₦airaland Forum

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

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

Em. . . please rephrase. Paul NEVER said that it should not 'be done' - he was not forbidding such a practice of supporting Gospel ministers on the principles he cited from the O.T.

Rather, he wrote that even though he recognized the right of other ministers to receive such support (see 1 Cor. 9:12 - 'If others be partakers of this power over you'), yet he himself had not personally claimed this right to receive such support (v. 12b - 'Nevertheless we have not used this power'; and v. 15 - 'But I have used none of these things').

Then in verse 15 he says that his intention in writing about these thing was not to solicit such support FOR HIMSELF - 'neither have I written these things, that it should be so done UNTO ME'. The highlighted words ('UNTO ME') is missing in your half-quote of verse 15 and makes your conclusion sound as if Paul was forbidding such a practice among other ministers! He certainly was NOT forbidding it.

Ministers of the Gospel who labour genuinely for God in the Church are to be 'counted worthy of double honour' (1 Tim. 5:17). The 'honour' in that verse in Greek is simply the wages or salary paid to such ministers or elders for their Godly labour. If you use a study tool, you will find that the word there refers to money.

But back to 1 Corinthians 9, Paul recognizes the right of Godly ministers to be supported in such a way - being paid salaries for their work. He does not quarrel with anyone for receiving such support even though he himself had not claimed this right for himself. Yet, nobody would dare argue that Paul never once received salaries of other churches - because he himself clearly said that he RECEIVED WAGES from other churches (see 2 Cor. 11:.

The point is that Paul did not make financial support for ministers to be the foundation of the Christian ministry. But he strongly affirmed that the support of Christian ministers should not be downplayed at all - and he used the Law of Moses to establish this Christian doctrine.

The whole point in quoting 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 is not to enhance your denial in any way. Rather, it was to show that those who argue away the Law of Moses because of 'grace' are often ignorant of the fact that Christian giving is established on the Law of Moses! Paul did not dream it up like a shaman in a high cliff - he quoted the Law of Moses to show us that the OT as SCRIPTURE still has a place in the Christian life and ministry. You disagree? No problem - go back and carefully read the NT epistles, and you will surprise yourself on how many Christian doctrines are taken directly from the same Law of Moses that Christians are hastily throwing away.

Bottomline: throw away the OT Scriptre and you have absolutely NO FOUNDATION for any claim you make for your 'NT Christianity'.

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

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

What are you saying? That the Old Testament to the Jews 'CONSIST OF BOTH JEW AND GENTILES UNDER GRACE'?? I'm sure you did not try to use the Old Testament to mix up grace for Jews and Gentiles - which is why your inference that it consist of both Jew and Gentile simply bears out no point at all.

Firstly, the Law of Moses was never given to Gentiles (Rom. 2:14 - ' the Gentiles, which have not the law').

Secondly, the Law addresses or speaks only to those who were under the Law (Rom. 3:19 - 'we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law'); but Gentiles were never under the Law to begin with (as above, Rom. 2:14). So, you cannot infer here that the 'OT Way Law' (whatever that means) was trying to consist both Jew and Gentile.

Further, tithing has absolutely nothing to do with salvation, redemption or justification. NO ONE in the entire Bible gave tithes for purposes of salvation or justification - not Abraham, not Jacob, not Israel under the Levitical priesthood. So I do not understand why you were making reference to "justification" when Paul did not even discuss such a thing in 1 Corinthians 9.

Sorry, but once again you were arguing an unrelated issue into that passage and sounding as if Paul's use of the Law of Moses in 1 Corinthians 9 was about "justification". Nothing of the sort - unless you can clearly show what verse in 1 Cor. 9 you find Paul talking about justification.

BERNIMOORE:
ANYWAY , YOU ADMITTED THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY A GIFT.

Yes, Abraham's tithes to Melchizedek were actually gifts. I refer to them as 'gifts' in order to distinguish it from the anti-tithing fallacy of assuming it was a TAX!

Even your quote of 1 Corinthians 9:6-14  from Snowwy does not argue to the contrary; and I don't think that passage is discussing what Abraham's tithes are called.

The reference to Biblical tithes being a GIFT rather than a 'tax' is found in Numbers 18:24 - 'the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as an heave offering unto the LORD'. It is the tithes that bear the character of 'heave offering' because Israel offered it as such to God. If the tithes were a 'tax', then it would not have been described as a 'heave offering'.

