@Pilgrim.1
You should know me better than that by now i would NEVR run away from any debate as i am 110% certain of my position. And i insist that you have refused to answer any of my questions on hebrew 7 rather you write utter rubbish that does not address the issue being asked and you claim you have answered it. if i was your lecturer i would certainly give you very big F for your pathetic and dubious attempts to answer simple and straight forward questions.

KunleOshob:

@Pilgrim.1
You should know me better than that by now i would NEVR run away from any debate as i am 110% certain of my position. And i insist that you have refused to answer any of my questions on hebrew 7 rather you write utter rubbish that does not address the issue being asked and you claim you have answered it. if i was your lecturer i would certainly give you very big F for your pathetic and dubious attempts to answer simple and straight forward questions.

Please save this cowardise - just simply show where I refused to answer ALL your questions on Hebrews 7, regardless the answers I proffered. Until you do so, your noise is not effective enough to repair your duplicity. I await, sir.

pilgrim.1:

Please save this cowardise - just simply show where I refused to answer ALL your questions on Hebrews 7, regardless the answers I proffered. Until you do so, your noise is not effective enough to repair your duplicity. I await, sir.

There is nothing to show you as you didn't answer any of the questions and i do not consider any of the gibberish you wrote as answers. besides you already listed your so called answers about three posts ago so why are you asking me to repost them again. or is this one of your usual tricks of confusing issues?

KunleOshob:

There is nothing to show you as you doidn't answer any of the questions and i do not consider any of the gibberish you wrote as answers. besides you already listed your so called answers about three posts ago so why are you asking me to repost them again. or is this one of your usual tricks of confusing issues?

Don't you see the dunce you are? So, I already listed my answers about three posts ago, and you had the nerve to be so dubious that I didn't answer ALL your questions on Hebrews 7:18? You didn't surprise me - and I still keep my fingers crossed for the day you will truly know how to be honest.

pilgrim.1:

Don't you see the dunce you are? So, I already listed my answers about three posts ago, and you had the nerve to be so dubious that I didn't answer ALL your questions on Hebrews 7:18? You didn't surprise me - and I still keep my fingers crossed for the day you will truly know how to be honest.

If you call those answers then your delusion is beyond comprehension and certainly the money paid for your schooling is a colossal waste. I would suggest you ask your parents to demand a refund from what ever instituitions you attended. You must realize that you are on an intellectual forum and NOT just any rubbish you constrive would be accepted as an answer. If you are dealing with people who are at your very low intelectual parity you might be able to get away with such rubbish but not on nairaland and definitely not with me.

KunleOshob:

If you call those answers then your delusion is beyond comprehension and certainly the money paid for your schooling is a colossal waste. I would suggest you ask your parents to demand a refund from what ever instituitions you attended. You must realize that you are on an intellectual forum and NOT just any rubbish you constrive would be accepted as an answer. If you are dealing with people who are at your very low intelectual parity you might be able to get away with such rubbish but not on nairaland and definitely not with me.

Lol, I feel very sorry for your sort. Seriously. It's simply because you are too poor to rise to the level of an educated chap, that is why you decry the reasoning of others whose scholarship you cannot even begin to dream of attaining. No worries, for rascals do that same thing repeatedly, and you've again proven it beyond any shred of doubt.

Anyhow, just to show how pitiful a lonely dreamer you are with your utility grade scholarship, here's what I promised earlier:

pilgrim.1:

So, just stay tuned and let me help you with some quotes on Hebrews 7:18, yeah?

I doubt you would remain with any interest; but whenever you feel like taking a peep, it will be here for your consideration. Now, this was your own interpretaion of Hebrews 7:18 -

KunleOshob:

Evidently what is being described as weak and unprofitable is the commandment to tithe under the law and NOT the law in itself as pilgim.1 would like us to believe. My dear i think you should stop confusing issues and using evasive tactics . . .

To assure you, the pointers I gave earlier as to Hebrews 7:18 were not "tactics"; and no informed student of the Bible who makes the same point would regard them as "tactics" either. Here are a few:

[list][li]For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before". The reference here is to [size=14pt]the entire system of the Mosaic institutions[/size]. That system is here spoken of as "the commandment going before". It was of Divine appointment and authority, yet was it only designed "until the time of reformation" (Heb. 9:10). The "going before" signifies the introduction of the new Priest in fulfillment of the promise in Psalm 110. The commandment going before was that which regulated the worship of God and obedience to Him prior to the Christian dispensation; but this had now been cancelled and a new law of worship given.
~~ A. W. Pink, Commentary on Hebrews 7:17-19[/i][/li]
.
.
[li]Hebrews 7:11-22 presents the issue that the older system under the Levitical priesthood has been replaced by the new priesthood that comes from a different order (vs. 11). Verse twelve with vivid clarity tells the saints that the priesthood has changed but also that the law has changed as well. Verse eighteen specifically states that “there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness.” [size=14pt]The former commandment is a reference to the Mosaic Law[/size].[54] The reference to weakness refers to the inability of the Law of Moses to empower the saint to fulfill the requirement. The Jewish people readily acknowledged the burden the Mosaic Law placed upon believers (see Acts 15:9-10). Then in verse nineteen the writer mentions that a “better hope” has been brought in place of the Law of Moses that has been set aside. The reference to the weakness of the Law reminds the readers that the Old Covenant could not fully atone for sin. Those under the older covenant could not experience the full understanding and accomplishment of redemption.[55]
~~ Essential Christianity, on Hebrews 7:11-22 [/li][/list]

More will be posted, including those from anti-tithers with Ph.Ds (essentially, they make the same point). When you are blue in the face, you can then show how very dense you can be by referring to such men as below you, for the simple reason again that you're a noise-making tout with absolutely no clue what you've been arguing.

