

    (d)  'tithing is a fraudulent teaching'

    (e)  'tithing in contrary to the priesthood of Christ'

    (f)   'tithing is mandatory'

The above are very, very unhealthy and serve to further very carnal arguments between Christians. Just as it is unspiritual to argue that "tithes are abolished", so also it is unspiritual to argue that "tithes are compulsory" -  and equally true it is to argue any of the other points listed above. If, on the other hand we have this common agreement before us that 'tithes are NOT compulsory', whatever else we may agree and/or disagree on may not matter that much - for we shall have happy occasions to educate ourselves further and share fresh insight where we might be missing certain vital points.

Let me shock you now: but you no try o, my guy. See your name in Full caps: VIARO. Why didn't you reply my email? Na fight?

Oh-oh-oh my goodness! Now I fully accept viaro can run but can't hide! I won't say anything but will brace up and respond soon. I must thank you for not e-slapping me! _{where is my e-jailor nuclearboy??}

Traugott:
@Viaro: Na so, my brother. That was why I googled anselm.com tithes cos I wondered when I got to anselm.com

Hehe. .  poor me! It just reminds me of how the saying goes - that, one twist or change of a letter in a word could create far reaching consequences! Fortunately, this one happened where we all share ideas anonymously.

________________________

(a)

Enigma:
The way I see it -- the distinction you are drawing pays more attention to semantics than substance ----- whereas it is the abuse of the substance (heavily all around us and especially in Nigeria) that causes people to "mislead others thereby".

(b)

Traugott:
The circumcision that was "abolished" is the removal of the notion that a full grown man has to be circumcised before he can be considered Holy before God. If it is easier to circumcise a baby, and it will be good for his health then it is entirely foolish not to circumcise the child because "circumcision has been abolished". Circumcision was not abolished, I repeat. Rather, it is no longer compulsory to be circumcised before you are holy unto God.

Although you have hit it on the nail and explanations may not be necessary as such, let me add a cautionary note for other readers who might wonder whether your statement borders on 'blasphemy'!

Actually, I believe with you that circumcision is not "abolished" as such - rather, the circumcision done with hands is no longer the basis of a covenant relationship that we have with God. I hope I have managed to put it in simple terms? Let me expatiate.

Some Jews went about preaching that "Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1). Thereupon, the apostles made clear that it was not on the basis of a Mosaic circumcision that men are saved, because when God visited the Gentiles to save them, outward circumcision was not the basis for such a visitation (verse 14-18).

In the epistles, it is clear that circumcision is a very vital issue in the faith of Christian believers - but there is a difference between outward circumcision and inward circumcision:

[list][li]For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. - Php. 3:3[/li][/list]

[list][li]In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ - Col. 2:11[/li][/list]

The fact that circumcision is not abolished has already been noted in Romans 2:25 on one basis - if you keep the Law. "For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision." It is not so much an argument that circumcision is "abolished" than it is one about the intrinsic meaning of circumcision in the first place. Right from the Law, Moses testified that the real circumcision that God was looking for was one that affects the heart - (Deut. 10:16 and 30:6), and that is the very same thing Paul declares in Romans 2:28-29 >>

[list][li]For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God[/li][/list]

If circumcision was "abolished", there would be no semblance of it anywhere in the teachings of the apostles. They did not condemn circumcision, but were careful to note certain things:

[list][li]circumcision are of two types: outward circumcision (done by hands) and inward circumcision (that which is of the heart)[/li][/list]

[list][li]the 'outward circumcision' tends to literalism - and it is not what God is looking for (Deut. 30:6)[/li][/list]

[list][li]yet, for those who pursue an outward circumcision on religious grounds, it is "profitable" indeed (not 'abolished') - but on the condition that they keep the Law[/li][/list]

[list][li]the inward circumcision (of the heart and of the spirit) does not suggest that 'circumcision' is abolished - but rather that the true meaning that God was seeking right from the OT Law (Deut. 10:16 & 30:6) has been realised in those who have trusted in Christ[/li][/list]

[list][li]therefore, those who are seeking an outward circumcision on religious grounds as the basis of drawing near to God are wasting their time - which was what Paul might have meant when he said: "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing" (Galatians 5:2)[/li][/list]

[list][li]yet, he also notes that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of so much significance in the Christian life; which is why he makes statements like: "Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised - Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God" (1 Cor. 7:18-19)[/li][/list]

I don't find where the NT argues that "circumcision" has been abolished - nope, for the apostles were clear about what they taught by contrasting between outward and inward circumcision, as well making clear that circumcising someone does not affect his faith in Christ if they do so on other grounds and not on religious grounds as the basis of drawing near to God. I wonder why Paul would be "abolishing" circumcision (if that was his intent) and then yet circumcising Timothy because of the Jews when the latter's father was a Greek (Acts 16:1-3).