The Hebrew term for 'heave offering' in that verse is terûmâh, which is the definition that includes GIFT (see Strongs Hebrew Dictionary H8641). It is for this reason that I do not see tithes as a 'tax' but rather as a GIFT, a terûmâh.

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

No offence, but I'm just wondering what I should do with your denial of the fact that Abraham indeed tithed.

Just to be sure, contrary to your denial, Abraham actually tithed. The Bible shows this fact simply and lucidly by recognizing that his gifts to Melchizedek are called TITHES in both the Old Testament (Gen. 14:20) and the New Testament (Heb. 7:6). The word translated as 'tithes' in Genesis 14:20 is the very same word that is used in the Hebrew original to describe the Levitical tithes (see Num. 18:24 for example). And if God's Word called Abraham's gifts 'TITHES', then I am satisfied with that rather than looking for theological loopholes to deny what Scripture teaches.

This is why I have said that there's nothing new in your arguments - almost everything in your rejoinder are merely recycled from other anti-tithers who have long abandoned such denials. Sorry, but I don't mean to cause you any grief.

That said, I am still looking for answers to these two issues:

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

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

You did not show anything from Scripture on those two issues I raised. As to the first, I have demonstrated again and again in the other thread that Abraham's tithes were not 'subsumed' into the Levitical tithes. If they were, PLEASE SHOW US where Scripture teaches such a thing rather than merely concluding that it is so.

As to the second point, I also showed that Abraham was not under the Law of Moses - therefore, you cannot use the Mosaic Law to bear upon an event that preceded it by hundreds of years. Moses himself shows in Deut. 5:1-3 that the Mosaic Law was not given to their fore-fathers, so where is your grounds for arguing that Abraham's tithes were 'gone with the Law' as if it was part of the Law in the first place?!?

Please don't make such huge exegetical leaps - doing so with me will land you in the gutter, especially if your hermeneutics is weak!

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

What makes tithing a 'pagan practice'? If it is because pagans in antiquity also tithe, why then do Christians give "offerings" - is the giving of 'offerings' not know in pagan antiquity as well? Did pagans in antiquity not 'pray' as well? Did they not try to live 'moral lives' as well?

Sorry, but there's nothing desperate or dangerous in what I recommend in my comments. 'Biblical tithes' are NOT paganism. Neither Abraham's tithes, nor Jacob's understanding of tithing, nor the Levitical tithes were based on the inference of paganism.

God gave tithing to Israel, not because He hijacked it from pagans - but because HE gave HIS OWN ANSWER for that practice among His people in Deut. 14:23 - to learn to reverence God ALWAYS. Please tell me: What is dangerous in that?

If tithing evokes the thought of 'pagan' this or that in your mind, why then did God give that 'pagan practice' to His own people Israel?

Now, if your argument is that just because pagans practiced something (tithing, prayer, prophethood, prophecy, offerings, etc.,) and thereby it is automatically invalidated for Christians, then the same Christians who talk like that should have nothing to do with morality, prayer, priesthood, offerings, and a thousand and ten other things - all of which the same 'pagans' have also practised in antiquity!

Please let us stop this trash talk against 'pagans'. Many of the people that Christians are quick to call 'pagans' happen to be some of the finest people in the entire stretch of my neighbourhood and whose 'moral lives' will only shame even many Christians leaders. To be yapping against pagans when some Christians don't even know their own Bibles to be desperately ignorant of reality on the part of Christians.

So here, I'll just try and skip over any further reference to 'pagan' mentions in your rejoinder. I find it particularly offensive for Christians to talk-down on 'pagans' as if we have anything better than those folks.

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

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Hang on!! You're jumping gigantic leaps here. One thing at a time.

It is true that I have often referred to Abraham's tithes as GIFTS to the priest Melchizedek - but that does not mean we should therefore trace it to a so-called 'pagan origin and culture then'. That is plain cheating by a long spoon in Biblical exegesis!

1. The Bible does not teach that Abraham's tithes was pagan tithes.

2. The Bible does not teach that Abraham gave tithes to a pagan priest;

3. The Bible does not teach anything about Abraham's tithes being derived from pagan customs;

4. The Bible shows no grounds for a pagan foundation for Abraham's tithes.

It's quite important that we clarify this issue before you begin to wrongly assume that I was 'agreeing' with you on anything there.