Fingers cross, you'll prove the case again . . seeing you excel at making a nuisance of yourself publicly.

@Pilgrim.1
As i see you enjoy ranting a lot i would continue to induldge your excesses and exihibition of poor upbringing exemplified by your uncouth vocabularies in expressing your delusions. It is clear that tithes is a part of the law and it is very instructive that that the commandment to tithe under the law was the specific commandment mentioned before the law was anulled in verse 12 &18. The best you have been able to to prove from the opinions of the commentaries you posted here is that it was the law being refered to and not only tithes whilst mischieviously and conviniently ignoring the FACT that tithes was an intergral part of the law. [and please don't refer to Abraham's tithes as there is no instruction to emulate this one off act of abraham to jews talkless of christians]. And it was this same pilgrim.1 that argued vehemently that the law was not done away with only to recant later and accept it was done away with and that only the principles of the law were relevant to christians. No matter how you want to look at it and twist the srciptures hebrews 7 was talking about not only the law but the commandment to tithe which was clearly stated there and just becos it doesn't suit your argument you are going to find solace in the writings of commentators who did not highlight this FACT in their submissions even though their writings do not argue against the facts which i have stated on what hebrews 7:12&18 was addressing.

@pilgim.1
Just so you don't assume i ran off i have to inform you that i am signing off my system now as i have to go out i would be back tomorrow to address whatever hallucinations you may have posted all in your efforts to confuse the very elects.

KunleOshob:

@pilgim.1
Just so you assume i have ran off i have to inform you that i am signing off my system now as i have to go out i would be back tomorrow to address whatever hallucinations you may have posted all in your efforts to confuse the very elects.

You're a piece of work. Run all you like and go consult your voodoo acts for more dense performance. . would be quite entertaining, yea?

KunleOshob:

@Pilgrim.1
As i see you enjoy ranting a lot i would continue to induldge your excesses and exihibition of poor upbringing exemplified by your uncouth vocabularies in expressing your delusions. It is clear that tithes is a part of the law and it is very instructive that that the commandment to tithe under the law was the specific commandment mentioned before the law was anulled in verse 12 &18. The best you have been able to to prove from the opinions of the commentaries you posted here is that it was the law being refered to and not only tithes whilst mischieviously and conviniently ignoring the FACT that tithes was an intergral part of the law. [and please don't refer to Abraham's tithes as there is no instruction to emulate this one off act of abraham to jews talkless of christians].

Why are you anti-tithers so scared of Abraham's tithes? Was the patriacrh's tithes not discussed in Hebrews 7 as well? Oh, I see - selective reading is what you champion. . . but you can stop begging that it shouldn't be mentioned.

KunleOshob:

And it was this same pilgrim.1 that argued vehemently that the law was not done away with only to recant later and accept it was done away with and that only the principles of the law were relevant to christians.

Another one of your excellent lies. Please show me where I recanted on what you're alleging.

KunleOshob:

No matter how you want to look at it and twist the srciptures hebrews 7 was talking about not only the law but the commandment to tithe which was clearly stated there

Okay, I'm waiting to see how you prove that is the case by following simple exegetical interpretations of the Bible. I know that you'll come back whinging again when your eisegesis would fail you. . . but who knows, you just might save face by recycling another otiose drama.

KunleOshob:

and just becos it doesn't suit your argument you are going to find solace in the writings of commentators who did not highlight this FACT in their submissions even though their writings do not argue against the facts which i have stated on what hebrews 7:12&18 was addressing.

Unless something is seriously acting as a virus to blind you to simple issues, you can't deny the fact that those whom I've quoted have not supported your dubious assertions about Hebrews 7:18. A. W. Pink is well known in his commentaries; others will be posted (including those from anti-tithers themselves) to show you that you're floating on the sea to nowhere. You're simply lost on your own drama and still have no clues. When you're done and blue in the face, come back and let's see how you magically turn Hebrews 7:18 on only tithes, when that is not exegetically substantiated.

Cherio.

pilgrim.1:

Hello chukwudi44,

It seems you've done two things simultaneously: asked a question and then answered it yourself. Anyhow, even though I've answered your question in one way or another in my discussions several times, it's not a problem to address it again.

As far as the concern is about the keyword highlighted in your quote ('compulsory'), my answer has always been the same. Let me go back and quote what I said a while back (in replying to ttalks) -

I think the "COMPULSION" above answers to your question about whether tithing is "compulsory" for every Christian.

Also even in my reply to abose today, I noted that: "In all these, it is not as if Christians are under any Law or obligation or coercion to tithe"; which should help sort this issue out once again.

Neither the OT nor the NT makes tithing a matter of what is "compulsory" or "strictly" 10%. First, informed Jews understood that tithing as taught in its true essence in the Torah did not make it an exactitude of 10%. Second, many anti-tithers debating this issue note that '10%' is not the Jewish tithes, but vary the figure to between 23% and 40%. Basically, the Hebrew and Greek words for tithe may indicate simply a 'tenth'; but in reality, the Torah does not make a "strict" 10% in every single mention of 'tithe'. So, we understand that there is no commandment in Christianity that "recommends compulsory tithing[/i](strictly 10%)".