Let us not be quick to shout "abolish" on everything that does not suit our preferences. Scripture does not use the word 'abolish' carelessly as many of us tend to use that word on either circumcision or tithes. But, of course, our friends (Enigma and KunleOshob) have their perfect rights to argue to the contrary by believing whatever they want to.

mazaje bro, I've been trying to relax for more than two days. . but doing good all the same. And you??

KunleOshob:
For emphasis i would state again that what we are rallying against is the twisting of the word of God for filthy gain by those that have been entrusted to teach people the truth about God's word. Its very wrong and smirks of high hypocrisy and totally anti ethical to the teachings of God in the bible.

That is not a big deal - in many ways than one, any twisting of Scripture for whatever purpose should be discouraged. But it is not by accusing people and putting everyone in a box that you can do so in a healthy manner. It is equally hypocritical for anti-tithers to make unjustifiable claims that are not taught in Scripture and then turn round to accuse others who have something else to share that does not hurt you directly.

Hey, davidylan!

Happy New Year to you. Didn't see you a couple of days/weeks and thought you'd been busy. A few things keep us all busy between times, but I show up sometimes. Hope things are going well for you.

And congrats to bindex!

Enigma:
Of course even though it has been abolished you can still choose to do it. The same is true of circumcision --- it has been abolished but many still do it!

That is not true. Christians do not go out to start practising circumcision after reading the clear texts that on the subject. At least we read in the NT several places where circumcision is categorically spoken about -

[list][li]Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. - Galatians 5:2[/li][/list]

[list][li]Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. - 1 Corinthians 7:19[/li][/list]

These are clear Scriptures, one being so strong as that no Christian would be confused. But where does it say anything that if a Christian tithes, Christ shall profit him nothing? Where indeed does Hebrews 7 mention the word "tithes" as being "abolished"? If there is no such verse that directly mentions 'tithes' as being 'abolished', why are you still pushing this unspiritual argument and pretending you're pointing to Scripture?

Scripture mentions circumcision in several ways - and people (whether Christian or not) also circumcise their male children without reference to Scripture, but on medical grounds. An example is on the net from BUPA and has absolutely nothing to do with religion! If a Christian, therefore, takes his or her son to the hospital for circumcision on medical grounds, does that mean that Christ shall profit such a person/family nothing? Why are you confusing issues on very immature insinuations? If you're male and uncircumcised, you can keep your foreskin on religious grounds - you're old enough to know that such decisions have nothing to do with other Christians circumcising their boys on medical grounds.

Traugott:
BTW, check out anselm.com today and you will be surprised.

Lol, I now understand why several guys have called my attention to that - it was supposed to have been 'askelm' rather than 'anselm'. I also found some surprising things, though.

Traugott:
Edit:[/b]The way you go about your views on tithes, you make it appear like you have no regard for those who tithe out of understanding, like I do sometimes. And trust me, I have good understanding of how tithes work for me.

That is one of the issues with anti-tithers. It is not that they do not have problems with anyone who tithes - they clearly do! If they did not, they would give equal weight to both sides of the subject, viz: (a) [b]anti-tithing is unspiritual; and (b) compulsory tithing is equally unspiritual. This is why I very much agree with you in this recent one:

Traugott:
Yes I can sustain it with the fact that you insist that "tithing has been ABOLISHED", rather than saying that tithing is no longer compulsory, but done out of an act of love.

That's my point.

I agree. For people to be arguing that they are only against "compulsory" tithing is dubious when they clearly have been arguing an end to tithing. The argument that tithing has been 'abolished' does not suggest that the declarant encourages any other form of tithing - he is categorically arguing for an end to what he perceives as 'abolished'. Otherwise such an argument does not make any sense where they still have no problem with people practising what has been abolished.

Let's use other examples in Scripture - 2 Cor. 3:13 mentions "the end of that which is abolished". The tone of that verse and its ancillary verses show what is indicated there - the "that" which is "abolished" should not be part of the Christian testimony in any form. That being so, it does not make any sense for the author and his readers to come back saying that there's 'no problem' if some 'Christian' practise what has been 'abolished' because they do so with 'understanding'. What substance is there to the argument that we should have "no problem" with that which is abolished? If it is abolished, then it should not be something of indifference - otherwise that is just making all sorts of noise and being neither here nor there.

In the same way, if people truly believe that tithing has been "abolished", they are arguing for an end to tithing and nothing other than that. It is not just an issue of 'compulsory' or 'mandated' tithe - otherwise the whole strain of their argument would have been to point out from Scripture that tithing is not compulsory rather than harping that it is abolished. There is a difference between what is compulsory and what is abolished - we all know that; so the excuse that anti-tithers are only arguing against 'compulsory' tithing is a huge lie.

If anti-tithers are more concerned about 'coerced' giving or 'compulsory', tithing (as we all are), they would not be looking for every excuse to "abolish" what Scripture never once abolished. To argue the latter (tithes are abolished) is to wish an end to tithing; but a concern for the former ('tithes are compulsory') is to seek a balance that does not discourage people from tithing but rather seeking to help them do so with a better understanding. One should not confuse the one for the other and then come back making all sorts of excuses about the false arguments they have been recycling about "abolished" tithes.

