That’s a question I’ve been asking over the past year. I basically grew up with a “10% of all gross income goes in the offering plate” understanding of Christian giving… but that changed about a year ago, when I began to study the topic in earnest.
For instance, one thing that constantly trips up modern-day Christians is that we fail to remember that the Law given to Moses did not merely outline a religious system… it was a constitution establishing a nation’s government. Thus, we need not only to discern which laws were sacrificial in nature (as Christians, we hold that Jesus Christ is our atonement and makes all other sacrifices—and thus all laws requiring sacrifices—moot), but also whether certain laws were governmental or sacramental in nature. While this may be a simple process with the laws of a “secular” nation, it can get difficult when you’re dealing with a theocracy.
My studies keep drawing me to the same conclusion: God’s eternal Law of Love compels us to serve the poor, but the tithe laws were a form of taxation, and served as the welfare system for Ancient Israel. Thus, these laws only apply to those under the Old Covenant living in geographical Israel.
Deuteronomy 15:7-11 (which I wrote about recently) provides the framework for all God-glorifying giving, and serves as the “spirit of the law” regarding money, possessions and neighbors:
If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be. Take care lest there be an unworthy thought in your heart and you say, ‘The seventh year, the year of release is near,’ and your eye [be evil toward] your poor brother, and you give him nothing, and he cry to the LORD against you, and you be guilty of sin. You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be [evil] when you give to him, because for this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’
The tithes, while a sacrifice to the LORD, were arranged in such a way as to serve as the particular fulfillment of this command with regards to the Levites (as God forbade them from owning land, cf. Deut. 18:1-8), as well as other poor in the Israelites’ midst (Deut. 14:22-29). Additionally, not only here but also in Nehemiah’s time (after two months of working daily with wood, stone, etc. to rebuild the wall around Jerusalem), the reinstated tithe consisted solely of agricultural produce (Neh. 10:35-39).
Now when you begin to question the tithe, the knee-jerk response you often get is a quote from The Most Overused Tithe Verse In The Bible: “Will man rob God? Yet you are robbing me. But you say, ‘How have we robbed you?’ In your tithes and contributions.” Congratulations, you have now been labeled a God-robber! However, this is neither faithful exegesis nor Biblical correction. It’s simply propaganda and browbeating. To show you that this is the case, let me share the entire passage with you, and pay attention to what I emphasize:
Will man rob God? Yet you are robbing me. But you say, ‘How have we robbed you?’ In your tithes and contributions. You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing me, the whole nation of you. Bring the full tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. And thereby put me to the test, says the LORD of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need. I will rebuke the devourer for you, so that it will not destroy the fruits of your soil, and your vine in the field shall not fail to bear, says the LORD of hosts. Then all nations will call you blessed, for you will be a land of delight, says the LORD of hosts. (Malachi 3:8-12, ESV)
Let me make it perfectly clear: the tithes were never about collecting money for the Temple. Tithing was the means by which a food bank was kept for the poor and needy in Israel.
There is only one passage in all of Scripture which speaks of money in relation to the tithe: Deuteronomy 14:22-29. However, the money is never actually given to the Levite. Rather, it is used only as a convenient form of transport for those who must travel a long distance. Once the tither arrives at Jerusalem, he is commanded to convert the money back into food, strong drink (beer), etc. and to consume these items with the Levite, sojourner, fatherless and widow (that is, those without such provision). And you know what? Jesus mentioned something much like this in Luke’s gospel:
[Jesus] said also to the man who had invited him, “When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.” (Luke 14:12-14, ESV)
Never, all in Scripture, is a tithe used to pay building and maintenance expenses for a meeting-house or clergy. The tithe is food, and it’s used to feed people—period. Freewill offerings (and/or perhaps a modern-day equivalent to Nehemiah’s “temple tax”) are the only Biblically-approved source of income from which such things as Equipment Upgrades, Insurance, Janitorial Services, Payroll Expenses, Repairs and Maintenance, Utilities, Mortgages, etc. are to be paid.
In contrast to the Old Covenant system, Paul set aside any pastoral “right” to live off the ministry and instead worked additional jobs to provide for his own expenses. He reasoned that he stood to gain no heavenly reward from “simply” preaching the Gospel (1 Cor. 9:15) and must go out of his way to make it a completely free gift if he were to receive anything from the Father because of his work. However, if Paul were simply a “New Covenant priest” he would have been leading the churches into sin by causing them to break God’s Law which required a community to feed its Levites (again, Deut. 18:1-8). Thus, we can infer that Paul did not believe these laws were binding for ministers of the Gospel.
That being the case, a Christian pastor ought not presume to live off of the tithes of his people. If a tithe is requested of the congregation, then Biblically it needs to be food, and it needs to be distributed to people who need food. (Which is to say, faithful application of the tithe laws requires the establishment of a congregational food bank.) Beyond that, there is no Biblical requirement to “lay [any] money at the [pastors'] feet.” (It is certainly encouraged as the decent thing to do for a chap who has given his whole lives to serving you and yours spiritually… but it’s not required.) In and 4, the money laid at the apostles’ feet was “distributed to each as any had need” (Acts 2:44-45; Acts 4:32-35). Likewise, the money collected on Paul’s behalf from the Church in Macedonia, Achaia, and Corinth was going directly to feed the Christians in Jerusalem who were suffering through a famine—not to line his personal “chariot fund.” And of course a meeting-house is nice, but depleting a collected tithe to fund it—or even to keep it lit and climate-controlled—is unbiblical.