That said, Christian giving (whether tithes, freewill offerings, donations, contributions, seed-sowing, etc.) is a matter of the same principle as in the OT: the attitude and condition of the heart, which is far more important than any amount or percentage that anyone offers. When a believer is asked to bring an offering to God, the one thing He looks at is the heart: eg., "whosoever is of a willing heart, let him bring it, an offering of the LORD" (Exo. 35:5). This is pretty much the same thing we find in 2 Cor. 8:12 - "if there be first a willing mind". Otherwise, of what value is anyone's offering (whatever he may call it) when the heart is not in a lovingly healthy state before God?

Shalom.

Contary to your assertion the levitical tithe was compulsory and any defaultment would result in the curses outlined in the laws of moses.That was what Prophet malachi was talking about.

The truth remains that even when it is not compulsory for people to donate 10% of their ,most pastors continue with this heretic practise to exploit their members,,that is what the likes of kunle are fighting .

Anyone may decide to freely donate to the church,that would be in line with christian teaching,but when someone donates the 10% because of malachi3:10 or their pastors threats that person cannot be said to be practising true christianity.He/she is in bondage and needs to be delivered from the hands of criminals who call themselves men of God.
The act of giving is not wrong but rather the motive behind it.Just like a sranded girl walks up to me beggiong for money,if Igive it to her because Iwant to sleep with her ,I cannot be said to be charitable.

In essense,the act of giving 10% may not be wrong but the motive behind it is what really matters

chukwudi44:

Contary to your assertion the levitical tithe was compulsory and any defaultment would result in the curses outlined in the laws of moses.That was what Prophet malachi was talking about.

The truth remains that even when it is not compulsory for people to donate 10% of their ,most pastors continue with this heretic practise to exploit their members,,that is what the likes of kunle are fighting .

Anyone may decide to freely donate to the church,that would be in line with christian teaching,but when someone donates the 10% because of malachi3:10 or their pastors threats that person cannot be said to be practising true christianity.He/she is in bondage and needs to be delivered from the hands of criminals who call themselves men of God.
The act of giving is not wrong but rather the motive behind it.Just like a sranded girl walks up to me beggiong for money,if Igive it to her because Iwant to sleep with her ,I cannot be said to be charitable.

In essense,the act of giving 10% may not be wrong but the motive behind it is what really matters

Very good post.

Indeed the bone of contention is that those who support "tithing" today are essentially saying, either directly or indirectly, that it is compulsory or that it is a Christian obligation. A lot of the debate would be unnecessary IF certain simple acknowledgments are made.

1. We who argue against the modern teaching of "tithing" acknowledge and accept that a Christian can voluntarily choose to "tithe" (including giving it in the form of money to a church) - preferably when s/he knows that it is not compulsory and s/he is not coerced or manipulated into doing it.

2. Those who support "tithing" today acknowledge that it is not a Christian obligation.

3. Those who support "tithing" would agree that a "tither" can choose not to give the monetary "tithe" to his/her church or to any church at all; thus

4. Those who support "tithing" would agree that every month, a "tither" can choose to give the "tithes" to charity e.g. to the poor, the orphan the widow.

5. Those who support "tithing" would acknowledge that the "tither" does not have to give/pay the "tithe" in money but that it can be in other forms including giving of food to the hungry (to take a less controversial example).

These are just some basics to keep things simple; proper scholarship can distill things into such simplicity than obfuscate issues with irrelevance.

It is clear that the "tithers" won't give up! I've got two more cents to add here:

Tithe is out, giving is in
Jesus paid our DEBT on the CROSS and those collecting "tithes" in the his name are "oles"
All real Christians are in his "Royal Priesthood" and don't need any "man of god"
The CHURCH is the believer and not some dome shaped edifice that glorifies you know who but not our maker
The real Christian is the Church and Temple
The new Covenant doesn't require you to actually go to a "church" to serve him when he dwells in you
A real Christian ought to run anytime he/she hears "man of God", "God told me" "you will prosper", "you will not die", etc.
The kingdom of Heaven is not a "pay to play" entity as some of these gospel entertainers/pimps will have you believe
A real Christian need to run from those guilt peddlers

Here are a few passages to support my "rant":



1 Corinthians 3:16-17 (King James Version)
16Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20 (King James Version)
19What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
Ephesians 1:22-23 (King James Version)
22And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
Ephesians 2:19-24 (King James Version)
19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
Ephesians 4:12-16 (King James Version)
12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
16From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

Revelation 3:12 (King James Version)
12Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
2 Corinthians 3:8-12 (King James Version)
8How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
9For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
10For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
11For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
12Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:


God bless his Children, all of them.

I knew I should have put the word 'church' in quotes! So, here goes "church"!

Enigma:

Very good post.

Indeed the bone of contention is that those who support "tithing" today are essentially saying, either directly or indirectly, that it is compulsory or that it is a Christian obligation. A lot of the debate would be unnecessary IF certain simple acknowledgments are made.

1. We who argue against the modern teaching of "tithing" acknowledge and accept that a Christian can voluntarily choose to "tithe" (including giving it in the form of money to a church) - preferably when s/he knows that it is not compulsory and s/he is not coerced or manipulated into doing it.

2. Those who support "tithing" today acknowledge that it is not a Christian obligation.

I would add to that that it is important that people should be aware that there is no special blessing or advantage to be gained from being a Tither. And no curse on the guy who won't tithe. I fear that most people who are tithing do so because they feel that they will receive some benefit from the act, like even more money will come to them.

Blessed are the pure in hear, for they shall see God,
Enigma, I agree with you and Kunle totally.

chukwudi44:

Contary to your assertion the levitical tithe was compulsory and any defaultment would result in the curses outlined in the laws of moses.That was what Prophet malachi was talking about.

