Your tithes were already paid.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

1) nowhere can we see God command tithes prior to the law
2)It doesn't say whether he did or did not. (Where did Jacob get the idea though?)
3)I don't think we can make it mandatory, but honestly we don't control people into giving any way. I have found that people who love God look for ways to give (I don't say that to mean that non tithers don't love God). I have seen many personal circumstances where people held back because of wrong motivations.

We must teach people that giving is mandated, but tithing is just a method. We can teach tithing as "a" way to demonstrate trust and worship to God, and give scripture for precedent. Love people either way and show no respect of persons regardless.

Amen. Another great post.

Some thoughts.....Why wasn't Jacob tithing all along? How did he get the tithes to God? Who did he tithe to later?

You do understand that I'm not picking. Rather I'm pointing out the lack of substantive authority in any of these examples to use them as a proof of some sort of "principle".

[good samaritan]

I think there is enough talk of tithing to establish somewhat of a principle in it, but it should be left to personal choice. The fact that it doesn't explain all the details, doesn't prove or disprove the regularity of their tithing nor the methods (in regards to Abe and Jake) . Interesting thought, it takes more study to disprove tithing than to prove it. I never in depth studied tithing until recent years.

I always just believed as I was taught and took the scripture for tithing at face value and practiced it. It is not until you begin to analyze and study things that you begin to realize the who, what, where and when of things. I have read no where that tithing was practiced in the church only giving. I dare to say although tithing wasn't mentioned, there was many that tithed IMO.

I agree with you though.

I recently taught to our church that tithing isn't mandatory, but is a good method of giving. People where a little off struck by the teaching. For many Christians it is plain and simple, you must tithe. I want people to come out of legalism and into a life of good works done by the leading of the Holy Ghost. It is truly a matter of the heart.

[Rudy]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I think there is enough talk of tithing to establish somewhat of a principle in it, but it should be left to personal choice. The fact that it doesn't explain all the details, doesn't prove or disprove the regularity of their tithing nor the methods (in regards to Abe and Jake) . Interesting thought, it takes more study to disprove tithing than to prove it. I never in depth studied tithing until recent years.

I always just believed as I was taught and took the scripture for tithing at face value and practiced it. It is not until you begin to analyze and study things that you begin to realize the who, what, where and when of things. I have read no where that tithing was practiced in the church only giving. I dare to say although tithing wasn't mentioned, there was many that tithed IMO.

I agree with you though.

I recently taught to our church that tithing isn't mandatory, but is a good method of giving. People where a little off struck by the teaching. For many Christians it is plain and simple, you must tithe. I want people to come out of legalism and into a life of good works done by the leading of the Holy Ghost. It is truly a matter of the heart.

Oh my!!! Do you belong to an org?

[good samaritan]

1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads. 2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder:and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders:and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. 4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. 5 And in their mouth was found no guile:for they are without fault before the throne of God.

I believe the principle of tithing and firstfruits go much deeper the monetary giving. We'll understand it better by and by.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I believe the principle of tithing and firstfruits go much deeper the monetary giving. We'll understand it better by and by.

Yes! Give God the first of the week---Sunday. Give God the first of your day "early will I seek thee". Give God the first of your life "remember your creator in the days of your youth". It's all about putting God FIRST!

[Nitehawk013]

There is almost too much horrid theology and hermeneutics to begin to address on this thread.

First, I am somewhat let down by you Deacon. You don't appear to be the same guy I read regularly a year or two back when I was a regular as opposed to a lurker. What theological difference does it make whether one attends what you would consider a church or not? That was a sad attempt at painting Rudy and Originalist as backslidden and therefore allowing you to brush off their dissent from tithing. You didn't strike me as the type to play the "you don't even go to church" card. Stick to trying to refute their opinion. It is more respectable.

As to the matter at hand, oh where to begin? First, the amount of eisegesis is unbearable in here. We are supposed to strive to exegete the word, not eisegete. To pull out meaning, not force what we want the word to mean. This is basic intro hermeneutics. You don't read your opinions into the text! You are supposed to draw out the real meaning of the texts. Just because you think it is speaking of something, you cannot just say it is without overwhelming and convincing supporting evidences.