On the other hand, I have referred to Abraham's tithes as a 'worship-response' rather than 'pagan custom'. The reason is because there was nothing to show that Abraham was legally bound to tithe to ANY king - not even Melchizedek.

Thus, because he was not acting on a legal code, he was not obeying any 'custom' or 'rule' of the ancient Orients. Even if for argument's sake we assume that he was following a custom, we have to ask: WHICH particular law or custom was he adopting? Please pick a choice and show exactly why that sould be so.

The argument of pagan custom on Abraham's tithes actually would disqualify Melchizedek as the recipient of the patriarch's gifts. That gift was not a tax - it was a freewill offering, entirely emanating from Abraham's volition based on the pronouncements of blessings by the priest Melchizedek.

The two questions that follow here are:

(a) who was Abraham ascribing his victory to - to a pagan deity or to the LORD God who called and made a covenant with him?

(b) would Abraham actually be inclined to adopt paganism in order to acknowledge the priesthood of Melchizedek?

Please seek answers to those questions and then you will see that there is NO BIBLICAL JUSTIFICATION to interpret Abraham's tithes as paganism.

@BERNIMOORE,


I've only tried to outline my answers to the issues you raised in your rejoinder, if for nothing else than to help a few folks understand why I have said that many people who oppose tithing among Christians do not have a solid grasp of Scripture. On both sides of the divide, many people 'twist' Scripture in one way or another - but we only come to a common ground by employing basic exegetical principles. When people fail to do that, then it shouldn't surprise anyone why some of these recycled anti-tithing arguments tend to be tenuous and fallacious when closely examined.

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

wordtalk: historically his gifts to Melchizedek lays the foundation for BIBLICAL TITHES

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

No, I did not at anytime say or infer such an idea. I explained what I meant by that quote so that no one is left scratching their heads or rubbing their eyes. Which is why I decided to lay bare what I am saying so that nobody would run the risk of putting words in my mouth.

If you go back to my comments earlier, you find again and again that I have plainly stated that Abraham's tithes are not based pagan customs. In order to clear the air and leave no one in doubt, I also pointed readers to my article showing that 'Abraham's tithes Are NOT Pagan'.

Another article I have written also bears out the point that 'Melchizedek Was NOT A Pagan Priest.

Between us, BERNIMOORE, you're the one who has used reference to pagan antiquity as your basis for the importance of WHY God gave the Law to Israel and included tithes therein. You will not find me anywhere resorting to paganism to discuss Biblical tithes.

Don't worry, nothing you have argued is new to me. For the most part, you seem to be recycling borrowed ideas from anti-tithing theologians whose hermeneutics are based on shoddy scholarship.

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

I think you've confused a whole range of issues here.

While it is true that God forbad idolatrous worship to Israel as practised among the Gentile nations (Deut. 12:1-4), His intention was never to 'baricade' His people from other nations (call them 'pagan', Gentiles, or whatever).

The Law of Moses shows that non-Jews could live among and 'mix' with His people Israel - these non-Jews are often referred to as 'strangers' and 'sojourners' (see Exodus 12:48 and Lev. 19:33). They were not to be discriminated against or treated unfairly (Deut. 10:19), which is why God Himself said that 'ONE LAW' was to guide both Jewish-born and non-Jewish people among them (Exo. 12:49; Lev. 19:34).

For these reasons as well, it is wrong to assume that marriage union between Jews and Gentiles were forbidden. On the contrary, God Himself recognizes such a union on healthy grounds, and showed His approval by BLESSING those marriages.

You don't agree? No problem, just dress warm and then explain to me the following -

(a) how a MOABITESS (Ruth) married a JEW (Boaz) - Ruth 4:10 & 13

(b) why God recognized that Gentile-Jewish marriage union by blessing it with children -  Ruth 4:13 ('the LORD gave her conception, and she bare a son')

(c) how God did not reject such a union so that it was through that marriage we trace the lineage of David - Ruth 4: 21-22

(d) and how God allowed that union to be the chosen one from which His Son Jesus Christ would come into the world (Matthew 1:1 - 'Jesus Christ, the son of David')

You see why I have said that your analysis throughout are riddled with huge exgetical holes that do not bear up in the face of sound Biblical hermeneutics? Once you make assertions like the ones you made without exegetical principles, you would only find questions emerging one after the other to show how misinformed your assertions have been. No offence, just wanted to point these things out.

