Your tithes were already paid.

[Originalist]

Who is being addressed in Malachi 3:8-10? Is it the people as the tithing teachers say, or is it the priests?

We need to study the entire Book of Malachi rather than take a few verses out of context. By the time we get to verse 6 in chapter 1, we see it is the priests that are being addressed at that point.

Malachi 1:6 (KJV) 6 A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the LORD of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name?

In both chapters 1 and 2 of Malachi there is a conversation going on between God and the priests. Every time the word "you" is used, it is referring to the priests. Chapter 3 continues with this conversation. In verse 5 God says "And I will come near to you to judgment….."

In the Old Testament, during this period of time and generally speaking, only the priests could get near to God. It is only in the New Testament that born again believers, you and I, can get close to God. So up to chapter 3 verse 5, God is speaking to the priests. The word "you" is still referring to the priests. There is nothing in the scripture to indicate this changes when you get to verse 8. But that's not all.

Malachi chapter 1 verse 14 (NIV) reads: 14 "Cursed is the cheat who has an acceptable male in his flock and vows to give it, but then sacrifices a blemished animal to the Lord.

Remember we learned that in Numbers chapter 18, God said one tenth of the tithe was to be given to the priests for an offering to The Lord. Malachi 1:14 shows that the priests gave the worst of the tithe to God instead of the best. Thus we have the robbing God of offerings mentioned in Malachi chapter 3 verse 8.

Now let's look at Nehemiah chapter 13 verse 10 (NIV): 10 I also learned that the portions assigned to the Levites had not been given to them, and that all the Levites and singers responsible for the service had gone back to their own fields.

This verse is telling us that the priests stole the Levites portion of the tithe; therefore, they had no food to eat at the temple, and they went back to their own fields. We must interpret this verse in this way because nowhere does it say that the priests had also left the temple. The priests had the food. Read chapter 13 of Nehemiah to get the complete picture.

So Malachi 1:14 shows the priests robbed God of the offerings, and Nehemiah 13:10 shows the priests robbed God of the tithes.

Next, in Malachi 3:10 God says to bring all the tithes to the storehouse. The people took the tithes to the Levites who lived in the Levitical cities, not to the temple. The Levites took the required food from the tithes to the temple when it was their turn to serve. Only those tithes ever made it to the temple. The priests then took those tithes to the storehouse. It only makes sense if God is speaking to the priests in this verse.

Therefore, we believe that the evidence shows that Malachi 3:8-10 is being addressed to the priests, not the people.

http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePag....php?ID=280353

[J.A. Perez]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

I .

I agree for the most part of what you said.

And if you Read my last paragraph it should clear things up.

However I think it also must be taken into account that not everyone agrees with your understanding, for instance..


"Marvin D. Treece - Hebrews - The Literal Word-

Hebrews 7:8

Translation - and here dying man receive tithes; but there he (takes tithes), while it continues being witnessed that he lives.

And here dying man received tithes. We have the men and de construction which is best represented by men (on one hand) and de (on the other, or but). The preposition 'hode'(here) represents the Levitical priest hood.

This is the present circumstance which the Hebrew writer knew that his readers would except. While 'ekei'(there) represents Melchisedek the present participle 'apothneskoutes' (dying men) is without the article, and should be taken as objectival.

The description is apt for all the tribe of Levi, and anyone outside the perimeter of deity.

The present participle 'marturoumenos'(witness) represents a continuing action. The witness is surely meant to be that of Scripture, but for those who hold two Melchisedek being equivalent to theophany, it means that everyone has the witness by the continued living of the personage.

The verb 'ze' must find its counterpart in the participle 'apothneskoutes'(dying men), and must maintain the same force. It's dying man is and excepted condition, then 'ze'(he lives) must also be excepted. This writer, without earnestly seeking to establish a position, admits the effect of this comparison.

By that, it is implied that Melchisedek still lives.this again, would emphasize the personage as "God" in an appearance. It is no different then the appearance of God, or some divine entity being represented, as seen by Abraham (Genesis 18:2).

The tendency of the Hebrew writer by these two excepted conditions of dying man and he lives causes us to try to gauge the depth of his intended view. It is difficult to look at these two phrases without concluding that the one who lives must be viewed as a continued process.

It is quite amazing to consider the phrases dying man and he lives. If the often he is not in view, then exegesis certainly becomes more difficult."