There is NO solid evidence that Cain and Abel had anything to do with tithing. You have to WANT it to be about tithing. They BOTH came at a time (after thinking about how little to give according to you) and gave their offering. OFFERING, not tithe. So apparently Abel took his time and thought about how much to give or not to give as well. The fact that his was accepted was b/c it was a blood sacrifice, not some weak attempt at tithing.

The tree in the garden also had no connection to tithing. The tree belonged to GOD, not man. Tithing had to be on ones INCREASE. Something that belonged to them. Something you earned. The tree was NEVER man's increase. it was NEVER his to claim. It was NEVER earned. It was always God's. So it could not, under even the most weak definition, be considered a tithing symbol.

You also continue to use tithe and firstfruits interchangeably. Perhaps you really don't know, but they are two SEPERATE offerings. Tithes are NOT firstfruits. The first fruits were a small, token of thanks offering. IT had to be small enough to be carried by hand or in a small basket. This is read right out of scripture folks. The tithe was the tenth. it was NOT the FIRST.

Scripture explicitly says that the TENTH to pass under the rod was the tithe, not the first. You did NOT give the first to God, you gave the tenth. If your livestock only gave birth to 9 offspring...you paid no tithe. There was no TENTH to give! I cannot fathom that some of you don't know this. Even worse, I hope that some of you aren't simply ignoring this fact to prop up a pathetic doctrine.

As to needing a scripture that tells us that tithing was rescinded...do you hold the same view of all OT laws? Do you still kick your wife out of the house and church when she is on her period? Hate ot be gross, but she is unclean and should be kicked out according to the law. What verse says specifically that has been rescinded and she may now come to church and stay in the house while menstruating? That she is no longer unclean?

We have an entire book in Hebrews alone that serves the sole purpose of telling us that the entire OT law was obsolete, weak and was fulfilled and replaced with a better convenant. Do you really think that Jesus came and fulfilled the entire old contract, but then looked at the church and said, "well, my new way is better in every facet...except that money thing. I better make sure they still cling to this one part of the law because I can't come up with a better way for the New Testament church"?

As to Paul supporting tithing in Corinthians, you are grasping. He alludes to, not mentions by name, the system of the levites. You forget your context. This is a church of gentiles. Not all jews. There were multitudes of gentiles who were wholly unfamiliar with the levitical tithing system. They were foreign to the law at all. Yet here he has the perfect chance to clearly explain to this gentile church the importance of tithing to the church...but instead makes a vague reference to the levites and how they were supported by the people.

Paul, if tithing were a mandatory heave or hell issue, had a responsibility to tell these gentiles (not Jews who would possibly be familiar with the tithing law) clearly, NO CONFUSION OR DOUBT, that they needed to pay tithe to be saved and yet he never, NOT ONCE even writes the word tithe in a single of his letters to these churches. The fact that Paul never once instructs them on actual tithing should be the nail in the coffin for you pro-tithers.

Paul does argue that one has a right to be supported by the church, yet he never says tithing. In fact the "system" for levitical support was bigger than just people giving 10% and I think you all know that. You simply choose to ignore the entire rest of the system while clinging to the 10% figure. You leave out the fact that those who receive should not own anything themselves then, should do all the work in the temple(church) including cleaning and upkeep as the levites did, should institute and uphold Jubilee and make sure the poor and orphans (who did NOT pay tithes under law) are always financially taken care of, etc. You wish to lay claim to the levitical payscale...then start actually doing all the work the levites did.

Finally, and I am sure I forgot something along the way, so you cannot play the "he doesn't go to church" card and blow off my statements, I am an elder in my church. Only my Pastor himself has more time in the pulpit than I do. I do more teaching in our church than anyone other than Pastor himself. And yes he knows my position on tithing. He also knows that while he and I disagree staunchly, I don't use the pulpit to push my view and cause a division among our church people. I am greatly trusted and in good standing. So my position and attendance is not in doubt.

Refute my theology if you want and can, but don't try to take an easy way out and just attack the person.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Nitehawk013

There is NO solid evidence that Cain and Abel had anything to do with tithing. You have to WANT it to be about tithing. They BOTH came at a time (after thinking about how little to give according to you) and gave their offering. OFFERING, not tithe. So apparently Abel took his time and thought about how much to give or not to give as well. The fact that his was accepted was b/c it was a blood sacrifice, not some weak attempt at tithing.