So if I don’t think the tithe applies to us today, does that mean I can get away with not giving anything? God forbid! On the contrary, I believe Christians are to “sell [their] possessions, and give to the needy” (Luke 12:33), but are not bound by a 10-33% annual tithe to modern-day Levites per se. The sacrificial system is no longer binding, but I am still bound by the perfect Law of Love: specifically, to “love [my] neighbor as [myself],” (Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 19:19, etc.) and thus to “remember the poor” (Gal. 2:10), “open wide [my] hand to [my] brother, to the needy and to the poor, in [my] land” (Deut. 15:11), “bear with the failings of the weak, and not… please [myself]“ (Rom. 15:1-3, cf. vv. 25-27), and to “contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality” (Rom. 12:13) “that there may be fairness” (2 Corinthians 8:13-15). Sometimes fairness means giving 1%, sometimes 99%.
But the most ironic thing about my tithe law studies is that some of those who are being commanded to “tithe” (give 10% of your gross income) to “the church” (really meaning “the pastors”) are actually poor enough that the pastors are required by God’s Word to be tithing to them.
So in conclusion: Christians are commanded to give to the poor and needy in our midst, but we are not bound by tithe laws. However, even if one were convinced that Christians must tithe, a faithful reading of Scripture insists the tithe be used to feed the poor. It is wholly foreign to the Word of God to use a tithe on buildings, utilities, vacations, insurance or even clothing.
Pingback: A New Breed by Travis Seitler (secondmouse)
Pingback: A Poor Man Who Walks in His Integrity by Travis Seitler (secondmouse)
I just followed this link from another one of your blogs. This was a good read thanks for sharing your word. I am always interested in hearing what other people have to say about the tithe.
forgive me but I’ve been stalking this site a bit the last few days. I ran across it while googling “haedcoverings blog” and then I realized you live in Maryland too.. and my husband, kids and I have been church shopping so I wanted ot read about your church… and your wife’s headcovering (oh how nice it would be to a have a friend who wore a head covering too!)
anyhow I’ve really enjoyed my visit and I will certainly be back.
(btw I have a blog I update frequently but i didn’t leave that here b/c I dont like to announce it to all of Maryland. but of course if you wanted to visit let me know.)
Pingback: Is Tithing a New Testament Requirement? « Readhead Reverend
Travis, I love this post. At first I thought you were crazy! But I think I agree with you now. Thanks for a challenging read. I wrote a post in response. Oh! I see you’ve already got the Pingback!
Travis-
I have totally struggled with this one, and 3 years ago was blessed to have Mark Lauterbach from the San Diego Church cover the subject with a very similar take during my new-members class.
When I have tried to broach this subject with leaders and people I DEEPLY respect in our church, I have struggled to expressing my words and thoughts in a way as adequately as you have here.
I’m lucky that my Dad’s a strong believer, and has been incredible helpful on this topic during the course of my walk. I’m lucky that my former church helped me sort things out and examine the gospel for what the gospel says, and not to swallow every word told to me…
Thanks for the approaching a subject that most flee from.
PS. I’m TOTALLY ecstatic that you have a blog that mentions my former pastor, Mark Lauterbach. I was GREATLY blessed to get to spend 2 1/2 years with Sunday Messages from him. I read his blog all of the time. His wife is equally amazing and such a superb example as well! (They met at Princeton! They’re like the cutest smarty-pants couple ever!)
Melanie
Adding too! Which in itself is exactly what gets the organized Church machine introuble. (thats anouther story) I have looked at the tithe for several years now and you are right on the money (:. IF we as Christians look around us every day. Buy a soda for someone or clothes for someone , or help a person in need with repairs or supply the items for repairs, or buy them food or make a meal for someone down and out or layed up. Have a group over for dinner, to share in God’s love. Support transportation for someone who could not afford it. I think we would see we spend way more than the 10% in you want to make it monitary. On a second note I am very greatful I don’t have to stand befroe God and answer to “Look and see the beautiful building, Landscaping and fellow ship hall etc. that we use maybe twice a week and we have diligently spent 80% of the collected Christian dollars to pay for this!” 10% tithe is one thing, 80 cents on the dollar to suport a physicall structure that dosen’t even house anyone is still a really big question in my mind?
Is there any part of the Big Machine, (Large Church Organizations) with the guts to recogonize publicly this plain truth? I think most folks don’t look beyond the God Robber verse. If you go back before that about Malachi 2-2 it’s clearly shows that this command is to the high Priests … not all of us.
GREAT GREAT WORK!!!
Thanks for this article. I wholeheartedly agree that Scripture does not mandate a tithe. My friend Tim, my old pastor, wrote a short article on the subject that people might find interesting.
greetings. can i share my view about tithes? why would God consigned Abraham to pay his tenth? and why tenth? this is the questions that until now i haven’t recieved an answer satisfactorily. in my own understanding of the Bible the word tenth signify the existence of a government. Jesus speaks about “Thy Kingdom come Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” when we deny this little but important matter of his law then we deny the existence of his kingdom. when he answered his accusers “Give to ceasar to ceasar and God to Gods” he used only a singular verb “Give” to both subjects. and it denotes the same meaning likewise to others. money is not a topic here but rather his commandments on how are we going to fullfil it.
wils
Welcome, Willis!