This was why I said earlier:

viaro:
That is just the point - the common agreement: it is NOT compulsory. Anyone who feels one way or another may look for Scripture to justify whatever they want; but what I find most of concern is for anyone to try to force their own anti-tithing down anyone's throat. Compulsory tithing and anti-tithing are both unspiritual adventures for the Christian, and people who try to force the one or the other seldom realise the seriousness of what they do.

The term "anti-tither" is a very strong one for me - I don't know how others use it, but it connotes that such a person would never see reason nor is prepared to allow anyone else tithe. As an 'anti-tither', such a person is against tithes in all its forms - and anytime the word is mentioned, they are never at peace with themselves.

However, there are other people who have chosen to not tithe - these I refer to as "non-tithers" instead of 'anti-tithers'. Non-tithers are not people who are polarised to see an end of tithing, and they don't have issues with tithing or anyone who preaches tithing - and where they can, they sometimes tithe regardless the anti-tithing arguments people make. There are far more non-tithers than 'anti-tithers', that is what we can established by careful study.

Besides all these, there are many tithing churches around the world that are not given to the arguments of 'compulsory' or 'mandatory' tithes - these tithing churches know what they are doing, and it is not intelligent for people on Nairaland to try and misrepresent them by either ignoring this fact or otherwise boxing tithers in one lump with scammers, or even yet narrowing the subject of tithing to a few unfortunate cases that suits the anti-tithers' campaigns.

There is no verse arguing for the abolishment of tithes in the Bible. NONE. People who argue a compulsory tithe may be missing the point by many miles; but people who take an anti-tithing position are far more unspiritual in their exercises than even helping themselves. Anti-tithing arguments do not result in more giving - rather, the opposite is what has been reported. This is why on many occasions, anti-tithers very rarely talk positively about giving in Church as part of their calling.

Traugott:
@KunleOshob / Viaro: We may disagree that tithing was abolished in the New Covenant or it was not, but we have one common point: we agree that it is not compulsory or perforce. If then tithing is not compulsory or perforce, I personally don't see why those who want to go ahead and give it (not compulsorily) should not!

That is just the point - the common agreement: it is NOT compulsory. Anyone who feels one way or another may look for Scripture to justify whatever they want; but what I find most of concern is for anyone to try to force their own anti-tithing down anyone's throat. Compulsory tithing and anti-tithing are both unspiritual adventures for the Christian, and people who try to force the one or the other seldom realise the seriousness of what they do.

@Viaro: hehehe. What leaves off from you and goes around, sits in your closet and waits for the day you will open it!

Hahaha. . I didn't realise how true such words are. .  until recently.

BTW, check out anselm.com today and you will be surprised.

What?!? I shall try and do so pronto.

KunleOshob:
13For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

14For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

[Anyone familiar with the tithing law would know it was meant for the levites who were the ones who served at the alter. Verse 14 further states that Jesus was from Judea and not a levitical priest thus implying even Jesus was not qualified to recieve tithes how much less the impostors that claim to be collecting it on his behalf]

Hebrews 7 verse 6 shows that even when someone (Melchizedek) was NOT from the lineage of Judah, he actually collected tithes from them! "But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises". How did he receive tithes from them? verse 9 tells us - "And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham". When we see this, we understand that tithes were not restricted to a particular lineage, and especially with regards to the PRIESTHOOD, it is received by one who is not counted from their own lineage - which is what Hebrews 7:8 reminds us about - "And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth".

18For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

19For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

This final verse completes it all it makes it clear that the commandment to tithe earlier mentioned in the passage as been anulled becos it is a weak and unprofitable commandment.

Even anti-tithing theologians know for a fact that verse 18 does NOT annul tithes - because there are three basic points in those verses:

   (a)  it was not upon tithes that the Levitical priesthood was established,

   (b)  nor did Scripture say anywhere that tithes perfected anything

   (c)  and there is no place where Scripture suggests that tithe brought anyone to God

This is why the "weakness" there is NOT a matter of tithes, but one that has already been explained by the apostle Paul in Romans 7 and 8!  In Romans 8:3, Paul tells us that -

[list]For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh[/list]

That was the weakness of the Law - it could not condemn sin in the flesh, and it could not make anyone perfect! Tithes were not given so that anyone could overcome sin, or therevy be perfected by any means - that was what the Law was pointing to!

Reading this passage in proper context, it is clear to any right thinking person that it clearly anulls tithes.

Any right thinking person does not interpret any verse on its own without first comparinbg with other verses of the Bible. To interpret any verse on its own is the hallmark of a cultist - that is precisely what the apostle Peter warns against when he said  "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" 2 Peter 1:20. To just rest on those verses and interpret it on their own by your 'analysis' is to present the very hallmark of cultists, because they know that when asked to look at other verses, they will absolutely refuse to do so!

However some smart alecs try to twist it to mean something else,

Yes, that's you. You have forever been twisting the texts by breaking the rule of Biblical exegesis and taking verses any which way to suit your illiterate adventures. I want to see how you will ignore what Peter warns against in 2 Peter 1:20. . . just ignore it and let's see how you possess a 'right mind' for your analysis.

