For starters, let's review the anti-tithing argument in question. It goes as follows:
Hebrews 7 is the only place in the bible after Christ's death that tithing appears, and it refers to tithe as a commandment and law in verse 5. Then Hebrews 7:12 says that the law has changed because the priesthood has changed, and verse 18 says that the commandment is disannulled. Therefore, the commandment and law that are "disannulled" in Hebrews 7 are the laws of tithing, and Christians are no longer required to tithe like people did in the Old Covenant.This is the argument that I'm going to now refute by examining Hebrews 7. Let's read through the chapter now to try to understand, from an objective standpoint, the context and purpose of the scriptures:
Hebrews 7:1-7The Old Covenant established the Levites as a tribe of priests and appointed them to receive the tithes from the rest of those under the covenant - the other 11 tribes of Israel. Is tithing the central issue here? No. Tithing is being used as a device to show that Melchizedek is greater than Abraham. Therefore, since Abraham is greater than Levi, Melchizedek is greater than Levi:
For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all... remains a priest continually. Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils. And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham; but he whose genealogy is not derived from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises.
Hebrews 7:8-10The sole purpose of mentioning tithes is to demonstrate that Melchizedek is greater than Levi since tithes are given from the lesser to the greater. Why is this relevant? What point is the author of Hebrews making? Keep reading for the answer.
Now beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better. Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives. Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.
Hebrews 7:11Now it should become clear: the author of Hebrews is showing the insufficiency of the Levitical priesthood and the need for a greater priesthood. Now that we are in the proper mindset, we have come to the infamous verse 12, the verse that anti-tithers say "changes" the law of tithing:
Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?
Hebrews 7:12-17We have now come to the heart of the matter: Christ is a priest, but He did not come from the tribe of Levi - He was from the tribe of Judah. The law only allowed Levites to be priests. Therefore, what change of the law is being discussed? The law which states that only Levites can be priests! There is absolutely NO indication from the context that a change in tithing is being discussed! But we still have one more verse to go: the infamous "disanullment" in verse 18. Let's see what we make of that statement now that we understand the point that is being made:
For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.
Hebrews 7:15-18Notice that the "former commandment" was annulled "because of its weakness and unprofitableness," because Christ came as a priest "according to the power of an endless life" rather than "according to the power of a fleshly commandment." The fleshly commandment is, again, the one that states that only the sons of Aaron could be priests.
And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. For He testifies: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.
Now that we understand what Hebrews 7 is saying, let's answer the argument that I posed in the beginning. The only law or commandment that is specifically addressed for the purpose of being changed or annulled is the commandment that states that priests had to be from the tribe of Levi. It cannot in any way be construed as indictment of tithing in particular! The more general argument, which I also promised to address, is that of mainstream Christianity as a whole, which says that Hebrews 7:18 refers to an annulment of the entire Old Covenant law. Again, that is not what we have found - and I'll tell you precisely why.
First of all, consider the nature of the "change of the law" that is being made and the "annulment" that is taking place. The law states that only Levites could be priests. Christ was not a Levite, but, being a priest "according to the order of Melchizedek" and "according to the power of an endless life," He is a greater priest than any Levite. Therefore, the only "change" of the law is to allow for a greater priesthood - a priesthood that already existed before the Levitical priesthood commanded through Moses, since Melchizedek was identified as the "priest of the Most High God" hundreds of years before Levi was even born.
So what manner of "change" and "annulment" is this? Answer: it's a change that invalidates priesthood according to flesh and replaces it with priesthood according to the power of God. Has the law become weaker or stronger as a result? Stronger! Hebrews 7:18 itself says that this causes "the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God." Because the priesthood is now laid on a better foundation (its original foundation, in fact), we now have a better hope and are able to draw near to God in a way that was not possible before.
The conclusion of the first point is that the "change of the law" serves only to allow for a greater priesthood to take the place of the Levitical priesthood. My second point is that this is typical of the entire New Covenant. A true "annulment" of the law of the priesthood would state that there is no longer a priesthood - but this is totally false! Christ is a priest! He's the High Priest, actually, of a better priesthood. More generally, none of God's law has been "annulled" without being superseded by a better law that more fully captures God's spiritual intent of the law! For proof of this fact, one need look no further than the words of Christ:
Matthew 5:17-19Heaven and earth have not passed away - and neither has one word of God's law. Any "changes" are, as I stated, changes that uphold the spiritual intent of the law. Christ gave examples of these types of "changes" in the Sermon on the Mount: it's not sufficient to abstain from murder; rather, you can't even hate your brother in your heart. It's not sufficient to abstain from adultery; rather, you can't even look at a woman with lust. As a matter of fact, prophecy indicates that EXALTING the law was one of the purposes of the Messiah!
Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Isaiah 41:21In the King James, the word "exalt" is translated as "magnify." The Hebrew word, according to Strong's, means "to make great, to cause to grow, to magnify." Not only has God's law not been abolished, annulled, abrogated, or whatever fancy language you want to use to say that it is "done away" - the fact is, Christ came to reveal the true spirit of the law, which is even greater and more honorable than the letter of the law.
The LORD is well pleased for His righteousness’ sake; He will exalt the law and make it honorable.
In conclusion, as I stated from the beginning: God's commandment to tithe is NOT specifically targeted in Hebrews 7. Furthermore, NONE of God's requirements have been weakened; rather, they have been magnified and made better, so that we might receive a better reward than in the Old Covenant.
In view of this fact, regarding tithing in particular, it is easily seen that there is no way to get off the hook as far as tithing goes. God's law is magnified in the New Covenant, and that includes the laws of tithing! If you're still reading this, then you already know that I've said too much for one post - so perhaps I'll save the topic of how the laws of tithing are magnified for a future article.
My next post on debunking anti-tithing arguments will bring us to the next logical point, as I laid out in the Introduction: now that I've shown that tithing is still required by Christians, I will refute the notion that ministers in God's church are not qualified to receive tithes since they are not Levites.
Additionally, I think that at some point I would like to take a detour to explain what is meant by the "weakness and unprofitableness" of the Old Covenant. If it was so weak and unprofitable, why did God make the Israelites agree to it in the first place?
For the most part, I agree with your analysis of Hebrews 7. Tithing was not the subject of the discussion; it was only used to build a case for the priesthood of Jesus.
ReplyDeleteBut since you maintain that God’s law has been magnified in the New Testament, how do you suppose we go about tithing seeing that God gave express commands on how it should be done.
The first tithes were to be given to the Levites who in turn gave a tithe of the tithes to the high priest. Since every single believer of the new dispensation is a priest and Jesus is our High Priest, how do you suppose we tithe? Who should bring the tithe and who should receive and how would the tithe of the tithes get to Jesus?
The second tithe was to be consumed at a place God had chosen. And God commanded that those who lived far away should convert their tithes into money and spend every single penny on wine or strong drink or on anything their hearts desired. And they were also warned to invite the Levites, widows, strangers and orphans. How do you suppose we do this?
Thirdly, there was a year of rest when the children of Israel were not supposed to bring tithes. I would be keen to hear you thoughts on that as well.
But why stop at tithes? How about circumcision? How about the keeping of the Sabbath? Do you also advocate that these are still valid today?
God bless.
“Thirdly, there was a year of rest when the children of Israel were not supposed to bring tithes.”
ReplyDeleteIf you read through the provisions of the 7th year of rest in Leviticus 25:1-7, it does not say that no one was to bring tithes that year. It states that the 7th year is a Sabbath year for the land and that the people therefore could not sow their fields or reap the produce of the land except as food for themselves. This does mean that there would be no tithe on crops for that year, but there would still be a tithe of animals that were born. Additionally, anyone whose livelihood was not entirely from the land would still be tithing on whatever they gained through other means. I’m trying to state these things carefully since many anti-tithers teach that the tithe was ONLY on the crops and animals (I’m waiting to address this in Part 4 of this series); however, I’ve already proven that there would be tithe during the 7th year even if tithe was restricted to crops and animals because the animals would still be having offspring.
“But why stop at tithes? How about circumcision? How about the keeping of the Sabbath? Do you also advocate that these are still valid today?”
As I hinted at by talking about keeping the festivals of God, the short answer is “yes:” I do advocate that these are still valid today. On the other hand, we have to be discerning about exactly how God’s law applies to us today. We must observe the spirit of the law, which is greater than the letter of the law – as Christ said, “unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:20). Since you’ve pointed out circumcision, this is a fantastic starting point: I can state authoritatively that any Christian must be circumcised. Of course I don’t mean the circumcision of the flesh (the New Testament writings are very clear on this), but instead the circumcision of the heart, which is a greater circumcision that fulfills the spirit of the law. This is similar to the way that Christ’s priesthood is a greater priesthood that fulfills the spirit of the law, as I discussed in this article.