Lol, did you ask me about the Levitical tithe or about tithing as a Christian? Let me remind you:

    A.  "Is it compulsory for every christian to donate 10% of their earnings
          to the church(pastor)?"

    B. ". . but simply asking is there any comandment in christianity that recommends
          compulsory tithing(strictly 10%)?"

Those were your questions - were you on about Levitical tithes or what was "compulsory" for EVERY CHRISTIAN? So, what is "contrary to your assertion" if you seem to be confusing your case all the more?

I might've anticipated precisely where you were going; thus my answer to show you were confusing what was for the Christian by having your thoughts on Levitical tithes.

However, as regards the other part of my answer that "Neither the OT nor the NT makes tithing a matter of what is "compulsory" or "strictly" 10%," that is precisely the case. Several times I've shown that a "strict" 10% was not what was recommended; and I also referenced several anti-tithers who argued other percentages instead of 10%. I went on to show how that was so, and I could expatiate with more references for that, if you care. But as long as you see a "strict 10%" for your convictions, that's okay - just stick to that point until later when you would have to make a rethink.

chukwudi44:

The truth remains that even when it is not compulsory for people to donate 10% of their ,most pastors continue with this heretic practise to exploit their members,,that is what the likes of kunle are fighting .

Please be consistent: what exactly is your argument - that a "strict 10%" is compulsory, or that "even when it is not compulsory"?!? You're hardly making a consistent arguement here. What Kunle is fighting is not what he finds in my post - and whatever concerns he's offered in query on the subject, I've addressed them. It's a wonder that while you see "heretic practise" in others, it has never occured to such folks that they have been equally playing the heresy games themselves.

chukwudi44:

Anyone may decide to freely donate to the church,that would be in line with christian teaching,but when someone donates the 10% because of malachi3:10 or their pastors threats that person cannot be said to be practising true christianity.

By trying to define what people should believe about Malachi 3:10, you haven't demonstrated true Christianity either.

chukwudi44:

He/she is in bondage and needs to be delivered from the hands of criminals who call themselves men of God.

There are many people who have proven the power of Malachi 3:10 for themselves - is that bondage? Your reaction is not helping your point here, I'm afraid.

chukwudi44:

The act of giving is not wrong but rather the motive behind it.Just like a sranded girl walks up to me beggiong for money,if Igive it to her because Iwant to sleep with her ,I cannot be said to be charitable.

I guess you might not have read my comments previously in my reply to yours - how does yours differ from what I said?? --

[list]That said, Christian giving (whether tithes, freewill offerings, donations, contributions, seed-sowing, etc.) is a matter of the same principle as in the OT: the attitude and condition of the heart, which is far more important than any amount or percentage that anyone offers.[/list]

chukwudi44:

In essense,the act of giving 10% may not be wrong but the motive behind it is what really matters

Okay. And your point in reply all along has been. . .? I really don't see what contrary matter you actually brought to the table. But enjoy.

abose:

It is clear that the "tithers" won't give up! I've got two more cents to add here:

Tithe is out, giving is in
Jesus paid our DEBT on the CROSS and those collecting "tithes" in the his name are "oles"
All real Christians are in his "Royal Priesthood" and don't need any "man of god"
The CHURCH is the believer and not some dome shaped edifice that glorifies you know who but not our maker
The real Christian is the Church and Temple
The new Covenant doesn't require you to actually go to a "church" to serve him when he dwells in you
A real Christian ought to run anytime he/she hears "man of God", "God told me" "you will prosper", "you will not die", etc.
The kingdom of Heaven is not a "pay to play" entity as some of these gospel entertainers/pimps will have you believe
A real Christian need to run from those guilt peddlers

And where in Scripture do you make all these out from?

You see, it's one thing to be reactive and quite another thing to be reasonable. You may choose never to "go to church", and that has automatically made you better than those who do so, yes?

Please, it pays to think. . . with the heart. Tithes were not a DEBT for your sins. Nobody ever paid tithes anywhere as regarding their sins. That repetitious mantra is becoming quite out of date.

@all kunle's sympathizers
Please try to read up earlier posts before typing, it'll save nairaland some harddisk space. Most of your queries and comments have already being well addressed.

@kunleOshob and pilgrim.1
You guys are one funny pair. Don't you know that when two elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers most? Take heed that ye be not consumed one of another, biko and God give you wisdom.
Kunle, I'll have expected by now that you'll not be talking about Hebrews7 to dissuade people from tithing. Its been explained before and pilgrim.1 has done a good job about it again.
Truly, when you're too repetitive, you become 'unhealthily repetitive'. People are already sick. You keep talking about Abraham's tithe been a one-off. Even if it was a one-off, which the Bible doesn't say, does that make it irrelevant or unworthy of emulation? Can we say the birth, or crucifixion, or resurrection of Christ is also a 'one-off'? Also, you keep chipping in that tithe is an integral part of the law. Its either your meaning of integral is different, or you don't know what you're saying. It has been said before to you that Jesus said in Matthew23 that the weightier matters of the law are judgement, faith and mercy, not tithes. Except you know the law more than Jesus.
Back to Hebrews, I'll just like to add that the law is a word with different meanings in scripture. Take 3 instances out of many more, the law could refer to the 5books of Moses, it could also refer to one of the two divisions of the old testament i.e the law and the prophets. Thirdly, it could refer to the whole old testament as law . The context usually shows the law being referred to.
In what context, to what purpose, and to what theme was the book of Hebrews written? One needs to look at the big picture. How would a Jew react if he/she told about the law of tithes. It'll be strange 'cause there's nothing like that in the Bible. What could the epistle to the Hebrews be refering to as law . That word law appears about 14times in the book of Hebrews. In the context of the writer, what did he refer to as law in his epistle? It was largely the ceremonial laws, i.e those Levitical laws.
Hebrews 7v5,11 and 12 are the first 3verses with the mention of law . The 3verses are talking about the Levitical laws, not some 'law of tithe'. Verse 16 makes reference to the same law as of carnal commandment, which is the law by which the levite priests were made but Christ's priesthood was by the power of an endless life. Verse 19,28,chapter8v4, chapter9v19,22 and chapter10v1,8 and 28 all refer to this same law . Its the levite law, Moses' law, the ceremonial law. In the 12verses above, its the same law that was referred to. That was the context in which the writer was talking, and all through the book of Hebrews, that's the point/theme driven at. Christ was better than the law and than any other. The remaining 2verses that mention law are Hebrews 8v10 and 10v16 where it talks about a different meaning of law.