Pilgrim.1 once argued it was refering to the law as a whole and not to tithing i was amazed that she did not see the contradiction and hypocrisy in that poorly conceived and illiterate like statement as it is glaring from that pasage that and many others that tithing is part of the jewish laws and it was specifically mentioned in the anullment.

When I first went through her arguments, I also disagreed. But I had a change of mind and totally agreed especially where the antithesis of the verses are plainly agreed upon by anti-tithing theologians, several of whom she quoted (Russell Kelly and John MacArthur). There are also very many other theologians who make the same note - that verse 18 and 19 are not abolishing tithes, because tithes are not the basis upon which the Levitical law and priesthood were established (see Exodus 24:8-11).

After exposing their folly and showing the contradictions in their position they run to the abrahamic one off example to the King of Salem[jerusalem] and claim that tithing was before the law.

Is it not folly from you to ignore the fact that Hebrews makes the ABRAHAMIC tithe far more superior to the levitical? Verse 6 and 9 show this fact strongly, not to mention the short-term outlook of the Levitical tithes in verse 8. Scripture does not place the Levitical priesthood or tithes above what preceded it, that is why we read that the less is blessed of the better - and the better was pictured before the less.

Whilst we know that the babylonians [were abraham was from] practised tithing before the law it was not based on a commandment from God but on traditions of men.

Yes, the hallmark of literalism here displayed!   You are looking for a commandment from God before you see the significance of Abraham's tithes, no? That is why you always have problems with his tithes and string yourself up forever against it on a law you have very little understanding of, no?

How ever 99% of scammers who preach tithing preach it form the obsolete and anulled laws to deceive christians that it is a compulsary practise and that is what is really dissapointing that a man who claims to be serving God would willfully twist his word for the sake of filthy lucre.

That's certainly not why Christians tithe or choose not to do so. Those who tithe know that it was never at anytime annulled - otherwise everything else in the Law would have been annulled as well. Why is Christian marriage still based on the Law? Why is the woman's place still a throwback upon the Law? Why is love in the New Testament based upon the declarations of the Law? There are many things that should have gone with the annulled law as well - but we know that is not so, and that is why no hasty abolishing of the tithes makes for intelligent reading.

This is why some who know their Scriptures still give tithes without singing a 'compulsory' tune, or mandated this and that - which good example we have seen in Pastor Tunde Bakare, no?  It is not so much that tithes are abolished - so using the excuse of 99% scammers to justify your anti-tither argument is most illiterate indeed, because often is the case that these same anti-tithers who are never consistent would come back arguing that it is alright if Christians want to tithe! It is like arguing that something that is abolished is yet okay for Christians to practise - which again is the hallmark of a cultist!

KunleOshob:
The bible is very clear that tithing as been anulled for believers and it states so explicitly however most pro tithers choose to ignore this message to christians in the book of hebrew and rather dwell on the what was written to non believers[ jews] in the book of malachi which is now twisted to favour the greedy lusts of the tithing proponents >

Jews are not "non believers" - without them, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you as a "Christian" would be able to claim for your own 'belief'. Ever read John 4:22 - 'salvation is of the Jews'?  I guess not.

The bible in the book of hebrews makes it clear that tithing is not relevant to the priesthood of christ and it clearly anulls it i would reproduce the whole passage here so people can read it in ti's proper context and judge for themselves. I would also put some analysis in parenthis to help put things in clearer perspective.

In the first place, none of the verses in that whole chapter that you reproduced mentions that tithing has been annulled - please stop spreading this illiterate lies to justify your anti-tithing misadventures! Analysis are welcome - but not when you twist the words in that chapter to say what they do not say.

Hebrews 7:5-19:

5And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

[The above highlighted makes it crystal clear that it is the tithing aspect of the law that is being dicussed in this passage]

Nope - it is PRIESTHOOD that is being emphasised there. That is what the whole book of Hebrews deals with, and that is why that same chapter seeks to establish the superiority of the Priesthood of melchizedek over any other type of priesthood.

Those who receive the office of the priesthood have a commandment to take tithes of their own brethren - but verse 6 shows that even where someone (Melchizedek) was not counted from their pedigree, he also received tithes from the Levites! He would not have been able to do so if and only if (iff) the PRIESTHOOD was a less important issue in the faith of God's people - and it is the priesthood that makes all the difference.

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

I wonder why anti-tithers have always fallen face-flat on this verse. If men that die receive tithes, what happens to the other part - that the one who lives also receives them?

11If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

12For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

[The verses above makes it clear that the law of tithing has been changed becos the priest hood as changed]

I dealt with this confusion earlier in post # 140, and will reproduce my answer from there.