" Since every single believer of the new dispensation is a priest and Jesus is our High Priest, how do you suppose we tithe? "
ReplyDeleteWhile the bible indicates that every true believer in this age is going to become a king and priest at Christ's return, there is no evidence to my knowledge to say that we are priests right now. Recall that Israel, too, was to be a "kingdom of priests" (Exodus 19:6) - but it was the Levites that God chose and committed to service in the Temple. In fact, this type of thinking (that everyone in Israel was holy and qualified to be priests) is exactly what led to Korah’s rebellion in Numbers 16. In the next post in this series I’m going to demonstrate that the Levites received tithes in exchange for their service; therefore, those who now receive the 1st tithe are those who serve the present day Temple, which is the body of Christ.
You have a point about the "tithe of tithes" going to the High Priest, and I'll give it some further thought. My initial feeling is that Christ is obviously not here to receive them in a physical sense; however, this could be applied by having those who receive tithes (ministers and other church employees) devoting a tithe of their salary (i.e. a tithe of tithes) to contribute to the work of the church (i.e. preaching the gospel and teaching the disciples).
The 2nd tithe was specifically to be consumed while observing God's annual feasts, and this has not changed. In addition to keeping the weekly Sabbath, I believe in celebrating all of God’s Holy Days. In ancient Israel, all of the males had to travel 3 times of year to Jerusalem: for the spring feasts (Passover and Unleavened Bread), for the summer feast (Pentecost), and for the fall feasts (Day of Trumpets, Day of Atonement, and Feast of Tabernacles). For the spring and summer feasts, the main purpose of the pilgrimage was for the men to present the offerings for their families in the Temple - such personal offerings were required for each feast season (Deuteronomy 16:16). The Feast of Tabernacles in particular was to be observed by the entire family leaving their home to live in a “booth” or temporary dwelling for 8 days. Since there is no longer a need to travel to a Temple to bring offerings in today’s world, all of the Holy Days except for the Feast of Tabernacles are observed locally, but we do travel to designated “feast sites” for the Feast of Tabernacles in order to keep the commandment to leave our homes for temporary housing. In the United Church of God, with which I fellowship, the elders seek out potential feast sites and determine through examination, fasting, and prayer whether God has chosen to put His Name in that place or not. The 2nd tithe is used to pay for the observance and celebration of these days, with the Feast of Tabernacles accounting for most of the 2nd tithe expenditure since it requires travel accommodations.
As far as inviting the Levites, widows, strangers, and orphans – we send a portion of our 2nd tithe to the organization specifically for the purpose of assisting those who are not financially able to come themselves. Additionally, I know of many instances in which people donate part of their 2nd tithe to others privately when they know that they are in need. Obviously we don’t know who the Levites are in today’s world, but the intent of the law is to provide them with extra provisions for the feast since they did not produce their own income (therefore they would not have had any 2nd tithe to go to the feasts with). My point is that they would fall into the same category in this regard as people who did not make enough money to go the feast themselves.
I found your response quite interesting though and was a little bewildered after visiting your church website.
ReplyDeleteI really do not think I have ever seen your view on the priesthood of the New Testament believer in the bible. And here are a couple of verses of scripture regarding this
But you are not like that, for you are a chosen people. You are royal priests, a holy nation, God’s very own possession. As a result, you can show others the goodness of God, for he called you out of the darkness into his wonderful light. 1 Peter 2:9
He has made us a Kingdom of priests for God his Father. All glory and power to him forever and ever! Amen. Revelation 1:6
It certainly does not point to some distant future.
In the light of that it is glaringly obvious that church ministers and church employees have not been given the mandate to receive tithes as you have asserted.
Lev 25 does not state that people with other sources of income were to tithe and no where in the bible are we told that tithes were anything other than crops and livestock. Here is Lev 25
1 While Moses was on Mount Sinai, the Lord said to him, 2 “Give the following instructions to the people of Israel. When you have entered the land I am giving you, the land itself must observe a Sabbath rest before the Lord every seventh year. 3 For six years you may plant your fields and prune your vineyards and harvest your crops, 4 but during the seventh year the land must have a Sabbath year of complete rest. It is the Lord’s Sabbath. Do not plant your fields or prune your vineyards during that year. 5 And don’t store away the crops that grow on their own or gather the grapes from your unpruned vines. The land must have a year of complete rest. 6 But you may eat whatever the land produces on its own during its Sabbath. This applies to you, your male and female servants, your hired workers, and the temporary residents who live with you. 7 Your livestock and the wild animals in your land will also be allowed to eat what the land produces.