First, I would like to point out that the scriptures nowhere say that Abraham’s single recorded “tithe” (of war spoils, see Genesis 14) was anything but voluntary.
Second, Abraham gave the remaining 90% to the king of Sodom–thus he kept nothing for himself, and “blessed” a wicked pagan king nine times more than he blessed the priest Melchizedek.
Third, when the Law was given to Moses, the required contribution of war spoils was not considered a “tithe” at all. In fact, not only was the required amount not 10%, it was far less: according to Numbers 31, it was 1 out of every 500 (0.2%). Thus, the only similarity between Abraham’s “tithe” and Moses’ “tithes” are the percentage involved (10%). Abraham’s tithe to Melchizedek bears no other resemblance to the tithes proscribed in the Law.
And finally, did Jesus ever give any indication that giving to “leaders” was giving to Him? Every time He speaks of giving something to Him or doing something for Him by proxy, it is accomplished by giving to His poor and persecuted. Giving to Jesus is always summarized as “give to the needy.“
first of all thank you for your time in answering my commentary. second, the genesis book is only a summarisation of things in the life of Adam to Abraham. Abraham lived and died at the age of 120. that lenght of time did not reflect it in detail in this book. like for example. we read only in Genesis the seven kinds of clean animals and 2 kinds of uncleaned animals loaded in the Noahs Ark. does the Genesis tell which animal is cleaned and uncleaned? of all the five books of Moises only Leviticus and Deuteronomy explained it in detail. the tenth Abraham gave remain puzzled to me,where did he base that TEN PERCENT (10%)calculation? it should have been a freewill offering in a first place, shouldn’t he?
But what I’m saying, Willis, is this: Moses writes in Genesis that Abraham gave a 10% war spoils offering (1 of every 10), and in Numbers he writes that God requires a 0.2% war spoils offering (1 of every 500). So there is no way at all that Abraham’s offering to Melchizedek can be considered the same thing as Israel’s tithes to the Levites.
I believe you’re confusing a measurement with a type of offering (“tithe” literally and only means “tenth” or “ten percent”).
To illustrate: if I were to tell you that I traveled two miles this morning, this in no way implies (let alone requires the interpretation) that I had fulfilled Jesus’ command to walk two miles with the man who forces you to walk one with him. In both cases, a unit of measurement is referred… but the measurement is only a part of the command.
So what I’m saying is that Abraham’s ten-percent is a different beast than any of Israel’s three ten-percents.
im sorry if theres a mistake in my questions. forget about tithes. what i really want to know where did Abraham based his CALCULATION OF TEN PERCENT? its very important because some of my friend is asking the same thing to me I hope you understand now. there has to be an origin of everything and i want a concrete fact base in the Bible only.
According solely to the Bible, Abraham didn’t base his calculation on anything.
Abraham got his motivation to tithe spoils of war from pagan Arab tradition. He did not freely give anything. Do some personal research. Tithing, like child sacrifices and temple prostitution, was widespread among pagans of Abraham’s time. In fact 80% of commentaries admit this in their discussion of 14:21 (not 14:20) where they say the 90% was controlled by apgan Arab custom. Under the Mosaic Law Abraham would have been requred to share the spoils with all of his 318 men per Numbers 31. This is covered in great detail in my book, Should the Church Teach Tithing with the same web site name.
travis, you know you’re the man who can save me on this matter. and im sinking slowly in the sand because of enormous intelligent people that sorrounds me asking intelligent question. you know if you were in my position i would rather close my eyes and pray that i shouldn’t have been here. please.. please.. please.. WHERE DID ABRAHAM BASE HIS 10 PERCENT CALCULATION (10%) ? my faith in you is begining to colapse so hurry.
Willis,
In Genesis 14, Abram re-takes the property of Sodom, Gomorrah and a few other kingdoms from a band of kingdoms which had attacked them. In verse 20, he specifically returns the people and property of Melchizedek’s kingdom to him.
That’s all this is here. Abram went after those armies to rescue his nephew Lot, and returned the “other spoils” to Melchizedek and the other kings who had been attacked when Lot was captured.
Abraham is the father of Faith accordingly. and faith without work is dead. if Abraham is the Father of the Israelites? then they should obey the same commandments given to Abraham. correct? does God imposes 2 kinds of financing laws? you see when you explain the meaning of covenant it will give you only two matters: the promise and the commandmends. if God had required the Israelites to tithe therefore Abraham requires also to tithe? if its not then he would not have become their Father. observe and read what the Aposte Paul illustrate in Romans 11:17. the church wasn’t built on any ground but to foundation of the prophetes. if the nourishment that comes from the root of the tree and goes on every branch? what i mean the law which has been passed from Israel be handed down also to us? i know you are the father of your children, tell me do you impose 2 different system in your family?
Willis, I would have two different systems in place for my children, if some were minors and others were adults! And that’s precisely what Paul speaks of in his letter to the Galatians:
We are not bound at all by the Law given to Moses at Sinai. The Law points to Christ, and we are bound to Christ. But the Law of Moses is, at best, only a poor caricature of the Law of Love.
Tell me which of the great examples fo the “father of fatith” do you follow.
(1) Lie about your wife being your sister to both Pharaoh and Abimelech.