But first, there is no such thing as "the law of tithing". There are other types of laws to which one could make the refetrence with "the law of. ." this and that, such as -

     *   the law of the burnt offering - Leviticus 6:9

     *   the law of the meat offering  - Leviticus 6:14

     *   the law of the sin offering  - Leviticus 6:25

     *   the law of the trespass offering  - Leviticus 7:1

     *   the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings  - Leviticus 7:11

     *   the law of the plague of leprosy - Leviticus 13:59

     *   the law of jealousies  - Numbers 5:29

     *   the law of the Nazarite  - Numbers 6:13

. .  and several such.  BUT there is no such thing as "the law of tithing" - that is another lie from the camp of anti-tithers who are so driven with half-tutelage to justify why they can't give tithes and want to bend everyone else to abolish tithing! If you ever find the term "the law of tithing" in Scripture, please post it. .  or just stop spreading this neat lie to cover your faces!

Hebrews 7:11-12 does not mention any such thing as "the law of tithing", but rather says that there is a commandment to take tithes accoding to the Law. You want to make a commandment to be bigger than the Law, no?

But as regards the fact that Hebrews 7:11-12 does not abolish tithes, let me repeat my reply from post #140:

---

[list]Let me share two very important matters about the Law that anti-tithers often miss (please understand that I am not grouping you among 'anti-tithers'):

[list](a)    the spirit of the old covenant Law
(b)    the power of the old covenant[/list]

As to the spirit of the Law, the whole principle is driven by Hosea 6:6 - "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." This is the essential thing that the Jews had missed (and which many people continue to miss today) and thereby basing their whole understanding of the covenants (both old and new) on literalism!

As regards the power of the old covenant, we know that it was ratified by blood (Heb. 9:18ff) - and a covenant is useless UNLESS it is first ratified. However, what gives the old covenant its power consequently is its foundation - and we know that it was NOT UPON TITHES that the old covenant was founded!

We should understand this, without which many people would never understand Heb. 7:11-12. Go on to Hebrews 9 which says "when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law" (v. 19) - and here we might ask: was TITHE part of the "precepts" when Moses ratified the old covenant?? From Exodus 24:8-11, we find that the ratification was done at a time much earlier than any mention of tithes! What does this say? It shows us that TITHES was not the foundation of the Levitical priesthood, and Hebrews 7 CANNOT be used to argue the idea of tithes having been "abolished". Infact, when you carefully go through every single verse of the Bible, you will not find any single verse where God ever abolsihed tithes - NOT ONCE in the entire Bible! This again was why Levi's tithes was subsumed within the Abrahamic tithes in Hebrews 7:9!

Hence, it was not on the basis of tithes that the Levites "enforced" (or enacted, or implemented) the old covenant or Law. Infact, in Hebrews 7, verse 6 shows that verse 5 is not superior to (but subsumed within) what precedes it - showing that even when Melchizedek was not descended from the Levites, he yet received tithes from them! How does he do so? That is where verse 9 comes in - "And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham."

[size=14pt]But more to the point is verse 11-12, not arguing for the Levitical tithes, but more about  PRIESTHOOD. It was a change in the Levitical priesthood that warranted a change of the Law upon which that priesthood was founded. But what was the foundation of the Levitical covenant? We have seen that when Moses ratified that covenant, the tithe was NOT MENTIONED by then (see Exodus 24:8-11). It was long after that ratification that the tithes came in, its mention within Judaism first appearing in Leviticus 27 (whereas the ratification of the priesthood had taken place much earlier as well in Leviticus 8:30)[/size].[/list]

Can you please address those and show where the tithes were mentioned BEFORE the Law was ratified?

KunleOshob:
Now you of all people should know that what we have continuosly condenmed is the compulsary nature with which most pastors preach tithing using Malachi 3:10 based on on the obsolete and anulled jewish law which was never directed at christians, if all pastors were honest enough to admitt that tithing is not compulsary as pastor Bakare stated then we won't be having this discussion and all the controversy sorrounding the tithing scam would not exist. Pastors are by nature of their calling expected to stand for the truth at all times, unfortunately when it comes to money the story is different which makes one to questionj if they are really called in the first instance.

How many times have many people (pilgrim.1, myself, and several others I have discussed with - like ttalks, Zikky, etc) made clear that it is not about compulsory this and that about tithing that informs the giving of tithes from many Christians? The one thing that has continued to stand out is the total condemnation of tithes by you guys without giving equal weight to the other fact that Christians can tithe with understanding? If you don't mention and give equal weight to the subject, something is wrong somewhere - and you can't keep making excuses after excuses to cover up the issue while repeating the anti-tithing lies and accusing others who still believe in tithing.

PS; No matter how much you want to twsit and mis-interprete hebrews 7, it clearly anulls tithing based on the law.

There - I've not twisted a word, and I shall quickly answer yours. When you read through, point out from Scripture what you don't agree with, and let's discuss if you may. If you can't don't bother to make further excuses - nothing you have said is fresh insight on the same old tales you have been recycling.