Because Melchisedek continues so do men that receive tithe.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by J.A. Perez

Because Melchisedek continues so do men that receive tithe.

This is a nice summary of the passage from a grammatical point of view.

And, as the last line indicates, at the time of writing, the receiving of tithes and the living of Melchizedek were both continuing actions, but note: IT WAS AT THE TIME OF THE WRITING.

Hebrews was written before the sacking of Jerusalem and the loss of the temple and priesthood. So, in the day and time in which the letter was written, it was true to say that men who died continued to receive tithes, just as much as Melchizedek continued to live on, having no "end of days".

But once the temple was destroyed and the priesthood class of Levites annihilated, the continuing action of the verb no longer holds any bearing.

The continuing action of receiving tithes continued as long as the temple stood and the priests and Levites operated. But once that came to an end, so did the continuing action.

After 70 AD, not a soul in all of Judaism received tithes according to the Law. It wasn't until 90 AD at a city called Yavneh that the pharisees got together in council and reconstituted Judaism after the destruction of the temple and loss of priesthood.

They re-instituted the tithe on cattle and the like, but these men were not the appropriate candidates to receive the tithe according to the Law. The tithe then went to the synagogue, instead of the temple, since there was no temple, or class of priests, to receive it.

[J.A. Perez]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

This is a nice summary of the passage from a grammatical point of view.

And, as the last line indicates, at the time of writing, the receiving of tithes and the living of Melchizedek were both continuing actions, but note: IT WAS AT THE TIME OF THE WRITING.

Hebrews was written before the sacking of Jerusalem and the loss of the temple and priesthood. So, in the day and time in which the letter was written, it was true to say that men who died continued to receive tithes, just as much as Melchizedek continued to live on, having no "end of days".

But once the temple was destroyed and the priesthood class of Levites annihilated, the continuing action of the verb no longer holds any bearing.

The continuing action of receiving tithes continued as long as the temple stood and the priests and Levites operated. But once that came to an end, so did the continuing action.

After 70 AD, not a soul in all of Judaism received tithes according to the Law. It wasn't until 90 AD at a city called Yavneh that the pharisees got together in council and reconstituted Judaism after the destruction of the temple and loss of priesthood.

They re-instituted the tithe on cattle and the like, but these men were not the appropriate candidates to receive the tithe according to the Law. The tithe then went to the synagogue, instead of the temple.

What I think you're missing, respectfully is that Paul was establishing that Jesus was appointed Priest after the order of Melchisedek.

That's because Jesus continues to live so do men that receive Tithe.

[Esaias]

Those pesky Pharisees again... lol

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by J.A. Perez

What I think you're missing, respectfully is that Paul was establishing that Jesus was appointed Priest after the order of Melchisedek.

That's because Jesus continues to live so do men that receive Tithe.

But what tithe is received?

According to the law, it was NOT ten percent of your cash wages. It was ten percent of the INCREASE of your cattle and crops. Furthermore, the tithe payer ATE SOME OF THE TITHE. Furthermore, tithes were eaten by Levites, STRANGERS, WIDOWS, and ORPHANS. Furthermore, Priests and Levites had no land inheritance like the rest of Israel.

How does ALL THAT compute into a New Covenant 'tithe' scenario?

[Esaias]

Just thought of something. The tithing issue is somewhat obscure, in that it requires exegesis and study of both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Yet we tell folks who become Christians that they must do this, it is part of God's Way.

But the following statements are crystal clear and need no exegesis to understand the simple import of the words:

Mat_19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Mar_10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

And lest we think it's just a one time unique incident, we have this:

Luk_12:33 Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.

Why do we not tell people these things? We do not tell people 'You want to be saved, want to be a Christian, want to follow the Lord? Sell all your stuff and give it away to the poor.'

We certainly do not tell them 'One thing you lack: sell ALL YOUR POSSESSIONS and give the money to the poor, and follow Jesus.'

BTW, I noticed he told them to give the money to the poor, not to his ministry...

Just thinking out loud, not making any conclusions (this is a safe discussion, lol).

[J.A. Perez]

Originally Posted by Esaias

But what tithe is received?

According to the law, it was NOT ten percent of your cash wages. It was ten percent of the INCREASE of your cattle and crops. Furthermore, the tithe payer ATE SOME OF THE TITHE. Furthermore, tithes were eaten by Levites, STRANGERS, WIDOWS, and ORPHANS. Furthermore, Priests and Levites had no land inheritance like the rest of Israel.