(2) Tihte pagan spoils of war.
(3) Do not tithe your own propeerty.
(4) Give th 90% to the KIng of Sodom or his equivalent today.
(5) Tithe your soldiers portion also.
When we say that Abraham was the “father of faith” we are ONLY referring to his faith response to God’s covenant promises. We are not referring to everythign he did! Why is that so hard to understand?
If being educated means one is twisting the scriptures then you need to realize that the two most educated people in the Bible were Moses and Paul.
If Abraham’s tithe was an example of faith then why did not Moses refer to it? Why did the writer of Hebrews only use it to prove the superiority of Melchzedek?
Thsoe who receive tithes today do it under a false definition. Why do they not forfeit land and inheritance rightts? Why do they not pay the first whole tithe to the modern Levites (ushers, deacons, choir, maintenance men, builders)? The whole system is a scam and a scandal. NONE of the OT tithign laws are followed today. Period.
In Galatians 3:29 “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham seed according to the promise.” Is the tithing law had been a part of the promise? you see the whole people who were involved in the covenat of God were also the same people will be ressurected and become the begotten sons of God. the same spiritual sons of God will inherite the kingdom of God in which the tithing requires in his administration. can those spiritual son of God who belong to the old covenant tithe their increase and those belong to the new covenant will give freewill? did Jesus say “a house with two different foundations will fall”? you see im a father of a son and a dauther. i never impose 2 system in my family. it will create jelousy towards the other. thats what i want to explain.
Russel, let me correct you on that page 67. you see there is no basis in the bible that the tenth was the result of pagan influence. otherwise God will not permit it please read 1 corinthian 10:21 “you cannot drink the cup of the Lords table and the table of the demons. are we trying to arouse lords jelous? and also your brother travis insist that it is not a tithe recorded in Genesis. who among you is correct?
“i never impose 2 system in my family. it will create jelousy towards the other.”
Willis, you are displaying an ignorance of the Scriptures, because Paul explicitly says in Romans 11:11, “…salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.“ God has no problem arousing Israel’s jealousy through his dealings with us Gentiles.
God says in Psalm 50:21, “[Y]ou thought I was altogether like you. But I will rebuke you and accuse you to your face.” Do not make the mistake of thinking that God is opposed to something simply because you are.
Willis
While it is true that “everything the Bible teaches it true” it is not true that “truth can only be found in the Bible”! Just becasue something is not found in the Bible does not make it not true. Go to your local public library and look up “tithing” in ancient religions. Don’t just jump to conclusions when somebody disagrees with you. Do your own investigative research!
You falsely assume that God would not permit a pagan custom to be adapted for truth. Pagan tithes from spoils of war are in no way whatseover comparable to Biblical tithes from God’s people inside His holy land. The only thing they have in comon is the word “tithe.”
Babylonian law forbade many of the thigns the Ten Commandments forbid. Is that wrong for the same reason?
Objection: How can Melchizedek be a type of Christ if he was not a relative of Shem or Abraham and was a Canaanite?
The Bible takes many terms and names which have negative meanings and turns them into very positive spiritual meanings. (1) Jerusalem had its Semitic Canaanite name long before the Israelites captured it and “Jerusalem†did not originally refer to David’s city of peace. (2) The Semitic Canaanite Jebusites who ruled in Jerusalem for 1000 years after Abraham called their pagan fort, Mount Zion (2 Sam. 5:7). Only later did “Mount Zion†become a very holy term for both Israelites and Christians. (3) The brass serpent which Moses made in Numbers 21:8, 9 to remind Israel of its rebellion became a symbol of God’s healing. (4) In Habakkuk the Babylonian army is depicted as God’s army which will punish Israel. (5) The pagan King Cyrus of Persia is called “my shepherd†in Isaiah 44:28 because God used him to deliver Israel. (6) The cross of Jesus was changed from a symbol of shame and sin into a symbol of victory and life in Hebrews 12:2. (7) Since the vowel markings were not added to the Hebrew language until many centuries after Christ, the triad of MLK in the Canaanite language most often referred o MoLoK (see Amos 5:26 in Hebrew). The title, Abi-melech, the Philistine king of Gerar whom Abraham served in Genesis 20:2 probably means “my father is Molok.â€
but that is God given jealousy like in Exodus a jealouse God. the jealousy that i meant by is a human nature type and it has nothing to do with the spiritual one. my daugther has a human nature like we do. i set an example of two different system in my family and contrary to your belief it creates chaos. you see God is not a respecter of persons. whether if you are jew or not a jew if you sinned then you are subjected to penalty. i want you to know that God had shown to his people the benefits of his law equally. How many people were condemned to death because of breaking the law. and yet there is an instance that Jesus said life is more important than anything else. so the law of God is above them all. and he is a dead serious about it. tithes, if you fail to fullfil it will break the 7th commandment of God “THOU SHALT NOT STEAL” this commandment, the moment you set aside will eventually break the whole aspect of the Laws of God. if you take out of this important matter of this law just remember the blood of those people who were condemned for not obeying it. end.
see you next time and may God bless you. thank you
mr. Russel the things you’ve mention on page 76 is correct and i have no objection to that. “Just becasue something is not found in the Bible does not make it not true.” suppose if i ask that teaching about tithe is not found in the bible does not mean is not there. take for example in Mathew 27:9 what was spoken by Jeramiah the prophet was fulfilled they took the 30 pisces of silver ….to buy a potters field. well i should say that there was no written record in jeramiah that he prophesied the same thing.