@Traugott,

Traugott:
You're welcome, Viaro. Actually, YOU led me to the post. I did not even know that Tunde Bakare said all of the above, until some minutes ago. I saw anselm.com in your post #141 above, wondered what it was, googled anselm.com tithes, and a nairaland thread dated November 28, 2009 came up as 2nd result. On that thread, YOU and chukwudi44 were discussing.

This thread: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-358631.0.html

YOU also mentioned anselm.com there, and then later posted this very link. That was how I read the article and re-posted here. How's that for a dose of karma?

Hehe. . you completely floored me there! You have no idea how many times in the last few days that some of my pals have noted that the Google search of "anselm.com tithes" showed that link as the first result on their page! I was absolutely surprised! But there - I guess the karma thing was a jolt!

KunleOshob:
However i would not let the lie which originated from the very darkest and deepest pit of hell and communicated via pilgrim.1 viaro that there is no place in the bible that anulls tithing and her further attempts to twist the passage all in an effort to justify her filthy lies. I would be posting the relevant hebrew passage and analyzing it shortly for all to see.

Even your very best shot on Hebrews 7 has been put to perpetual sleep by pilgrim.1, and the only thing you can do now is REPEAT the same garboil that you often use to save face - no fresh light, nothing new, just the same cacophony of illiterate anti-tithers who lie from now till kingdom come! If there is a single verse that mentions that TITHE has been abolished, please post it plain and let's see - no KunleOshob brand of twisting scripture. That verse should clearly say that tithe is abolished, or you will only be repeating your brand of lies.

When I pointed out the fact that there are many respected Christians and pastors who give tithes without a 'compulsory' or 'mandatory' anthem, your mob-gang made all the noise they could muster until I pointed out a few. Then chukwudi44 posted one from Pastor Tunde Bakare, which unbeknownst to him was working against his own arguments - and all hell broke loose. I guess you guys will also accuse Bakare of being a criminal and a Scripture-twister? Even leaving aside the joker that anti-tithers' lies are most often borrowed from their dubious 'Christian ministers' websites, where have you guys ever been open to an affable discussion that shows your own scholarship? Just amuse yourself with the hollow analysis you have been waving up and down Nairaland.

Traugott:
@woye77: You may also want to read this. I am in full agreement with what Pastor Tunde Bakare says here:

Reference http://thenewsng.com/cover-story/why-i-quit-redeemed-church/2009/11

Thank you - I was looking for the link! After all Pastor Tunde Bakare shared there, I especially like the manner in which he recaps:

Do I pay tithe? Definitely. But I don’t make it a law for everybody.

woye77:
traugott - i'm suprised u re saying this - u are misleading people - tithing is COMPULSORY read Malachi 3 vs 6-10

Tithing is not compulsory - Malachi 3 does not force anyone either to be blessed or to be cursed. . it's one's choice whichever they prefer.

Enigma:
Repeated for . . .

well, again no real need to repeat . . .

Why have you been repeating it earlier . . with 'emphasis'? You really should have been doing so - to the nth page of this thread, and then we know what you're confirming (as I said earlier). Please, do repeat it - how-so-many times as you please, it would just show us the same 'small' stuff.

Abu Zola:
We quote the bible to christian and not muslim, it is of no use to us. Since christians don't believe in the Quran then we have no choice than to quote it on you

You don't have to quote the Bible to Christians. Many times it is obvious that Muslims quoting the Bible cannot even sustain the arguments they draw for Muhammad from the Bible - as this thread shows.

I have said it: try it as an experiement - just post that Deuteronomy 18:18 is not about muhammad, and you will see how far your own ummah will start running around. Try the experiement and see the difference.

Enigma:
Repeated for emphasis:

Just to confirm. .

"You can do so from now till the nth page of this thread - doesn't change anything from the same reply I gave earlier. Come back and repeat it again to show how small you are."

. . @ttalks,

In the new covenant, there is no obligation to tithe, no enforcer to enforce tithe payments and no stated rule saying you must give 10% of this or that at this point in time or anytime to whomever.

I don't think I have argued for an obligation. In fact, I have repeated in this thread that coerced giving in any form is not God's will for His children - whether OT or NT! I also gave references in either case. The problem with many people is that we tend to place unnecessary arguments of "mandated" this and that and miss the fact that God does not require coerced giving from His people - this was why He stated that people should bring His offering from willing hearts (Exo. 25:2), and this again was reiterated in the NT (2 Cor. 9:7).

All that exists in the new testament is giving as determined by the giver to meet needs as they come. This is the same as regards any giving that might amount to 10% of its source and which could be called a tithe.

Okay.

Very, very clear differences between the tithe that exists in the old testament and that which might crop up in the new.

The difference is not so significant, my dear bro - it is not. We have tended to take these things too much in literal terms that we fail to see the basic foundation of 'sameness' in both cases. I, for one, do not stretch things that far, because I recognize that "tithes" in Judaism (both in the Bible and scholarly Jewish material) is not always and only '10%' - they vary, and I know many anti-tithing theologians who cannot deny this (except they do so without conscience like those from anselm.com).