@all kunle's sympathizers
Please try to read up earlier posts before typing, it'll save nairaland some harddisk space. Most of your queries and comments have already being well addressed.

@kunleOshob and pilgrim.1
You guys are one funny pair. Don't you know that when two elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers most? Take heed that ye be not consumed one of another, biko and God give you wisdom.
Kunle, I'll have expected by now that you'll not be talking about Hebrews7 to dissuade people from tithing. Its been explained before and pilgrim.1 has done a good job about it again.
Truly, when you're too repetitive, you become 'unhealthily repetitive'. People are already sick. You keep talking about Abraham's tithe been a one-off. Even if it was a one-off, which the Bible doesn't say, does that make it irrelevant or unworthy of emulation? Can we say the birth, or crucifixion, or resurrection of Christ is also a 'one-off'? Also, you keep chipping in that tithe is an integral part of the law. Its either your meaning of integral is different, or you don't know what you're saying. It has been said before to you that Jesus said in Matthew23 that the weightier matters of the law are judgement, faith and mercy, not tithes. Except you know the law more than Jesus.
Back to Hebrews, I'll just like to add that the law is a word with different meanings in scripture. Take 3 instances out of many more, the law could refer to the 5books of Moses, it could also refer to one of the two divisions of the old testament i.e the law and the prophets. Thirdly, it could refer to the whole old testament as law . The context usually shows the law being referred to.
In what context, to what purpose, and to what theme was the book of Hebrews written? One needs to look at the big picture. How would a Jew react if he/she told about the law of tithes. It'll be strange 'cause there's nothing like that in the Bible. What could the epistle to the Hebrews be refering to as law . That word law appears about 14times in the book of Hebrews. In the context of the writer, what did he refer to as law in his epistle? It was largely the ceremonial laws, i.e those Levitical laws.
Hebrews 7v5,11 and 12 are the first 3verses with the mention of law . The 3verses are talking about the Levitical laws, not some 'law of tithe'. Verse 16 makes reference to the same law as of carnal commandment, which is the law by which the levite priests were made but Christ's priesthood was by the power of an endless life. Verse 19,28,chapter8v4, chapter9v19,22 and chapter10v1,8 and 28 all refer to this same law . Its the levite law, Moses' law, the ceremonial law. In the 12verses above, its the same law that was referred to. That was the context in which the writer was talking, and all through the book of Hebrews, that's the point/theme driven at. Christ was better than the law and than any other. The remaining 2verses that mention law are Hebrews 8v10 and 10v16 where it talks about a different meaning of law.

He that hath an ear, let him hear what, :
It is funny how folks can know you based on a particular position you take, I maybe an Amicus curiae in this case but it doesn't matter to the "tithe" 10% hounds.
I still fellowship with other folks in a "church" but I am just not into the foolishness of taking everything the "man of God" says without cross referencing and certainly don't partake in the absurd 10% malpractice.
However I do my giving is between me and my creator which is exactly what our prince of peace Jesus taught us not to give like the pharisees and reaping the reward right here on earth as opposed to Heaven.
As Dan Agbese once wrote " There is nothing infallibly prophetic about pessimistic or cynical conjectures"
And Ra Ekpu "Arrogance is the prerogative of the conceited"
There is little doubt that these are the end times and we must be on the lookout for Wolves in Sheep's clothing, you have to have a knowledge of the other side to properly defend against their tactics and antics, we must be more like Jesus Christ if we hope to make Heaven, to each his own.
In closing, I will quote my man Bob Marley since Fela will take the whole page "Everyman got a right to decide his own destiny, but on the judgment day, there is no partiality, "

@abose,

abose:

He that hath an ear, let him hear what, :
It is funny how folks can know you based on a particular position you take, I maybe an Amicus curiae in this case but it doesn't matter to the "tithe" 10% hounds.

People hold different views on the subject of giving - whether it be tithe, freewill offering, seed-sowing, donations, etc. You don't have to single out tithe as the one word that riles you up so bad that you must often and repetitively use against others, especially when you haven't demonstrated a balanced view of the texts you appeal to. It is for this reason that we call for reason, not derision; and when anti-tithers are not done until they have displayed such unfortunate attitude, what benefit then do they derive from such?

abose:

I still fellowship with other folks in a "church" but I am just not into the foolishness of taking everything the "man of God" says without cross referencing and certainly don't partake in the absurd 10% malpractice.

Glad to know you fellowship, regardless how you assume the word "church". And who says that others who have an informed choice to tithe have been into the foolishness you prescribed? You just imagine your position is far better than others because you assume they do not "cross reference" whatever teaching they listen to? Please.

abose:

However I do my giving is between me and my creator which is exactly what our prince of peace Jesus taught us not to give like the pharisees and reaping the reward right here on earth as opposed to Heaven.