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

Gen 19:3-6

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

You perhaps meant to quote EXODUS 19:3-6, not GENESIS 19. No problem, I understand you - and we all make mistakes.

Anyhow, I've earlier answered the query as to WHY God gave the Law to His people Israel - the answer is found in Galatians 3:19 >>

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

The answer you're looking for is neither in Genesis nor Exodus nor Isaiah, my dear friend. Israel did not need the Mosaic Law in order to be God's people, because even after the Law of Mosaic as the Jewish covenant was set aside, Israel continues to be God's people - a point which even Paul affirms in the New Testament (e.g., Romans 11:1 - 'I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means!'). This just shows that Exodus 19 does not answer the question of WHY God gave the Mosaic Law.

So, I'll just skip all the Genesis-Exodus-Isaiah passages you cied, because they do not furnish with answers to the question of WHY the Law was given.

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

A couple of questions to help you think carefully through this:

1. By what 'law' did Abraham give tithes to Melchizedek in Genesis 14?

2. What IN SCRIPTURE points you to the inference of 'paganism' in Abraham's tithes?

3. Why exactly did Abraham give tithes to Melchizedek and not to any other king in the region?

4. On what basis would Melchizedek have been qualified to receive tithes from Abraham?

When you begin to seek BIBLICAL ANSWERS to these basic questions, then you understand why I've often raised issues around Biblical hermeneutics in order to understand your exegesis. Just because we read of other nations giving tithes does not automatically transfer by correlation in interpreting Abraham's tithes in Genesis 14 as 'pagan'.

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

That kind of argument is only self-deflating. Pagans in antiquity prior to the emergence of the Mosaic Law also prayed, gave offerings of various kinds, and had a codified moral law among themselves without having the Law of Moses as their guide (compare Rom. 2:14). Why then do anti-tithing theologians not make the same assumptions in this case by concluding in the same manner that -

-  'prayer' was a pre-Mosaic 'pagan custom' in antiquity, therefore it is dangerous for Christians to 'pray'?
-  or, that 'giving offerings' was a pre-Mosaic 'pagan custom', therefore it is 'dangerous' for Christians to give offerings?
-  or, that 'morality' was a pre-Mosaic 'pagan custom', therefore it is 'dangerous' for christians to live moral lives?

If these things are to be invalidated for Christians on the basis of a so-called antiquated 'pagan-custom' or 'pagan-origin', then there's nothing to argue against the fact that CHRISTIANS ARE NOTHING OTHER THAN CIVILIZED PAGANS! End off!

If you cannot make that same conclusion and want to divorce paganism from Christianity, then on what exegetical basis would you approach Genesis 14 on Abraham's tithes in reference to pagan culture?

Sorry, but your inference of 'pagan origins' have no bearing on Abraham's tithes. You would have to draw that out directly from the texts of Scripture rather than some far-fetched interpolations. Failing to do that, all else would simply collapse in your opening arguments. My apologies.

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

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

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

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

BUT FOR EMPHASIS SAKE LETS GO DOWN THE HISTORY,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@BERNIMOORE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@BERNIMOORE,

Many thanks for our rejoinder and analysis.

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

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

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

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

Zikkyy:
   

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

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

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

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

Okay, seriously, Zikkyy.

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

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

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

---

Zikkyy:
So, what made Melchi a great priest?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aight, no problem.

---

Zikkyy:
No. I think you got me wrong.

Okay, apologies.

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

Thank you!

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

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

Okie-dokie.

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

What issues would you have?

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

Aight.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amen bro - preach it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More later.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

iluvnet:
So, if you get into the wrong book of the G.O or his wife, you are bound to be removed from that post within 2 years as it is the G.O that prays about the new officers and no one can either confirm or reject any particular officer.

That does not even sound like 'rotating' of church posts. It's more like communism in convent.

@Pastor Kun,

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

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

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

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

1. To discourage manipulation and coercion in Christian giving

2. To ENCOURAGE healthy valid forms of Christian giving

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zikkyy:
Yes ooh you had to do that disappearing act

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

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

Okie-dokie.

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

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

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

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

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

So, yeah. . . I explained.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pastor Kun:
Same old recycled arguments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Zikkyy

Long time, and thanks for raising those concerns.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In simple terms, the above shows that -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what sayeth thee

As above, sir.

Ptolomeus:
It would be important that if you quote Malachi, you should read it sometime ,
I do not river such situations, to cause me grief.