some teachings of christ also wasn’t recorded as it was testified by John in 21:25 “Jesus did many other things as well. If everyone of them were written down i supposed that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” Did Jesus teach that the tithing law of God is no longer in effect? would you care to speak to me when itis not written does not mean its not there. in Hebrew 7:6 This man, however did not trace his descent to Levi: yet he collected the tenth from Abraham…
it is very evident that it can be found in the new testament and contrary to your unbiblical reference that he was influenced by the pagan arabs. and also contrary to mr travis that he did not know where did he base his calculation of 10 % of his spoils.
the important things of these discussions is that God is the owner of the tithing laws. and even the 10 commandments in the book of Exodus. Moises is only the mediator between God and Israel. so if we think that God is King therefore I might say those decrees are considered a Royal Laws.
Willis:
“Moises is only the mediator between God and Israel.”
NO. “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.” Jesus Christ is the one mediator between God and man—not Moses!
And look again at Hebrews chapter 6: “and to him [Melchizedek] Abraham apportioned a tenth part of everything.” Abraham chose the amount (that’s what “apportion” means—he chose to set aside this portion). And look at verse 5: “And those descendants of Levi who receive the priestly office have a commandment in the law to take tithes from the people, that is, from their brothers.“ The author of this epistle is speaking to Christians of the tithes as a Jewish practice, not a Jewish/Christian practice. He speaks of something “they” (not “we”) do.
I’m sorry, I keep finding more in that chapter of Hebrews to share with you, Willis: “Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.“ (vv.11-12)
It’s perfectly clear: the Law of Moses has been superseded! Hebrews 8:7-13 says this: “For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said: ‘The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah….’ By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.”
The 10 commandments are obsolete. The 613 Mitzvot are obsolete. Useless. Old. Unable to accomplish anything worth accomplishing. You are wasting your time trying to adhere to a code God judged “obsolete” thousands of years ago.
mr. Travis if the verses you’ve shown me will persuade me to your belief then you’re probably wrong. the covenant HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COMMANDMENT OF GOD. see for yourself in a dictionary and make argue about it. the covenant is like a contract ok? we need to know the element that contains in the old covenant. first, God who is the first party and then the people, Israelites which is second party. second, Gods commandment and his promises and then the peoples initiative. ok? what is the promise given to Abraham (genesis 22:17) there are two fold: one is material blessings and then the spiritual blessings. this verse needs a wisdom to understand. what is commandment of God? certainly the 10 point written in (exodus 20) now turn to Deuteronomy 8 ” be carefull to obey my command…so that you may live and increase…and posesse the land that the Lord promised promise to your forefather” you see how the covenant works it has nothing to do with the commandment. Moise is the mediator of the old cov. correct me on this if you fail to get what my point is. now what was Apostle Paul stated in Hebrew. “Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.“ (vv.11-12) what law is he talking about? take a look a second time and read to me Hebrew chapter 9 and 10 indicates the animal sacifice year after year done by a priest this is part of the old cov. while the new cov. the body of christ is sacrificial lamb in place of animal sacrifice. the law which is stated formerly concerns only the animal sacrifices for the reminder of sins doing it yearly. while in the new cov. only one time sacrifice has been done thru the body of christ. Paul stated that it is no longer need to everyone to go to the altar and sacrifice yearly because the blood of christ covers all of the sins. Hebrew 10:4 “because it is impossible for the blood of bulls…to take away sins.” verse 9. “he set aside the first ( meaning animal sacrifice) to establish the second (christ sacrifice) now in 1 John 3:4 sin is the transgressions of the law. what law is he taking about? 2 John 4″ Iam not writing you a new command but the one we HAVE HAD FROM THE BEGINING” now the question is why would Jesus had to sacrifice his body for the remission of sin if he will remove the ten comm.? the ten comm. according to Jame is like a mirror that will show your sins. think for a moment and use your logic. if you remove the law or the mirror why there is a need of christ body to clean our sins? which of these element are possible to be bloted out the Comm. of God or the Sin. it is a common for a lady to see her face in the mirror and found dirt on her face. how do you expect her to clean her face? to remove the mirror or to wash her face with soap? it would be a silly to remove the mirror. yes! you are wasting your time in giving me all the verses because your heart is very hard and you wont be able to bend my belief not until you convince me “if there is verse that Jesus teach on removing the tithing laws of God directly from his mouth” then i would believe you. if not you are just fooling yourself and your followers. in the first place Jesus did not mean to build his church and create his own laws. he went to the synogoge to teach as his custom was. then what promp him to have his own church? simply he was rejected by the elders. if his testimony has been accepted by the authority then there would be no argument at all cos he will be the leader with the norms and laws abided. try to study on that subject i want to hear it from you. wils
mr. travis when i studied all of your comments and i found that you did not understand what the covenant is. is the covenant a commandment of God? i want to be pranked with you. for the benefit of the readers you yourselves by your initiative to look at the dictionary the meaning of cov. and tell to mr. Travis if its a commandment of God. the truth is IT’S NOT! here is the meaning:A covenant, in its most general sense, is a solemn promise to do or not do something specified.