Now when I spoke to Enigma at first, I made it clear that the point one could glean from Hebrews 7 is the point i have stated above.
And that is : hebrews 7 not abolishing tihes but making clear the fact that tithes as practiced then is not the same as now based on the conditions surrounding their giving; required/obligatory at certain points in time as against not required but as one wishes or determines(if it turn out to be a tithe/10%).

I have no problem with your summary, and I saw all that. I was non-tolerant to the idea that I had ignored other things that Enigma had said only to narrow on a few lines in his - which is not true. I clearly highlighted the part in his post that was patently false, and he went on several times to repeat for "emphasis" the same drivel. That was why I first classed it as the most nonsensical assertion I ever read from anyone, and for anyone making such a drivel and repeating it with "emphasis" is simply idiotic! I had hoped you would see that and understand why my stance?

Cheers.

@ttalks,

Thanks for your attempts to outline your concerns, which at the very least do not address the point here that brought us thus far. Be that as it may, I shall try to answer yours.

ttalks:
The point I was trying to make was that there is a very clear difference between tithing in the days of the old covenant and any tithing that might exist in the new covenant.

I don't contest that - and yet, that was not the issue at all. When someone says that 'tithing' is abolished, that is just something that needs to be addressed. Perhaps the reason why I gave it a 'nonsensical' score, is because many people who do not reason through issues carefully have drugged themselves far too deeply with an anti-tithing stance that they borrowed from anti-tithing theologians. This is why the posters who recycle such assertions would never stand to reason through anything other than repeat for emphasis, as if that helps their case at all. As Christians, we should be very careful the kind of unwarranted assertions we make on verses that are not saying what we want them to say!

The old covenant made tithing a responsibility of the people according to some stated laws. It was something they had to do at certain points in time; no escaping it, no issue of "if you want to or not" or "as you wish to do it". When the time comes for tithing, it must be done.

Good one, ttalks. You've put a smile on my face when you mention "old covenant" - which is not the same as "Old Testament". I'm not quibbling here, but especially with regards to Hebrews 7, both types of tithes (Abrahamic and Levitical) are drawn from the scriptures of the Old Testament, while the latter was especially on the "old covenant". Therefore, it is a bit misplaced for anyone to be arguing that Hebrews 7 "abolishes" tithing of the Old Testament, if you get what I mean?

Hence the statement in hebrews 7:5 saying the levites were mandated by the law to take the tithes of the people; making them sort of like enforcers of that law.

No - it (tithes) does not make anyone an "enforcer" the Law. Let me share two very important matters about the Law that anti-tithers often miss (please understand that I am not grouping you among 'anti-tithers'):

[list](a)    the spirit of the old covenant Law
(b)    the power of the old covenant[/list]

As to the spirit of the Law, the whole principle is driven by Hosea 6:6 - "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." This is the essential thing that the Jews had missed (and which many people continue to miss today) and thereby basing their whole understanding of the covenants (both old and new) on literalism!

As regards the power of the old covenant, we know that it was ratified by blood (Heb. 9:18ff) - and a covenant is useless UNLESS it is first ratified. However, what gives the old covenant its power consequently is its foundation - and we know that it was NOT UPON TITHES that the old covenant was founded!

We should understand this, without which many people would never understand Heb. 7:11-12. Go on to Hebrews 9 which says "when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law" (v. 19) - and here we might ask: was TITHE part of the "precepts" when Moses ratified the old covenant?? From Exodus 24:8-11, we find that the ratification was done at a time much earlier than any mention of tithes! What does this say? It shows us that TITHES was not the foundation of the Levitical priesthood, and Hebrews 7 CANNOT be used to argue the idea of tithes having been "abolished". Infact, when you carefully go through every single verse of the Bible, you will not find any single verse where God ever abolsihed tithes - NOT ONCE in the entire Bible! This again was why Levi's tithes was subsumed within the Abrahamic tithes in Hebrews 7:9!

Hence, it was not on the basis of tithes that the Levites "enforced" (or enacted, or implemented) the old covenant or Law. Infact, in Hebrews 7, verse 6 shows that verse 5 is not superior to (but subsumed within) what precedes it - showing that even when Melchizedek was not descended from the Levites, he yet received tithes from them! How does he do so? That is where verse 9 comes in - "And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham."

But more to the point is verse 11-12, not arguing for the Levitical tithes, but more about  PRIESTHOOD. It was a change in the Levitical priesthood that warranted a change of the Law upon which that priesthood was founded. But what was the foundation of the Levitical covenant? We have seen that when Moses ratified that covenant, the tithe was NOT MENTIONED by then (see Exodus 24:8-11). It was long after that ratification that the tithes came in, its mention within Judaism first appearing in Leviticus 27 (whereas the ratification of the priesthood had taken place much earlier as well in Leviticus 8:30).

I just wanted to point out these simple things to show that Hebrews 7 presents several things to us, but some have narrowed it to just one thing - tithes being "abolished" - when NO VERSE in that chapter ever said so!

Deep Sight:
Great points Viaro - I am off for some Guiness Stout now and will revert comprehensively later.