I cannot see any reference to people with other sources of income tithing.
Also, I see a lot of double standard in your response which makes me think you have not fully given some thought to what you are professing. You pay a physical tithe, you observe a physical Sabbath, you physically observe the Jewish feasts but you do not physically observe circumcision. If that is not double standard, I really do not know what is.
Had I known before hand the denomination you belonged to, I most certainly would not have begun this conversation. In saying that, I think I would drop off here as we obviously do not share the same faith.
God bless.
In your view of believers being a priesthood right now because of those scriptures, you are, as I said, neglecting the fact that God had said the same thing to the Israelites even though only the Levites were chosen to serve as priests:
ReplyDeleteExodus 19:6
'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.
I'm not saying that ministers in the New Covenant are some kind of special class of priests and that everyone else is a mere layperson. What I am saying is that the Levites were given tithes because of their service in the temple; therefore, those who labor in the New Covenant temple, which is the body of Christ, are also deserving of wages in return for that service. As Paul said in reference to the ministry, "the laborer is worthy of his wages."
Furthermore, you seem to be insinuating that the Kingdom has already come. Revelation 20:6 supports my view that no one has yet been made a king and priest because the Kingdom has not yet arrived:
Revelation 20:6
Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.
Regarding Leviticus 25, I did not make any claim that this verse demonstrated that people should tithe on income - I'm saving that argument for a future article in this series, as I stated. In Part 1 of this series I explained that people who are against tithing tend to blend arguments with different premises, as you have now done by going back to whether the tithe should be on income. Of course you may not have known that I was breaking it down in that way, but the purpose of this article was intended exclusively to determine whether tithe was required today - not to determine who should receive tithes or what should be tithed on.
As far as the double standard that you perceive: you have made some incorrect assumptions. Namely, you assume that I am merely observing a physical Sabbath and physical feasts. On the contrary, I advocate keeping the spirit of the law, which is greater than than the physical letter. For example, if I physically restrict myself from committing adultery but I spend my time lusting after women, then I have kept the letter of the law but not the spirit, as Christ explained in Matthew 5. Similarly, if I refrain from manual labor on the Sabbath but spend my time on the Sabbath thinking and planning the work that I'm going to do as soon as it is over, then I have broken the spirit of the law but kept the letter. The problem that you will find with your reasoning is that in many cases the spirit of the law leads to the same outward form as the letter, unlike in the case of circumcision. The command not to murder, for example, is a very physical commandment.
I believe the Levites were given tithes because they did not have an inheritance as the other tribes did. Yes, they did serve the others but it says that since they did not have a land inheritance the other tribes tithed out of that land to them....
ReplyDeleteIf you read through the verses in Numbers 18 stating that the tithe was given to the Levites as an inheritance (20-21, for example), it says in the same breath that the tithe was given for their service in the Tabernacle and that God is their inheritance. So which do you think it is, and why?
ReplyDeleteI've stated my position on that argument in another blog post in this series, which can be found here: Was Tithe Given to the Levites Forever?
I will read the rest of your blog etc. but yes I do believe that Levites were given the tithe because of no inheritance AND also that they were given to Israel to serve in tabernacle...it is both. I am still sorting this whole thing out and it is getting very tangled BUT my understanding so far is that the Levites were given the tithe for their service and because they didn't have the time/ability/land to have or raise food for themselves so that the tithe was mainly a thing used for that purpose. Offerings were another thing and that is what we should be doing and yes a 10th is a good #...So far I am having a hard time seeing the "tithe" in the commanded way that COG's are showing and hard to prove "tithe" as this exact 10 percent absolute...other than Levites.
ReplyDeleteIt's definitely a complicated topic to study!
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure exactly what you mean in the last sentence when you say it's hard to prove "tithe" is an exact 10%. The word "tithe" itself means "the tenth one." Maybe you're referring to the question of what constitutes a person's "tithable base" as it's sometimes called - the "gross vs. net income" debate. Even among the COG's which teach tithing on the net income, the definition of "net" is "after taxes" rather than one's true "increase." The basis for some arguments that we should also deduct living expenses (such as rent, etc) is that our actual increase only comes after these essential items are paid for, but this can easily be abused. For example, it would obviously violate the spirit of the law if a person simply bought a more expensive home or sought out a more expensive apartment so that they were left with a smaller "increase" to tithe on.