More specifically, a covenant, in contrast to a contract, is a one-way agreement whereby the covenantor is the only party bound by the promise. A covenant may have conditions and prerequisites that qualify the undertaking, including the actions of second or third parties, but there is no inherent agreement by such other parties to fulfil those requirements. Consequentially, the only party that can break a covenant is the covenantor.” you see the wasn’t mentioned and to be sure on that. the first party is God, the second party is the people. the condition to receive the promise is by obey on his commandment. ok. study first the genesis and exodus.
what was apostle paul mentioned in his book? Hebrews 8:7-13 says this: “For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said: ‘The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah….’ By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.â€
you dont understand what you want to clarify here. the first one that is already absolete is the animal sacifices done year after year. for the remission of sins. the second one that had already been established is the body of Christ. (Heb 9:28) he sacrificed himself in place of the animals blood (Heb 10:4)
so where is the commandment of God there? the law in which paul mentioned had something to do with blood for the forgiveness of sins. “sin is the transgression of the law” 1 John 3:4 the 10 comm. of God is only like a mirror that reveals if you sin (in the book of James) now we need some wisdom here. if christ intended to remove the law of God as what you want to emphasize? then there would be no sin to be clean at all. if the lady look on the mirror and found the dirt on her face would she remove the mirror to clean her face? sound silly isnt? in fact Jesus is also who gave the commandment in time of exodus. (John 1:1) the word “WORD” in capitalized is a spokesman. for he is a spokesman of God. how do you see a person who gave his laws and then the same person who will remove it? God is not a man that can change his mind. he remove only the penalty of sin for all of us are destined to DIE! (John 3:16) so its true he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it (Mat 5:17) in fact Jesus did not mean to build his own church with his own laws. he went to teach in the synagouge as his custom was.(Luke 4:16) then what prompt him to build the church? its because he was rejected! by the elders. think for a moment if the elders of synagouge accepts his message then you will see Jesus as their leader with the norms and laws of old abided. now we go back to the tithe system. is there a single verse in the bible that state Jesus teach the abolishment of the tithing laws directly from his mouth? if its not then where did you base your doctrins? -wils
Willis,
You silly guy! You would have me look up in a dictionary something that’s clearly defined within the scriptures?
“And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments, and he wrote them on two tablets of stone.” — Deuteronomy 4:13 (ESV)
The Old Covenant is the Ten Commandments… the Bible tells me so.
Willis wrote “it is very evident that it can be found in the new testament and contrary to your unbiblical reference that he was influenced by the pagan arabs.”
I am waiting for this “very evident” evidence. Still waiting. Still waiting.
Under the Law, in Numbers 31 the spoils went to all of the soldiers who paid only 1% as tithe. Sincc that was not the case in Geneis 14, then we must conclude that he was being controlled by a different set of customs.
please do not literalize everything. the word that i am speaking to you was base on others mind too. you see the commandment of God has been put into effect thru the covenant that is why if you break one of the commandment you are guilty of breaking them all! thats the power of covenant when it is put into use. still the same thing give me the verse now that state Jesus teach the abolishment of the tithing law of God
here is the evidence that Jesus never abolish the commandment of God (Mathew 5:17)
in Hebrew 7:6 This man, however did not trace his descent to Levi: yet he collected the tenth from Abraham…heres more
here is one.. if the law of God wasnt under the covenant? why would the people force themselves to obey him? God knows that the Israelite were stuborned so he device a plan to have his commandment be made under the covenant. simple.
Willis, you’re ignoring the Scriptures. In Exodus 19:5, God tells Moses to say to the people, “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant….” The obligations of this covenant were Israel’s to keep.
You said, “look at the dictionary the meaning of cov. and tell to mr. Travis if its a commandment of God. the truth is IT’S NOT! here is the meaning:A covenant, in its most general sense, is a solemn promise to do or not do something specified.” So I responded,
You’re getting hasty, and you’re starting to act as if you don’t care about the truth. I hope you can slow down and form your thoughts a bit more clearly before commenting next.
Willis
You defeat your own argument when you quote Mt 5:17. Why? Becasue Mt 5:18-19 obligates you to keep ALL 600+ commandments of the law or be cursed per Deut 27 and 28, Neh 10:29 and Gal 3:10. It is either all or none. Make up your mind. In Mt 5:20-48 Jesus illustrated his point by quoting all three parts of the law. Besides, I am a Gentile and God never put Gentiles under the Old Covnenant at all.
Did Jesus abolish tithing? (1) He abolished the Old Covenant in Heb 7:18-19 and Heb 8:8-13. (2) He abolished the Temple and replaced it with the Temple of the believer. (3) He abolished the Aaronic priesthood and replaced it with the priesthood of every believer. (4) I do not see any Levites or Levitical cities collecting tithes today. (5) There were no Temple storehouses in the early church which did not even have buildings for over 200 years after Calvary. The entire system which required tithing disappeared at Calvary. Do you deny any of these facts?
thats a good one ” I do not see any Levites or Levitical cities collecting tithes today.” im gonna reward for this look and read what paul had mentioned in Hebrew 7. our Melchizedec is none other than Jesus Christ. it is no longer the levites who will handle the tithes but Jesus Christ. and Jesus is the head of the church. and was given in the care of Peter after he ascend to heaven. from the time on it has been transfered who ever is heading the church after the death of the apostles.
mr. Travis, sorry for the disturbance i know your patience is very wide. i made a search of this particular verse in deuteronomy 4:13 there are two different translations given in the above.
check and judge it for yourself:
NIV deut 4:13-He declared to you his covenant, the Ten commandments, which he commanded you to follow and the wrote them on two tablets.
