Your tithes were already paid.

[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 Pliny

1) There is not a direct command - thou shalt. There is however a principle of God setting a portion aside as his. The tree of knowledge. There was nothing wrong with it. It was simply His. Also, I think I mentioned above that Cain and Able - IMO - is about tithing.

My opinion is that with all the ancient cultures tithing - literally 10% - to their deities it points to a common source. That source is God. Abraham did so because it was well established, why? It is logical to me that God instituted it even though we don't have a specific thou shalt.

2) We don't know. I cannot say her did and you cannot say he didn't. The scripture is silent.

3) The hermeneutical model is the historical grammatical method of interpretation. Scripture was not written in a vacuum. For me I look at the historical context. Tithing was well established by the time of Abraham. Scripture seems to assume everyone understands why Abraham gave tithes because there is no explanation. Why? Most if not all major cultures in the ancient world taught tithing to their deities. Why? It was ALWAYS 10%. Not 5% or 11% but ALWAYS 10%. Why? There must be a common denominator somewhere. Just like the ancient flood stories. The actual source has been lost to the ravages of time. No one knows the specific answer. IMO Cain and Able was about tithing. I see the principle at work in the Garden.

Since tithing was established prior to the Law it could not be destroyed by the Law. Besides Jeremiah says:
(Jer 31:31 KJV) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
(Jer 31:32 KJV) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
(Jer 31:33 KJV) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.


If the Law was done away with what is written upon the hearts?

I don't have time to deal with this as I am very busy but I will try to answer the NT as follows.
The Apostles did speak about pastoral salary
(1Ti 5:17 KJV) Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

Look up the word honor.

Then consider this verse:
(1Ti 5:18 KJV) For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

There is a direct connection to OT Levitical tithing.

Then there is this:
(1Co 9:4 KJV) Have we not power to eat and to drink?
(1Co 9:5 KJV) 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?

(1Co 9:7 KJV) Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?
(1Co 9:8 KJV) Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
(1Co 9:9 KJV) 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?
(1Co 9:10 KJV) 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.
(1Co 9:11 KJV) If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?


I could go on and on. I could even cite the ANF but I don't see the point and I don't have the time.

People will make up their own minds. I just hope I have given folks things to consider before NOT giving tithes. We will all stand before God on our own.

Take Care


Edited to ADD:
Where did the Apostles say tithing ceased?

AWESOME point about the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil! Really profound truth. From the very beginning God was saying "most of what is given to you is yours to do with as you please---but you can't have this one thing." Excellent.

[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.

[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!

[good samaritan]

Hebrews 7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. 10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

The law commanded Israel to tithe to support the levitical priesthood who in return would tend to the tabernacle and their sacrificial system. Levites had no inheritance in Israel and depended solely on the tithing system. Levi tithing through Abraham to Melchizedek was alluding to the priesthood of Melchizedek being greater than that of levi. Tithing was not the point at all in Chapter 7 of Hebrews, Jesus is.

I personally believe if you did the math a born again child will exceed 10% in everything. It is not about tithing it is about being crucified with Him and being a daily living sacrifice.

[Pliny]

I guess some people need to slow down and read what people write before launching into attack mode. Apparently they don't know the difference between exegesis, eisegesis or context.
Then are unable to answer basic questions.
Oh well...

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

The law commanded Israel to tithe to support the levitical priesthood who in return would tend to the tabernacle and their sacrificial system. Levites had no inheritance in Israel and depended solely on the tithing system. Levi tithing through Abraham to Melchizedek was alluding to the priesthood of Melchizedek being greater than that of levi. Tithing was not the point at all in Chapter 7 of Hebrews, Jesus is.

I personally believe if you did the math a born again child will exceed 10% in everything. It is not about tithing it is about being crucified with Him and being a daily living sacrifice.

It really is an apples and oranges comparison since what you are referring to as "tithing" simply is not taught in scripture. There is no tithe on monetary income found in scripture, period. Law tithing was on increase of agricultural ASSETS. Abraham tithes once on things that did not belong to him and returned the balance to the owners. Jacob also tithes ONCE on ASSETS.

In the New Testament, the number 10 simply has no relevance.

[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.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Originalist

It really is an apples and oranges comparison since what you are referring to as "tithing" simply is not taught in scripture. There is no tithe on monetary income found in scripture, period. Law tithing was on increase of ASSETS. Abraham tithes once on things that did not belong to him and returned the balance to the owners. Jacob also tithes ONCE on ASSETS.

In the New Testament, the number 10 simply has no relevance.

Hey bro., preachers that teach mandatory tithing are not interested it investigating the truth about N.T. tithing.

When it comes to having access to 10% of a believers income for life, they would rather take a chance with teaching blatant false doctrine and being lost, than teaching the truth.

This is clearly the doctrine of Baalam......ministry for hire, and cursing the people of God.....(with Mal. 3)