There are many tithers who know that their giving is between themselves and God, without having to assume a pharisaic attitude towards anyone. It turns out that folks who often see others as Pharisees while praising themselves as obeying Jesus are the very ones who know very little of what He has taught. Giving brings benefits and rewards both here on earth, as well in heaven. It may suit you perfectly to reject the one while thinking of the other - but that is your personal choice (and you're entitled to it); yet, that does not mean you've checked your Bible well enough. Just for starters, check out what Jesus Himself taught about this - Luke 6:38 and Mark 10:29-30.

abose:

There is little doubt that these are the end times and we must be on the lookout for Wolves in Sheep's clothing, you have to have a knowledge of the other side to properly defend against their tactics and antics, we must be more like Jesus Christ if we hope to make Heaven, to each his own.

The fact that there are fraudsters all over should not make you reactive; one should learn to reason in a balanced manner inspite of the abuses. Failing to do so is the reason why many anti-tithers who think they know, are often making statements they cannot defend from Scripture. Abuse is no sufficient reason to reject what God's Word teaches - you don't let the abuser deprive you of godly understanding to often be reactive.

@Image123,

Image123:

@all kunle's sympathizers
Please try to read up earlier posts before typing, it'll save nairaland some harddisk space. Most of your queries and comments have already being well addressed.

I wonder.

Image123:

@kunleOshob and pilgrim.1
You guys are one funny pair. Don't you know that when two elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers most? Take heed that ye be not consumed one of another, biko and God give you wisdom.

On my part, I'll just humble myself and apologise. It wasn't my intention to make anyone suffer from such exchanges, and I'm not going to offer any excuses or 'but's. And thank you for your godly caution and brotherly love - God bless you abundantly.

Image123:

Kunle, I'll have expected by now that you'll not be talking about Hebrews7 to dissuade people from tithing. Its been explained before and pilgrim.1 has done a good job about it again.
Truly, when you're too repetitive, you become 'unhealthily repetitive'. People are already sick.

I just wonder how many times we have to make this very point to him, before this sucbject moves forward. It should be obvious that 'unhealthy repetitions', no matter how many times they are recycled, are not making interesting contributions to the subject. Their choice, though.

Image123:

Back to Hebrews, I'll just like to add that the law is a word with different meanings in scripture. Take 3 instances out of many more, the law could refer to the 5books of Moses, it could also refer to one of the two divisions of the old testament i.e the law and the prophets. Thirdly, it could refer to the whole old testament as law . The context usually shows the law being referred to.

Well said.

Image123:

In what context, to what purpose, and to what theme was the book of Hebrews written? One needs to look at the big picture. How would a Jew react if he/she told about the law of tithes. It'll be strange 'cause there's nothing like that in the Bible.

Abeg help me tell them.

Image123:

What could the epistle to the Hebrews be refering to as law . That word law appears about 14times in the book of Hebrews. In the context of the writer, what did he refer to as law in his epistle? It was largely the ceremonial laws, i.e those Levitical laws.

Hmm, every sound Bible student makes precisely the same case - including even anti-tithers who do a bit of theology. I've already posted a few, and some others to add below to show what Hebrews 7:18 was particularly referring to:

[list]

A. W. Pink, Commentary on Hebrews 7:17-19 >>
|
"For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before".
The reference here is to the entire system of the Mosaic institutions.
That system is here spoken of as "the commandment going before".
It was of Divine appointment and authority, yet was it only designed
"until the time of reformation" (Heb. 9:10). The "going before" signifies
the introduction of the new Priest in fulfillment of the promise in Psalm 110.
The commandment going before was that which regulated the worship of
God and obedience to Him prior to the Christian dispensation; but this had
now been cancelled and a new law of worship given.

Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament,
Hebrews 7 >>
|
"Verse 18
For there is a disannulling of a foregoing commandment because of
its weakness and unprofitableness.

This turns attention to the very nature of the Levitical system
of which that priesthood was the support and center. It was not of
caprice that God annulled the old covenant, for it deserved to be
annulled because of its weakness and unprofitableness. God had
never considered the Levitical system to be complete, final or efficacious
in itself; but "it was added because of transgression, until the seed
should come to whom the promise hath been made" Gal. 3:19).
The law expired, therefore, by limitation, when Jesus was revealed as
that "seed" so long anticipated. The weakness and unprofitableness of
that foregoing commandment refers to the whole system of Moses;
and Macknight explained the weakness of it thus, . . . ."

John MacArthur (himself an anti-tither),
'Jesus the Superior Priest, Hebrews 7:11-19' >>
|
"For there is verily an annulling of the commandment going before
for the weakness and unprofitableness of it."  God set aside the
old standard.  Now watch.  Now put a parenthesis at the beginning
of verse 19.  "(For the law made nothing perfect), but the bringing
in of a better hope by which we draw near unto God."  Or you'd use
and.  Lemme read it this way.  "For there is verily an annulling of
the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness
of it.  (For the law made nothing perfect), and the bringing in of a better
hope, cross out did, by which we draw near unto God."  You see?
God says, "I am setting aside the old one, and I'm bringing in a new one;
and in the new covenant, you have what?  Access to God.