I don't see you quoting Malachi yourself, let alone reading it. I'm sorry if my rejoinders were (mis)read as causing grief - that was never intended on m part. I just thought that the record be set straight and not left confused in the manner you put it.

Pastor Kun:
@wordtalk
You have come with your biblical gymnastics again

If you cannot address the issues you read in my responses, it were better you passed silently rather than wave your placard of how dull you have become. I did not begin by addressing you nor did i accuse you of anything. If you like to start off an engagement or discussion by first throwing mud, then don't whine when you dig your face into the gutter.

is there anything in scriptures to suggest that Abraham's tithe was setting an example for believers to follow.

Yes, and I have shared my answer in other threads. The one thing I do not like to do is repeat myself over and over again. If you can't take it, tough luck.

Even at that the man made version of tithes preached in churches today bears little resemblance to Abraham's tithe or the levitical one.

In what sense? By the fallacy of denials he argued which i have outlined? Please don't make me laugh. Where do many Christians today get their many doctrines of "Christianity" which they preach and practise today - from where? From Abraham? From the Levites? From who? Does it not make you wonder that many of those who 'agree' to argue against tithing are still the same people who DISAGREE on many fundamental Christian doctrines?

I would also use this opportunity to remind you for the upteenth time that those who argue against tithing as it is preached today are merely arguing a false doctrine that is being used to rip off believers today cause they are being fraudulently mis-led into believing it is a christian requirement.

You're just a quintessential opportunist! Please Kun, quote me ANYWHERE or at ANY LINE were ANY of my arguments are favouring your version of 'false doctrine'? Where you tried to hoodwink the unsuspecting reader with your mantra of 'requirement' or 'fraudulent', have I not made my case clear enough that I do not argue for neither of such ideas? So,  what are you claiming "opportunity" to "remind" me about what - as if I ever made reference to such cacophony?

If most preachers were honest enough to preach the truth about mandatory tithing'[/b]s irrelevance to christians and only preach it as optional, trust me nobody would be up in arms against it.

Now, now, now. . . Kun. Again, I have nowhere argued on the basis of 'mandatory tithing'. If you were careful enough to read my first input here, you would see indeed that I discouraged any form of "coercion" by saying - "a believer should choose what and how they want to give [b]as long as doing so does not bother on coercion of some sorts ('coercion' - another name for 'mandatory')." If this is all an argument against 'mandatory tithing' (which I have never favoured anywhere), then what would I need to have responded to the fallacies bantered here and there by those who wish to quench their thirst in fighting tithers in the church?

No, Kun - enlighten yourself to read issues carefully. Since I did not make reference to mandatory tithing (other than discouraging it), why do you think it needs be mentioned in your "opportunity to remind"?!?


Now, this hghlighted part of your comments -

If most preachers were honest enough to preach the truth about mandatory tithing's irrelevance to christians and only preach it as optional, trust me nobody would be up in arms against it

That is the [size=16pt]BIGGEST ANTI-TITHING LIE[/size] often recycled around the globe! Antitithers act as if NOBODY has been talking about VOLUNTARY tithing; and where we even make the effort to spell it out in simple terms that we are talking about voluntary expressions of giving, many anti-tithers jump into their bandwagon and act like blind illiterates who no longer read!

You just need to look a little more closely and you will find myriads of anti-tithers who want to stop everyone from tithing in church - including VOLUNTARY expressions of tithing. Yet, ask a little more closely about these anti-tithers personal commitment to Christ and you will find many of them cannot do more than mere cheap talk, and in some cases some of them are not even participating in any identified local church!! They go on a trail hunting other Christians on how not to give, yet they have absolutely nothing to show of how much more they can give beyond what the saints in the Old Testament gave.

Ptolomeus:
It is impossible to defend the indefensible.

I entered this thread expecting to see sob tales as above. You just fulfilled my suspicion. If you do have anything besides the incoherence you spout out, please share. If not, hiding behind the usual anti-tithers' jingoism is only risible.