I think that God knew what He was doing when, on the one hand, He commanded us to tithe on our increase and, on the other hand, commanded that every 10th animal born was to be tithe seemingly without any provision for the concept of tithing only on the increase. Tithing correctly in today's world requires sound judgment, which God gives to us through the Spirit.
I SUGGEST YOU READ NEHEMIAH CHAPTER10 THEN READ MALACHI 3:10 MAYBE YOU WILL GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING WHY THE PEOPLE IN THAT VERSE WERE CURSED WITH A CURSE AND YOU MIGHT WANT TO ADD YOUR NAME TO THE LIST.
ReplyDeleteThe curse you're referring to seems to be Nehemiah 10:29, which says: "these joined with their brethren, their nobles, and entered into a curse and an oath to walk in God’s Law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of the Lord our Lord, and His ordinances and His statutes:"
DeleteDeuteronomy 30:19 shows that it was this way from the beginning, since after giving Israel the Law, God said: "I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life" - i.e., choose to keep the law and you will be blessed, otherwise you will be cursed.
This is NOT something that was true only under the Old Covenant, as James 2:10-13 says this:
"For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. For He who said, 'Do not commit adultery,' also said, 'Do not murder.' Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment."
The same one who said "do not murder" and "do not commit adultery also said "you shall truly tithe."
The surefire way for someone to add their name to the list of those who are cursed is to ignore God's law - even just one part of it.
No tithe to jesus then do not deceive people
ReplyDeleteTithing is valid today.I see it as a grace from God. Deut.14:23...so that you may revere the LORD always.'Giving in any form-tithing,offering,first fruits,love gifts,pledges makes us remember God.When we give,we remember His tendermercies and lovingkindness,and we draw nigh to Him.This is God drawing nigh to us,like a hen that gathers her chicks with her wings,to protect,to love.God wants an intimate relationship.have you observed that you become close to someone with whom you have 'give and take' thing?when we remember God,we draw nigh to Him.But when we forget Him,we corrupt ourselves.One important thing is,I give I love the LORD.Tithe is fixed.But I would be happier if my offerings exceed my tithe.
ReplyDeleteChristian tithe teachers equate the local church organisation to the Mosaic Law temple storehouse, so as to adapt the Malachi 3:10 scripture to suit their tithe, or forced-giving doctrine.
ReplyDeleteThe believer in Christ is the new temple of God; not a building made with hands, therefore typology cannot be used to make such an analogy. There are NO New Testament scriptures that refer to the church building or organisation as being equivalent to the Mosaic Covenant temple storehouse.
2 Corinthians 6:12: And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will dwell in them, and will walk among them; and I will be their God, and they will be My people.
1 Corinthians 3:16: Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?
1 Corinthians 6:19: Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, which is in you, which you have from God? You are not your own
Acts 7:48 and 17:24 tells us that the Most High God does not dwell in a temple made with hands.
The Malachi 3:10 scripture quotes: “Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse that there may be food in my house”. Tithe teachers claim the scripture refers to spiritual food. This is FALSE. The Hebrew word used is, “tereph”, which means, prey, food, leaf. Jesus said that the Father gives us bread from heaven, and Jesus declared that he is the bread of life. The prophet spoke of food for the stomach, but Jesus spoke of spiritual food.
John 6:32-35: Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world.” Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.” Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.”
The temple storehouse was simply a location to store the tithe of the tithe, and the first-fruits offerings. This food was for the levites, and the priests to eat from when they served in the temple, and for the High priest to eat from.
Read Nehemiah 12:44, 47 and 10:37-39.
The temple storehouse is no longer relevant to the New Testament church, and is certainly not the local church organisation. Jesus is the bread of life, the spiritual food that fills the temple, which is the believer in Christ. When believers in Christ pursue the Kingdom of God, then Jesus’ promise is:
“I am the bread of life; he who comes to me will not hunger and he who believes in me will never thirst”.
The scriptures of Malachi have been misquoted, misunderstood and distorted, to compel the body of Christ to tithe of their finances, so shackling them with a false, faith-destroying doctrine.