Now, the word disannulling, afaytises, has to do with the doing away
of something that is established.  It is used, for example of annulling
a treaty, of annulling a promise, a law, a regulation, of erasing a man's
name from something.  It has to do with removing what is established.
The whole paraphernalia of the sacrificial system, the whole ceremonial
system is wiped out.  It is annulled.  It is done away with.  God wipes it
out; and He wiped it out for good in 70 AD when He destroyed the temple.
The old system could reveal sin.  It could cover sin.  It could give a relative
measure of drawing near to God, but not full perfection.  It brought nothing
to conclusion.  The priesthood of Jesus Christ made all that Israel looked
forward to a reality.  Access to God.

[/list]


These are by no means an exhaustive list of those who make a sound case for Hebrews 7:18; but the point is well carried as in your statement that the context was "largely the ceremonial laws, i.e those Levitical laws".  Those who narrow it down to just a "law/commandment of tithe" would have to explain how that "law" was what made men into highpriests in verse 28. Of course, John MacArthur is not the only anti-tither who sees the commandment in verse 18 as referring to the "old covenant", others make just about the same inference.

Perhaps it should help others think carefully before drawing untenable conclusions which they may not be able to defend.

Thank you again, and God increase your wisdom.

Image123:



It was largely the ceremonial laws, i.e those Levitical laws.

And is tithes not an integral part of the levithical laws

Image123:


Hebrews 7v5,11 and 12 are the first 3verses with the mention of law . The 3verses are talking about the Levitical laws[b], not some 'law of tithe'. [/b]Verse 16 makes reference to the same law as of carnal commandment, which is the law by which the levite priests were made but Christ's priesthood was by the power of an endless life. Verse 19,28,chapter8v4, chapter9v19,22 and chapter10v1,8 and 28 all refer to this same law . Its the levite law, Moses' law, the ceremonial law. In the 12verses above, its the same law that was referred to. That was the context in which the writer was talking, and all through the book of Hebrews, that's the point/theme driven at. Christ was better than the law and than any other. The remaining 2verses that mention law are Hebrews 8v10 and 10v16 where it talks about a different meaning of law.

I don't know why you have to be dis-honest about the above highlighted the bible was quite specific when it said commandment to tithe under the law in verse 5, that is clear evidence that tithes was one of if not the main issue of the law being addressed also the term "commandemnt" in reference to tithe was used again in verse 18 when tithes was being describe as weak and useless. Anyway you want to argue it you can not deny the fact that tithes is a part of the levithical laws and it was highlighted in the same passage condenming the laws, to me that is quite instructive.

Hebrews 7:5:

5And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

Hebrews 7:18:

18For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

What was discussed in hebrew 18 as weak and unprofitable is the "commandment" and the only commandment mentioned previously in the passage is the "commandment to tithe" mentioned in verse 5. Please note that it was not the law being described as weak it was the commandment under the law. If the writer of hebrew was refering to the law as weak he would have said so and not referred specifically to the commandment which was earlier ennuciated in verse 5.

KunleOshob:

And is tithes not an integral part of the levithical laws

The verse you queried was Hebrews 7:18 - and we've seen that it points particularly to what established the Levitical priesthood. This is also clear when you read verse 28, and I asked earlier if it was "tithes"  that made men into highpriests? Your narrowing verse 18 to just tithes is why you can't see what verse 19 states.

KunleOshob:

I don't know why you have to be dis-honest about the above highlighted the bible was quite specific when it said commandment to tithe under the law in verse 5, that is clear evidence that tithes was one of if not the main issue of the law being addressed

Since you recognize that tithes was NOT the main issue, why are you trying to force it to become the main issue in that chapter, Kunle?

KunleOshob:

also the term "commandemnt" in reference to tithe was used again in verse 18 when tithes was being describe as weak and useless.

It was not tithes that were being described as weak and useless - that is why you find it difficult to point out exactly what that weakness was. Clue: you will not find any verse in the Bible teaching that tithes are "weak" - because tithes had nothing to do with "perfecting" any believer (see verse 19).

KunleOshob:

Anyway you want to argue it you can not deny the fact that tithes is a part of the levithical laws and it was highlighted in the same passage condenming the laws, to me that is quite instructive.

Lol, the chapter does not make "a part" into the "whole" - it may help to not make "a commandment" the whole Law!

pilgrim.1:

The verse you queried was Hebrews 7:18 - and we've seen that it points particularly to what established the Levitical priesthood. This is also clear when you read verse 28, and I asked earlier if it was "tithes"  that made men into highpriests? Your narrowing verse 18 to just tithes is why you can't see what verse 19 states.

Since you recognize that tithes was NOT the main issue, why are you trying to force it to become the main issue in that chapter, Kunle?

It was not tithes that were being described as weak and useless - that is why you find it difficult to point out exactly what that weakness was. Clue: you will not find any verse in the Bible teaching that tithes are "weak" - because tithes had nothing to do with "perfecting" any believer (see verse 19).

Lol, the chapter does not make "a part" into the "whole" - it may help to not make "a commandment" the whole Law!

GIBBERISH

I wonder why someone who has probably not even contributed a word out of 7 long pages, just come, quote and pass a gibberish comment. You barely read what you quoted.