KJV Deut 4:13-And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tablets of stone.
you see mr. Travis the new international version has mistranslated this verse thinking that the covenant is also the commandment of God whereareas the King James Version, the covenant is seperated from the commandment of God. the earliest version is the KJV, which is the reliable ones. so its true on what the dictionary meant by the word covenant may have conditions and prerequisites that qualify the undertaking, including the actions of second party and bound by the promise. i think that will sort it out.
Willis
What about the other four points? You conveniently ignore them!
Heb 7 is not about tithing. It merely uses tithing to prove that Melchizedek was greater than Abraham.
(1) Heb 7:12 says that it is necessary to change the law and the only one specificly mentioned in Hebrews thus far has been 7:5 which is tithing from Numbers 18. (2) The”change” was it “abolishment” in 7:18 because of the “better covenant” in 7:19. You are selectively ignoring what God’s Word really says and conveniently forget major points against your case. (3) While the high priest was changed from Aaron to Jesus the regualar priesthood was changed to the priesthod of every believer. Is that true or not? “Yes” or “no.”
Willis, you have to keep in mind that the KJV uses an archaic form of the English language. (That is, they talked different back then.) To the KJV’s original audience, “even ten commandments” meant “that is, ten commandments.” In this case, the NIV simply made the meaning clear to today’s English-speaking people.
An illustration of what I mean can be found in Psalm 23:1 (KJV): “The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want.” To modern readers, that sounds like David is saying he doesn’t want God. Rather, David is saying that he lacks (is “in want” of) nothing, because the LORD is his shepherd.
Hope that helps. If you aren’t comfortable taking my word for it, though, feel free to track down someone like an English Literature professor—someone who has a good deal of experience with English texts from the “Middle Ages” and who can verify what I’ve said here regarding Middle English uses of words like “even” and “want.”
greetings to Mr. Russel. my comments that i’ve prepared is in responds you’ve made in number 98 concerning the law in the book of hebrew 7.
first of all we need to understand the duty and regulation of being a Priest in the old testament.
there are 2 regulations being performed by a Priest when it he comes in the presence of the Lord.
first, the burn offerings mentioned in Lev. 6: 25 “Tell Aaron and his sons: This is the law of the sin offering. (A) The sin offering is most holy and must be slaughtered before the LORD at the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered.” for the sin offerings.
second. the tithes offering mentioned in Deut 26. however there are some other regulations not to mention here since these are only mentioned by Paul in his book.
regulations according to the dictionary it is “A principle, rule, or law designed to control or govern conduct. ”
so Regulations can also be called a Law.
In Heb 7:1-17, defines the tithings law. where he explained that the Levites who handling the tithes has been transfered to Melchisedec. v12 “For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.” or change of authority in this case.
The blood sacrifices that mentioned in Heb 7 start in verse 18 “For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, v19 for the law made nothing perfect…” take note of the word “perfect” and compare to 10:8 : Previously saying, “Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them †(which are offered according to the law), v9 then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.â€[a] He takes away the first that He may establish the second. v10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all..
now compare again to 8:13. v13 In that He says, “A new covenant, †He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. (from old towards to the new covenant)
the distinction between the old and new covenant is in the blood offering for the remission of sins. for in the old cov. they require to offer sacrifices yearly. while in the new cov. he offered himself for once. thus the latter is a perfect sacrifice.
the question arises: if Jesus Christ came to abolish the Laws of old? then what for that he cleans us our sins? for sin is the transgressions of the law. and law is like a mirror. if you remove the mirror that will not remove the dirt on your face. so i made a conclussion that the laws of God still in force thru the new covenant which is spiritual in nature. and that Jesus Christ removes only the penalty of sin. that will solve the question. – wils
Willis, I’m convinced by the New Testament that “the Law of God” does not necessarily equal “the Laws given to Moses.” If you read Acts 15, for instance, it’s clear that the Apostles did not think Gentiles were to be required to follow the Mosaic Law.
Willis said: “In Heb 7:1-17, defines the tithing law. where he explained that the Levites who handling the tithes has been transferred to Melchisedec. v12 ‘For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.’ or change of authority in this case.”
Russ: First, the tithing “law” or “statute” is Numbers 18 and fortunately no church today follows ANY of that statute. Second, 7:12 says absolutely nothing about transferring tithing to Melchizedek’s authority. That is your fantasy.
Willis said: “The blood sacrifices that mentioned in Heb 7 start in verse 18 “For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness.”
Russ: No. Verse 18 begins the CONCLUSION of the arguments from verses 1-17! I hope you are not Word-Faith but they put a lot of importance on “first occurrence” texts. Guess what. Hebrews 7:5 is the “first” occurrence in Hebrews of the words “tithes,” “commandment” and “law”! While all of the Mosaic Law is in view, the specific “law” being discussed is the “statute” of tithing from verse 5. When verse 12 says there is a necessary “change” of the “law” it must refer back to tithing from verse 5. And when verse 18 says the “commandment” has been “annulled” must also refer back to tithing from verse five. Argue all you want to but you cannot deny common sense (or maybe you can).