The tree in the garden also had no connection to tithing. The tree belonged to GOD, not man. Tithing had to be on ones INCREASE. Something that belonged to them. Something you earned. The tree was NEVER man's increase. it was NEVER his to claim. It was NEVER earned. It was always God's. So it could not, under even the most weak definition, be considered a tithing symbol.

You also continue to use tithe and firstfruits interchangeably. Perhaps you really don't know, but they are two SEPERATE offerings. Tithes are NOT firstfruits. The first fruits were a small, token of thanks offering. IT had to be small enough to be carried by hand or in a small basket. This is read right out of scripture folks. The tithe was the tenth. it was NOT the FIRST.

Scripture explicitly says that the TENTH to pass under the rod was the tithe, not the first. You did NOT give the first to God, you gave the tenth. If your livestock only gave birth to 9 offspring...you paid no tithe. There was no TENTH to give! I cannot fathom that some of you don't know this. Even worse, I hope that some of you aren't simply ignoring this fact to prop up a pathetic doctrine.

As to needing a scripture that tells us that tithing was rescinded...do you hold the same view of all OT laws? Do you still kick your wife out of the house and church when she is on her period? Hate ot be gross, but she is unclean and should be kicked out according to the law. What verse says specifically that has been rescinded and she may now come to church and stay in the house while menstruating? That she is no longer unclean?

We have an entire book in Hebrews alone that serves the sole purpose of telling us that the entire OT law was obsolete, weak and was fulfilled and replaced with a better convenant. Do you really think that Jesus came and fulfilled the entire old contract, but then looked at the church and said, "well, my new way is better in every facet...except that money thing. I better make sure they still cling to this one part of the law because I can't come up with a better way for the New Testament church"?

Excellent Nitehawk! There is a huge difference between firstfruits and tithing. That is what I came here to say, but you said it better.

[kclee4jc]

Originally Posted by Originalist

We as priests and Abraham's seed, like Levi, have already paid tithes in Abraham.

Unlike Levi, we as New Testament priests do not receive tithes.

Pro New Testament tithing argument thus rebutted.

This is ridiculous.

If Abraham already paid tithes for us and we don't have to then the same would have been true for every OT saint! Abraham's descendants continued to tithe even though they were "in his loins" when he paid tithes.

Question....if you were in your fathers loins when he received the Holy Ghost does that mean that you have already received the Holy Ghost? If you were in his loins when he was baptized in Jesus Name does that mean that it is no longer a requirement for you?

Rubbish!

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by kclee4jc

This is ridiculous.

If Abraham already paid tithes for us and we don't have to then the same would have been true for every OT saint! Abraham's descendants continued to tithe even though they were "in his loins" when he paid tithes.

Question....if you were in your fathers loins when he received the Holy Ghost does that mean that you have already received the Holy Ghost? If you were in his loins when he was baptized in Jesus Name does that mean that it is no longer a requirement for you?

Rubbish!

SOME of Abraham's descendants BEGAN to pay tithes under a dispensation and system that passed away. From the time of Jacob until the Law, who paid tithes? Can you tell me? And who would they have paid them to? And why would they not have only done it once as Abraham and Jacob did?

Hebrews mentions LEVI, a PRIEST who was EXEMPT from tithing as being credited for having paid tithes in Abraham. In the New Testament ALL believers are priests. Because the temporary system of the Law is passed, there is no priesthood in the New testament that receives tithes. Thus, being priests as Levi (though under a titheless covenant) , and as Abraham's seed, we also are credited for having paid tithes in Abraham.

[J.A. Perez]

Originally Posted by kclee4jc

This is ridiculous.

If Abraham already paid tithes for us and we don't have to then the same would have been true for every OT saint! Abraham's descendants continued to tithe even though they were "in his loins" when he paid tithes.

Question....if you were in your fathers loins when he received the Holy Ghost does that mean that you have already received the Holy Ghost? If you were in his loins when he was baptized in Jesus Name does that mean that it is no longer a requirement for you?

Rubbish!

Bump