@pilgrim.1
thank you, and amen to the prayers.
@kunle
it seems kunle knows more about the law now than Jesus or Moses. He's made tithe an INTEGRAL part of the law. Don't get confused with that word 'commandment'. Commandment and law are words that can be used interchangeably. It behoves you to get the context in which it is used.
To be sure, it is this same commandment that was referred to as law in verse 19. The writer was explaining, talking about the same thing. The commandment going before was weak, the commandment made nothing perfect. The law going before was weak, the law made nothing perfect. You can interchange it in different permutations and it still means the same thing, because you know the context.
What was the commandment going before? If you follow through from the beginning of chapter7, even before the chapter, the commandment went before the word of the oath i.e Psalm110v4. The commandment, the law, the levitical priesthood was given before Psalm110, a Psalm of David. Thats what Hebrews7verse 11 is saying. That if everything about the levitical laws were perfect, why was there a need for another priest to come after the order of Melchisedek and not after Aaron. Verse 16 affirms that this priest Jesus is not made after the law . He describes the law as the law of a carnal commandment/law .
After verse 16, he quotes the oath and then says in verse 18 there is a disannulling of the commandment going before the oath. Its the same commandment he was talking about in verse11. It is the ceremonial law that made nothing perfect. Thats the comparison made all through, the law and the better hope, the commandment and the word of oath, the levite and Jesus. Its a bigger picture than tithe. Don't get entangled by the letter. The letter kills.

It is true that when Hebrews 7 speaks of the "law" in general it is talking about the "law of Moses" which means not only "tithing" but the whole corpus of that law. Verse 5 of Hebrews 7 mentions two things: (a) the commandment to receive "tithes" as part of (b) the law of Moses.

The rest, indeed the whole, of chapter 7 makes clear that the law of Moses including the commandment to receive "tithes" has been done away with ("annulled" NKJV) with the advent of the new priesthood of Christ.

Question: where then is the source of teaching people to "tithe" today?

Is it the "tithing" mentioned in Malachi, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Nehemiah? Has that not been done away with and disannulled with the law?


Is it the "tithing" done by Abraham?

If it is the "tithing" done by Abraham: how many times did Abraham give "tithes"? From which "possessions" or "increase" did Abraham give the "tithes"? Did Abraham ever pay "tithes" as an obligation? To whom and when else did Abraham give/pay "tithes"? Did Abraham ever give/pay "tithes" more than once?


Is it the "tithes" promised by Jacob? When and how did Jacob pay the "tithes"?  How many times did Jacob ever pay any or any other "tithes"?

I really wonder why you are so disturbed by this "TITHE" thing? How do you make it a "matter" when someone who wants to demonstrate his love for another decides to put himself under an obligation to constantly give to the fellow he loves? We give tithe to show that we love God. We give tithe to acknowledge that all we have gotten actually come from God. We give tithe to support the furtherance of the work of our God on earth. And men, if you are having problem giving God just a tenth of what you have, I wonder how many times you would have questioned His claim that He owns the whole of you?

Enigma:

Question: where then is the source of teaching people to "tithe" today?

Is it the "tithing" mentioned in Malachi, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Nehemiah? Has that not been done away with and disannulled with the law?

When Paul spoke about those who minister about the Temple and the Altar in 1 Corinthians 9:13, from which of those books did he draw his inference, before going on to say "EVEN SO has the Lord ordained" in verse 14? Questions such as you ask only show how difficult it is to let go of the "letter"  and see the spirit (principle) of the Law.

Enigma:

Is it the "tithing" done by Abraham?

If it is the "tithing" done by Abraham: how many times did Abraham give "tithes"?

How many times did he have to give tithes before you can qualify it as "tithes"? If the Bible calls it tithes, what then is the substance in arguing about how many times he did so before you can recognize it is simply called that same thing - tithes?

Enigma:

From which "possessions" or "increase" did Abraham give the "tithes"?

From what belonged to him. Ask and I shall repeat the very same thing to show you what you're missing.

Enigma:

Did Abraham ever pay "tithes" as an obligation?

Nope - and that is precisely what we have often pointed out: Abraham's tithes were not by obligation or by any Law/commandment. Must there be an "obligation" in order to qualify his tithes as "tithes"? If so, where did you read that?

Enigma:

To whom and when else did Abraham give/pay "tithes"?

He gave them to Melchizedek - and the Bible called it "tithe". Trying to look for "extras" to justify why you question his tithes as such is not helping, I'm afraid. That same Hebrews recognizes that the one simple act of Abraham's tithing even affecting Levi who was not yet born - else, to what purpose then was the epistle mentioning that Levi paid tithes in Abraham (vv. 9-10)? Perhaps, by the same logic as in yours, if you don't see anyone else that Abraham gave tithes to, then verse 9-10 would be wrong to infer that Levi also gave tithes to Melchizedek, yes? hmm.

Enigma:

Did Abraham ever give/pay "tithes" more than once?

Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek - and the Bible calls it "tithes" both in the OT (Gen. 14:20) and the NT (Heb. 7:6). Do you have ANOTHER word in those verses to disqualify what he gave as "tithes"?

Enigma:

Is it the "tithes" promised by Jacob? When and how did Jacob pay the "tithes"?  How many times did Jacob ever pay any or any other "tithes"?

Was Jacob also under the Law of Hebrews 7, or under the Law of Numbers, Leviticus, or Deuteronomy? It seems if tithes are not bent backwards to the Law, then it cannot be called "tithes", no?

kantoma:

I really wonder why you are so disturbed by this "TITHE" thing? How do you make it a "matter" when someone who wants to demonstrate his love for another decides to put himself under an obligation to constantly give to the fellow he loves? We give tithe to show that we love God. We give tithe to acknowledge that all we have gotten actually come from God. We give tithe to support the furtherance of the work of our God on earth. And men, if you are having problem giving God just a tenth of what you have, I wonder how many times you would have questioned His claim that He owns the whole of you?

You have me in stitches!! Good word.

Bros Image123,

Thank you for the reply above. You added to my understanding and pointed me to a few other highlights I would keep in mind. Do have such a blessed day.