While looking forward to your rejoinder/reply, BENIMOORE, let me highlight something in your comments that made me join in discussing this thread -

BERNIMOORE:
PLS OPEN YOUR BIBLE AND READ; THE BIBLE VERSE OFTEN DODGED BY TITHES ADVOCATES FOLLOWING ABRAHAM'S TENTH PORTION TRIBUTE, AND PLS MATCH THIS BIBLE PORTION  ;

Aight, just to assure you that there are many people who 'advocate' tithing and who do not 'dodge' the Bible verses you might present. So, let's look at what you have presumed -

NUMBERS 31: 25-45.;

25 Now the LORD spoke to Moses, saying: 26 “Count up the plunder that was taken—of man and beast—you and Eleazar the priest and the chief fathers of the congregation; 27 and divide the plunder into two parts, between those who took part in the war, who went out to battle, and all the congregation. . . .

. . . <snip>

. . .

Why do tithing teachers not refer to this Scripture and make it the standard for giving? Could it be the simple fact that ten per cent is much more than 2 per cent or two tenths of one per cent?

Let me first answer by asking a few questions so I can get your context -

1. Does Numbers 31 portray or exemplify TITHING or TITHES?
(I know a whole bunch of anti-tithing theologians who ruch to Numbers 31 to argue "tithes" or "tithe-tax", neither of which that passage teaches. So, my question is to enable me understand if you assume that Numbers 31 is also teaching TITHING/TITHES, then in the context of your answer, I shall show you what you have patently missed out.)

2. Are you aware that Numbers 31 shows that the people gave FAR MORE THAN 1% or 2%?
(please do read beyond verse 45 so you see that the people of Israel gave FAR MORE THAN the traditional '1%' or 'one percent' which many anti-tithers argue for in that chapter).

PLS NOTE;
THIS ‘TRIBUTE OFFERING’ MADE BY ABRAHAM WHICH YOU GUYS BASED YOUR BELIEF WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE LAW BUT THIS TIME AROUND,AS IT USED TO BE THAT IT FOLLOWED NO PARTICULAR STANDARD,IS EXPOSED IN LAW AND PRACTICED THIS TIME AROUND WITH LESS THAN TEN PER CENT SHOWS THAT THE ‘TEN PER CENT’ CANVASSED FOR TODAY  HAS NO  UNIFORMITY, OR A UNIFIED  BASIS .SIMPLE AS A.B.C.

Your 'A.B.C' is self-contradictory for the following reasons:

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

2. The point above is important, because if we fail to see how important Abraham's tithes were, then we all fall into the fallacy of presuming that Abraham's tithes were 'subsumed' into the Levitical tithes while Scripture shows the direct opposite.

3. Scripture indeed does not argue for a 'uniformity' in a legalistic manner. In this case, while Abraham's gifts to Melchizedek is called TITHES in both the OT (Gen. 14:20) and NT (Heb. 7:6), what Israel gave after their conquest in Numbers 31 is NOT called 'tithes' - although these acts of giving are on the very same valid expressions of GIFTS rather than legal fees.

4. In other words, the point in #3 above shows that there was a UNIFIED BASIS in expression and value of these acts before God. The unified basis rests on the understanding that tithes under the Levitical system were given as a 'GIFT' which in Hebrew is commonly known as TERUMAH (translated as 'heave offering'). Please compare these -

(a) Numbers 18:24 - Israel's tithes were called 'heave offering' (i.e., 'terumah') - 'the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as an heave offering unto the LORD'.

(b) although Numbers 31 does not speak of tithes as such, yet what they gave was valued as a 'heave offering' (i.e., 'terumah') - 'And Moses gave the tribute, which was the LORD'S heave offering, unto Eleazar the priest, as the LORD commanded Moses. ' (see verse 29 and 41).

The 'UNIFIED BASIS' rests in the value of the GIFT, which is the 'terumah' - in both Numbers 18 and 31; and though Abraham's tithes were not described as a 'terumah', yet it actually bears this significance from Gen. 14:20 in worship-response to the pronouncements of God's high priest at the time, Melchizedek.

THESE VERY COMMANDS WERE GIVEN BY "THE LORD TO MOSES." (NUM. 31:25) THEY ARE GOD’S VERY WORDS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE. WHY DO TITHING TEACHERS AVOID REFERENCE TO THIS PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE?ITS INCORPORATED IN LAW AND GONE WITH THE LAW FOR GODS SAKE.

Tithing teachers do not avoid reference to this passage. On the contrary, I have just enuciated the passage above to show that there is no need to make reference to it since it DOES NOT teach tithing. Why would tithing teachers therefore make reference to it when it does not bear such a significance on the subject of tithing.