Willis said: “v19 ‘for the law made nothing perfect…’ take note of the word ‘perfect’ and compare to 10:8.”
Russ: You are trying to change the subject and avoid the obvious. “Perfect” from verse 19 refers back to “perfect” from verse 11.
Willis said: “the distinction between the old and new covenant is in the blood offering”
Russ: You only touch on one of many distinctions. (1) the old covenant only to Israel has been replaced by the new to all nations; (2) the Law has changed from tables of stone and writings by Moses to the heart of believers who are new creations; (3) the Levites who received the whole first tithe in their Levitical cities are gone and replaced by non-paid church workers (see Neh 10:37b); (4) the priesthood which received a tenth of the tithe from the Levites is gone and has been replaced by the priesthood of all believers who does not tithe to themselves. (5) NT church officers are more like the prophets and schools of the prophets in the OT who were supported by freewill offerings or earned their own living. You are trying to compare apples to lemons.
Willis said: “the question arises: if Jesus Christ came to abolish the Laws of old? then for what does he cleans us our sins? for sin is the transgressions of the law. and law is like a mirror.”
Russ: Every tithing debate ends up a discussion about the law which is the root problem. Like Travis said, you try to equate the Mosaic Law with the moral law which is written in the heart of every believer. They are not the same. (1) Gentiles were never under the Mosaic Law. (2) Yet in Rom 2:14-16 even Gentiles are guilty for breaking the moral law. (3) Having met the righteous requirements of the law, Jesus is now the standard of judgment for the believer. Have you ever read John 3:16? That is what it says!
Willis said: “So I made a conclusion that the laws of God still in force thru the new covenant which is spiritual in nature. and that Jesus Christ removes only the penalty of sin. that will solve the question.”
Russ: You do not understand tithing because you do not understand the law. Read Exodus 21 to 23 and tell me how much of it you follow. I hope you do not own slaves and I hope that you have not killed any of your children for disrespect lately.
Did British law suddenly disappear when the US signed the Declaration of Independence? No. But it did for US citizens. That is the comparison.
PERFECT SACRIFICE
Russel said: No. Verse 18 begins the
CONCLUSION of the arguments from verses 1-17! I hope you are not Word-Faith but they put a lot of importance on “first occurrence†texts…(Rom 7)
…mr. Russel i hope you are familiar with the word “perfect” when it comes in biblical term. all of these verses that i’ve gathered may have changed your conclussion..
heb 7:18
v18The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (animal sacrifice)
v19 (for the law made nothing PERFECT), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. (introduction of the new covenant)
…now compare these verses…
heb 10:11-14
v11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. (animal sacrifices)
v12 But when this priest (Jesus) had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. (christ sacrifice)
v13 Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool,
v14 because by one SACRIFICE he has made PERFECT forever those who are being made holy.
now compare:
…for the law (animals blood) made nothing PERFECT…
…by one SACRIFICE (christ body) he has made
PERFECT forever …
* by what sacrifice did Paul mean?
heb 10:5-6
v5…..”Sacrifice and offering (animals sacrifice) you did not desire,
but a body (christ sacrifice) you prepared for me;
v6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
* does the verse 18 of Rom 7 applied to tithings law?
i dont think so mr Russel.
LITERALNESS OF THE LAW
Russ said: “You do not understand tithing because you do not understand the law. Read Exodus 21 to 23 and tell me how much of it you follow….”
let me get it straight to your point by examining verse to verse in this chapter.
i will cite one verse in connection with the laws of God.
in Exodus 21:17-
v17 “Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.
in this example you will see how the law magnify its precepts thru literal means of obedience to God. no anything of spiritual mean of obedience that may inherit salvation is present. all has been set as a civil laws that requires the penalty of death by breaking it. this is how the old covenant works without the holy spirit of God. they obey the laws of God carnally, without thinking that it was a spiritual law that require spiritual obedience..
when the old cov. was annuled and void. the laws of God has been put into effect thru the new cov. which is spiritual in nature. the Holy spirit upon inbued to any one will fulfill the requirements of the law. now compare that verse into the new testament teachings.
Rom 13:8-10-
v8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.
v9 For the commandments,
“You shall not commit adultery,â€
“You shall not murder,â€
“You shall not steal,â€
“You shall not bear false witness,â€[a]
“You shall not covet,â€[b] and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely,
“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.â€[c]
v10 Love does no HARM to a neighbor;
therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
….with the comparison of these verses. all those precepts written in exodus 21 & 22 which is literalnes in nature will now be a spiritual precept in the new cov. that is why i never include it in all of our topics. the laws of God i felt sorry if i’ve offended you by my previous statement. but that is only my outward gesture and not a personal one. when it comes in the word of God i’ll always make sure that is a true and honest before i send it to anyone. cos it involves me a lot of works and research from anothers author’s mind. the credits belongs to them who contributed much of my knowledge and also to you and mr. Travis. thank you.
Great post! I just stumbled across this, and I have been wondering about this issue a lot this week. I go to 2 different churches and both of them this week were really pushing the “tithe” thing. This isn’t normal for them, so it started to make me wonder. I had no problem tithing before, but they made me feel, like you said about, “robbing God”.
I didn’t feel the Holy Spirit at all on this. Glad you posted this to set the record straight!