Salvation is free, but once you're saved, you owe at least 10% for the rest of your life. Sounds like the old bait and switch. Hebrews 7:5, "the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a COMMANDMENT to take tithes of the people ACCORDING TO THE LAW," Hebrews 7:18, "For there is verily a disannulling of the COMMANDMENT". The commandment that was given in verse 5, is disannulled in verse 18. II Corinthians 9:7-8, "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work." God promised Christians, "sufficiency". God promised the Jews, "prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it." Malachi 3:10 The commandment and promise that were given to the Jews were totally different than the commandment and promise that were given to Christians.
ReplyDeleteThe book of Hebrews was written to Jews who wanted to go back to the temple system for salvation, which included animal blood sacrifices and tithing. Christians and gentiles were forbidden to go to the temple to tithe.
ReplyDelete2nd . Mechizadek worshiped god most high which was baal. there was a translation error. Abraham and Melchizedek did not worhip the same God. This tithe that Abrahm gave was spoils of war and an arab custom , not the same as the Malachi tithe.
Your analysis of Melchizedek is not supported in scripture, neither in the Genesis account, the Psalms, nor Hebrews. "God Most High" is a title applied to the true God in many places, and the context throughout the bible shows Melchizedek was a priest of the true God. In Psalm 110, the Messiah would be "a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek." And you're falling way short on how you esteem Hebrews - it's there that we learn Jesus Christ is our "High Priest," for example, and that was not simply a ploy to pull the Jews away from Temple worship! Rather it was a revelation of what God had in mind when He commanded the priesthood of Aaron to begin with.
DeleteThis exercise is a textbook example of paradigmatic thinking and systematic theology. You've clearly stated your paradigm "Arguments Against Tithing Debunked" and then searched for scriptures to try and prove it.
ReplyDeleteOf course none do; Why does 'magnify' equate to maintaining the law. Why wouldn't it change with the priesthood? To, say, something like "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity..." There isn't a 10th there. Why does it still have to be a 10th..no reason except to maintain the paradigm.
In other posts you have statements related to how it is 'logical', 'makes sense', etc. They may well be that and I have no problem with you coming to your own conclusion, but you're presenting this as though scripture demands it and it just doesn't.
If I were you (I know..I'm not) I'd spend a little more time in Romans 14 than Leviticus.
Regarding paradigms, I take Matthew 5:17-20 as a foundational statement.
DeleteI think the Bible just isn't as explicit as people want it to be sometimes, and that can cause problems for us because of our carnal nature and hardness of heart. To say that "scripture doesn't demand it" is, in fact, your own form of paradigmatic thinking on this matter.
As you mentioned, your topic is multi-faceted. It isn’t at all that disagree with what the Bible says in Matthew 5:17-20 and that the law is as righteous today as it ever was. However, you have acknowledged that fulfillment of the law has changed the observation of it. I’m saying that your vision of how it changed is entirely subjective. Yes, you tie it in with Biblical principles but that doesn’t give you the certainly you seem to be claiming. You can fill those ‘gaps’ in with anything you like and, as long as it doesn’t violate a Biblical principle, you can make it say whatever you want. It happens all too often.
ReplyDeleteI do need the Lord's help with a better balance between mind and spirit. I tend toward analytical thinking and so I do appreciate your passion on the subject of maintaining the law. I'm struggling though with systematic theology in general because I think it leans us toward division. I understand that Christ came to dived but not over "...doubtful disputations". We can certainly have our opinions about those things but if we just insist on what the Bible says and not on what we think it means, I believe we would get along a lot better in general.
You said; "To say that "scripture doesn't demand it" is, in fact, your own form of paradigmatic thinking". I understand what you're saying. Undoubtedly, as hard as I am trying to eliminate them, I have developed paradigms over the years. I am working on those as the Lord allows, but I think in this case you're confusing a ‘paradigm’ with a ‘perspective’. Again, the Bible 'says' things (that is a perspective) and then there are things we believe the Bible 'means' and we develop paradigms to 'prove' those things. I'm suggesting that, since the Bible does 'say' things that we stick to teaching those things and not make 'religions' out of our paradigms.
Anyway, I do appreciate your love for the Lord and I’m really not trying to convince you that you are wrong about what you believe the Bible means on the subject of tithing. I’m just suggesting that, based on what the Bible says, you could be. As long as you are allowing for that and not dis-fellowshipping with other believers over it then it isn’t a problem. If that isn’t the case, then I refer to Romans 14 again.
Thanks for your time and attention regardless. Not an easy thing to put yourself out on the ‘interwebs’ like this.