Quite to the contrary, when anti-tithers make treference to numbers 31, they have often fallen flat on their faces to show how hollow their hermeneutics is! No theologian worth his onions would be arguing tithes from Numbers 31 - because that passage does not teach on the subject.

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

Ptolomeus:
I'm surprised that many Christians pay tithes.

I am one of those Christians who give through tithes (and other types or expressions of giving), so please don't be surprised.

In Malachi 3:10 God requires tithing to the Levitical priests only (not the entire world, not the rest of the people) as a punishment for stealing their offerings.

Malachi 3:10 does not teach that tithing was a 'punishment for stealing their offerings', as you put it. It is indeed surprising that you misread that verse. Whose offerings were stolen - 'their offerings' or God's offerings? Malachi 3:8 shows it was God's offerings that the WHOLE NATION had stolen -

           "Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me."

It does not say 'ye have robbed us', so where did you get the so-called 'punishment for stealing their offerings'?

Thus we understand that tithing is a divine punishment for thieves.

That again, is a huge misreading of the text. If tithing was a punishment for thieves, would you find me the text to show it was the same in Abraham's case? Was Abraham a thief and only gave tithes to bear his 'punishment'?

Never gave a tithe in the form of money, jewelry, etc ,

You're dead wrong. The only reasons I know why people argue that BIBLICAL tithes were "only" food and not money, jewelry, etc. is because -

1. They have never studied their Bibles carefully but play fast and loose with eisegesis

2. They do not understand what they mean by "Biblical tithes"

3. They look for flimsy excuses to exclude Abraham's tithes from the Bible even though they were recognized in BOTH the OT and NT (which is why you hear half-baked theologians argue that Abraham's tithes are 'pagan' tithes).

On the contrary, study the Bible carefully and you will find indeed that titthes included  MONEY and JEWELRY - at least, in Abraham's case.

Hello all,

I've watched with interest the back-and-forth in this thread. Like all others that preceed this one, comments and arguments seem to only be recycled from other threads here and elsewhere.

Bottomline is that a believer should choose what and how they want to give as long as doing so does not bother on coercion of some sorts ('coercion' - another name for 'mandatory'). So, those Christians who want to express their giving in the form of tithing/tithes (or a 'tenth' or 'ten percent') are absolutely free to do so without arguments to the contrary. For those who do not wish to express their giving in this way or any other way, it is entirely up to them to also do as they may rather than harangue others how not to give.

For the rest, a few comments are fantastically duplicitious, to say the very least. For instance,

Pre-law tithing was either nailed to the temple wall or was subsumed into the mosaic law (levitical tithe).

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

WHY DO YOU IGNORE A 'FACT' HERE? ZIKKY IS MAKING A GREAT POINT HERE THAT THE TENTH PORTION OF SPOILS IS JUST A 'TRIBUTE OFFERING’ OF A VOW BY ABRAHAM , THAT DOES NOT FOLLOW A PARTICULAR STANDARD, OR LAW, AND THE POINT ZIKKY MADE HERE WAS CORRECT IF YOU FEEL THAT ANYTHING CAN BE A STANDARD FORMED FROM THIS ACT IT WILL BE INVALID OR VOIDED BECAUSE IT IS GONE WITH THE LAW ON THE CROSS.

While that 'point' may have its own bearing, nothing in Scripture shows Abraham gave tithes as a 'vow' - at best, it could be described as a worship-response, rather than as a vow. To read it as a vow is reading the texts backwards and drawing on eisegesis, not exegesis.

And talking about a 'standard', yes indeed, Abraham's tithes lays the foundation for Biblical tithes historically (please note: I did NOT say that Abraham was the first in history to give tithes; rather, historically his gifts to Melchizedek lays the foundation for BIBLICAL TITHES). This is shown in Hebrews 7, as well as in the original Hebrew for 'tithes' in the Old Testament.

AND TO CONCUR WITH ZIKKY THAT THE SAME ABRAHAM 'TRIBUTE OFFERING' TO MELCHI HAS BEEN 'SUBSUMED' OR INCORPORATED INTO THE LAW COVENANT AND THEN GONE WITH THE LAW

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

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

In the first place, Abraham was NEVER UNDER THE LAW - so, what he did was not 'subsumed' into the Law; and what the Law did not originate from Abraham cannot therefore be nullified by the same external Law.

I am very open to discuss this with you, BENIMOORE. So, please feel very free to engage, if you may.

Other issues will be taken up later. Thanks.