How does ALL THAT compute into a New Covenant 'tithe' scenario?

You tell me, based on the Scriptures related to giving to the ministry

then,
What were the wages that Paul received?

If Old Testament tithe or offering had been disposed of, why did Paul use the Law to validate his argument to support the New Testament ministry?

Leviticus 19:13
Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.

Deuteronomy 25:4
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.

Jeremiah 22:13
Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness,
and his chambers by wrong;
that useth his neighbour's service without wages,
and giveth him not for his work;

1 Corinthians 9:1-14
Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.
Mine answer to them that do examine me is this, Have we not power to eat and to drink? Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working? Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of thefruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?
Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?

For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?

If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.



Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

Clearly, the apostle is comparing New Testament giving equal of the Old Testament provision for the ministry.



2nd Corinthians 11:8
I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.

1 Timothy 5:17,18
Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

These are clearly all connected by the apostle.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by J.A. Perez

You tell me, based on the Scriptures related to giving to the ministry

then,
What were the wages that Paul received?

If Old Testament tithe or offering had been disposed of, why did Paul use the Law to validate his argument to support the New Testament ministry?

Leviticus 19:13
Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning.

Deuteronomy 25:4
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.

Jeremiah 22:13
Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness,
and his chambers by wrong;
that useth his neighbour's service without wages,
and giveth him not for his work;

1 Corinthians 9:1-14
Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.
Mine answer to them that do examine me is this, Have we not power to eat and to drink? Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working? Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of thefruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?
Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?

For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?

If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.



Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

Clearly, the apostle is comparing New Testament giving equal of the Old Testament provision for the ministry.



2nd Corinthians 11:8
I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.

1 Timothy 5:17,18
Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

These are clearly all connected by the apostle.

Thank you for bringing forth the scriptures that bear directly to the subject. I notice Paul did not appeal to any tithe law whatsoever, and never mentioned it, but instead appealed to the laws regarding wages.

So then it seems that Paul was commenting on what Jesus had established, when he said this:

Luk 10:1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.
Luk 10:2 Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest.
Luk 10:3 Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.
Luk 10:4 Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.
Luk 10:5 And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house.
Luk 10:6 And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again.
Luk 10:7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.
Luk 10:8 And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you:
Luk 10:9 And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.

Here Jesus refers to the support the apostles would receive as 'hire' (ie wages). He in fact is referencing the same idea Paul did! Therefore, it seems the apostolic preaching ministry is to be supported by freewill offerings from those who are taught, given to those who teach, based on how valuable the teaching is to the ones being taught. No 'tithing' involved, either as specified under the Law or as developed in the modern ecclesiastical world.

[J.A. Perez]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Thank you for bringing forth the scriptures that bear directly to the subject. I notice Paul did not appeal to any tithe law whatsoever, and never mentioned it, but instead appealed to the laws regarding wages.

So then it seems that Paul was commenting on what Jesus had established, when he said this:

Luk 10:1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.
Luk 10:2 Therefore said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth labourers into his harvest.
Luk 10:3 Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.
Luk 10:4 Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.
Luk 10:5 And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house.
Luk 10:6 And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again.
Luk 10:7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.
Luk 10:8 And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you:
Luk 10:9 And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.

Here Jesus refers to the support the apostles would receive as 'hire' (ie wages). He in fact is referencing the same idea Paul did! Therefore, it seems the apostolic preaching ministry is to be supported by freewill offerings from those who are taught, given to those who teach, based on how valuable the teaching is to the ones being taught.


No 'tithing' involved, either as specified under the Law or as developed in the modern ecclesiastical world.

This is a setting for a particular time, and there are good lessons to be learned by these verses.

However, The admonishment from our Lord is nothing that you (or I) practice or have in every literal sense.

Do you go house to house and stay at peoples house like in this instance, without bringing food or provision?

No, you guys have house church, which may be fine, but this is an example of what we as Apostolics have done for years.

Door knocking is a common practice around our place, as well as parking-lots, parks, and various other venues.

In regards to the rest of your claim.
Please see below



1Corinthians 9:13,4
Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

1Corinthians 10:18
Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar.


Clearly, the apostle is comparing New Testament giving equal of the Old Testament provision for the ministry.

How dare he use the old testament to prove his point!

Who does he think he is?

Doesn't he know we are under a new covenant?