Enjoy, amico mio. . enjoy _{i woulda tagged along, but my e-jailor (nuclearboy) would be on the lookout!}

But for now let me just drop a few notes -

On Dieseases -
1. The very same biological systems which prompt supposed mutations also develop antibodies to deal with dieseases. Many creatures become immune to most forms of infection after a sustained period of dealing with such infections. Why does the body develop such antibodies and immunities? Why are bodies not made such that they do not resist infection and death? Why the resistance? Survival again. What is actuating this? A propelling factor towards life, perhaps?

That does not address diseases - it rather tries to defend the biological systems which try to develop resistance, but not the diseases in themselves. Would you say that the diseases are a propelling factor towards life for the bodies they attack?

On Extinctions -
2. Is it not the case that many extinctions require a disruption to nature beforehand? Such as a meteorite hitting the Earth, or mankind's industrial activity, etc etc. In other words that such extinctions are actually not within the natural order?

Nope, the meteorite thingy is arguably hypothetical - and 'extinction' is not limited to meteorites hittng the earth.

3. That said, there are some extinctions that actually pave the way for new life and a new cycle of creatures. . .

Such as. . ??

but the very fact that biological systems independently struggle towards survival (whether or not they actually give way to extinction eventually) is indicative of the forward pressure of nature in favour of LIFE. . .What actuates this?

But just what is "nature" here? And again, how does this 'survival' determine the proof that the topic set out to accomplish?

ttalks:
You are too high spirited and brash to see what point a person is trying to pass across.
Now, calm down and read through my two posts on this thread and try to see the point i was trying to make you see. if you can't see itas your post above is showing, tell me and i'll make it easy for you.
Jeez! ! !

What point are you trying to make? Yes, I am brash especially to 'Christians' who propel a lie and never ever try to take a moment to reason with others! The point is that Hebrews 7 DOES NOT abolish tithes. If he (or you on his behalf) think it does, rather than repeat the lie ad infinitum, why don't you guys address the point? At least, I applaud you for your attempt to be reasonable - but your opening remarks about my ignoring all else he stated was just uncalled for.

ttalks:
I understand you perfectly. But you know, some people tend to ignore every other thing you've said and focus on just the present statement you made.
Example: viaro 

No, I did not ignore everything - other or instant - of what he said, but made clear where i find his lie most appalling. The assertion that Hebrews 7 abolishes tithing is a huge lie from the pit of hell smuggled in among the "everything else" he said, so that here it might help you his apologist to make a pretentious note like you didn't see what I had highlighted. Please stop playing the joker.

This is old testament tithing:

Heb 7:5
(5) And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

And we know that in the new Testament, there is no levite who has any commandment to take tithes of the people.
That's where the whole old testament or no old testament tithing arises from.

Isn't this a further lie? Could I take you seriously, or would you like to come back and quickly edit?

But doesn't the same Hebrews 7 show you the tithe of ABRAHAM? And what was Levi's tithe compared to ABARAHAM? Here is what verse 9 says: "And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham." What does that say? It says simply that BEFORE EVEN LEVI WAS BORN, the tithes of Abraham superceded the Levitical tithes! Tell me, how is it that the "WHOLE OLD TESTAMENT" argues tithe on the basis of Levi's tithes?

You guys are too cheap! You only see what you want to see.

Enigma:
Hebrews 7 clearly abolishes Old Testament based "tithing". If a person gives voluntarily 'as he purposes' and does so in the form of "tithing", that is not Old Testament based tithing; that is not obligatory/mandatory tithing; that is voluntary "tithing" --- and I certainly (and many others) have stated that we have no problem with that.

Hehe. .  another lie from the pit of hell!

Hebrews 7 NOWHERE says that OT tithing has been abolished! NOWHERE. Why? Because tithing was NOT originated from the old testament under the Jews, but predated the whole of Judaism as a covenant to those people!

Second, the New Testament arguments for giving comes from the OT scriptures. There is no argument that anybody can bring here about any form of tithe without a throwback to the OT scriptures, so no one can argue that it is not an OT based thing. People are too driven by shallow thinking that they think all of a sudden, there is a "new" way of giving that was never derived from the OT! On the contrary, the NT discourses for the Christian testimony is based on the declarations of the OT.

We should not be making false and misleading assertions on Hebrews 7 - and it does not surprise me that those who have repeated that lie have never been open for a discussion on that chapter for the assertion they make.

Abu Zola:
Muslim do not abibe by an inch of your bible, we have our complete book of guidance

How come your ummah is depending on more than an inch of the Bible to try so desperately to pinch Deuteronomy 18:18 for muhammad, huh? It seems that if all muslim mullahs drop that verse and say that it DOES NOT speak about Muhammad, then the whole of your ummah would be in serious trouble, no?

Just take it as an experiment and let's see: try and make another post declaring that Deuteronomy 18:18 is NOT about muhammad - let us see on what leg your fellow muslims will run around! I said it is only an experiement! Try it - your life will never be the same again!