Hi Virozuru,

virozuru:

Why do you separate the New Testamnet from the Old?

I'm not quite sure how you mean, but it's more a distinction between the Old and the New Covenant.

God bless

Hi Syrup,

Back again,

1 Samuel 8:11 And he said, "This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. 12 He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. 14 And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. 16 And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men, F21 and your donkeys, and put them to his work. 17 He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. 18 And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you in that day." 19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, "No, but we will have a king over us, 20 that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles."

Please not verses 15 & 17, they both say a tenth. That is what a tithe is. But what was it called? Tax, tribute, levy or custom.

Verse 19 "But we will have a king over us" A clear rejection of Theocracy, and for that matter ecclessiocracy (they refused to obey the voice of Samuel).

God bless

Why has it gone quiet all of a sudden? 

Hi TV01,

It hasn't gone quiet all of a sudden. Between my busy schedules of school and work I'll find time to post some replies. In the meantime, I'd like you to summarise your views (if you don't mind) and help me out with the following questions:

# If theocracy ended in Exodus, when exactly did it begin and when did it end?

# How was theocracy carried out in the Old Testament?

# What were the benefits or consequences of theocracy when it was in force?

# What was/were the consequence(s) following the end of theocracy?

These questions are borne out of the fact that it seems you're reading things into the texts that aren't there; but I'll wait to see what your opinions are and then perhaps I could follow your thinking a bit more understandably.

Thank you.

what ya want

Hi Syrup,

I appreciate how busy you must be. The Lord is your strength.

I thought I'd made my position pretty clear on the whole "----cracy" question?
Is there something in particular you wish to bring my attention too?

You still haven't given me much idea as to what informs your position, both on the "----cracy" question, and regards tithe as a whole.

As time permits.

Hope all is well

God bless.

Hi TV01,

Hope you're doing quite well. I'd asked those questions to summarise what exactly were your interpretations of God's rule as King among the Israelities. However, since you'd rather I comb through your posts for them, here are a few of my observations. First, I'll summarise my points for easy reference:

# Theocracy did NOT end in Exodus or I Samuel 8.

# God continued to rule as King among the Israelites and as ultimate Ruler over all kingdoms of the earth.

# The Israelites did NOT reject a universal priesthood in Exodus 19 and 20.

# God did NOT give them a mediatory priesthood on their demanded; He had already made stipulations for them.

# Tithes are part of NT Christian personal giving and not to be condemned.

Then, I'll follow through to address them in the next few rejoinders. Regards.

So, here:

TV01:

Theocracy was God's way. I'm currently reading through the OT and I'm at Exodus right now. It's quite clear that God did not even desire a mediatory priesthood. That was introduced because the people refused to meet with Him as He desired. Please read Exodus 19/20 to clarify this. The people refused Gods offer of a universal priesthood. So God gave them a mediatory one. That was the introduction of the ecclessiocracy.

You've poorly read and interpreted those chapters. The texts in Exodus that you might have been alluding to as postulating this rejection of universal priesthood say nothing of such. They did not reject the priesthood, but they expressed a reverential fear for God who revealed His awesomeness on mount Sinai as indicated in Exo. 20:19-20 - Notice the main purpose for the convocation - (a) God was proving them, (b) that His fear may be before their faces so they sinned not. This has nothing to do with any rejection of an offer of a universal priesthood.

Infact, previously in Exo. 19:9, God Himself revealed the reason why He chose to reveal His awesomeness in full view of the people. Certainly, He was indicating in that verse that His primary focus there was to speak through a mediator - it was with Moses that God spoke and through whom He communicated His mind to the people. Compare the verses:

(a) "And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken
we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD." ~ Ex. 19:8

(b) "And the LORD said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud,
that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever." ~ Ex. 19:9

(c) "And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear:
but let not God speak with us, lest we die" ~ Ex. 20:19.

God did not intend to speak straight on with the people without a mediator; and there's nothing to suggest that there was a rejection of a universal priesthood by the people in Exodus 19-20.

TV01:

It's quite clear that God did not even desire a mediatory priesthood. . . The people refused Gods offer of a universal priesthood. So God gave them a mediatory one. That was the introduction of the ecclessiocracy.

As I've pointed out, the reaction of the people was not a rejection of the universal priesthood as you inferred. You got it wrong in supposing that ecclessiocracy began with that 'rejection'. There was clearly a mediatory class of priests and leaders alluded to in those chapters: (a) Moses was a mediator; (b) God spoke of priests who would approach Him - read Exo. 19:22; (c) there were elders who were a mediatory class - Ex. 19:7. In speaking of ecclessiocracy, you failed to realise that there was clearly a mediatory class among the people, and the Aaronic priesthood did not come about as a result of any rejection or otherwise of what you had supposed in Exodus 19-20.

More later.

And so. . .

TV01:

Likewise the monarchy. It was never Gods intention. His plan has always to be amongst His people as their King. A monarchy was never God's desire. And as I mentioned, the consequences of monarchical rule were clearly spelt out in 1 Sam chapter 8. The people demanded a monarchy, so God gave them one. It was indeed Gods graciousness that raised up king David, but again, please read the history of the monarchical lineages in both Judah and Israel. Are we to conclude that the almost universally line of evil kings (especially in Israel, which was not the true throne) was Gods will?

There's a clear distinction between what was God's will and what was man's will. The evil kings did not come up as a result of God's choice of kings for the people; yet, that in itself did not mean that God never intended a monarchy for them.

The monarchy and priesthood were clearly God's predeterminate intension for His people. Ultimately, God would rule among His people as their King, but remember that He had earlier promised to raise kings long before the nation of Israel emerged: "And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee" (Gen 17:6). What kings were these? If you considered that these kings had nothing to do with the Israelites or that God never intended monarchial reign among them, then you probably had missed some very important references to God's economy in this regard among His people.

That there would be kings is indicated by the fact that stipulations for kings/rulers were made in Lev. 4:22-26 and Deut. 17:14-20 long before even the first king, Saul (I Samuel 10:1) was anointed king over the children of Israel by their fleshy choice. Remember that before the question of a rejection of the God's rule among them (I Sam. 8:7 & 10:19), there was clearly an intermediary class - Samuel made his sons judges over Israel, and yet God did not complain about that or saw that as a rejection of theocracy by the prophet himself (vs.1).

Yet, in all that time beyond Exodus 19-20, there was no question about the fact that God was still ruling among the people as their King. That was why Balaak made reference to "the shout of a king" (in reference to the LORD) in the midst of the Israelites in the plains of Moab (Num. 23:21); and though David was king over Israel during his time, he clearly recognized that the LORD was still King over them (Psa. 5:2; 10:16; 20:9; 29:10; 44:4; 47:2,6; 89:18; etc).

If you missed these important key notes as to God's intention of a mediatory class of priests, rulers and kings, you might not get the real sense of His promise afterwards in Isaiah 1:25-26: "And I will turn my hand upon thee, and purely purge away thy dross, and take away all thy tin: And I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning: afterward thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness, the faithful city." The choice of Saul was a fleshy choice; but the stipulations for kings and rulers were made long before that time.

From all these, you cannot ignore these texts in their contexts and argue that it was never God's intention nor desire to provide a monarchy for His people: the monarchy did not negate His Kingship among the Israelites.

Continuing. . .

TV01:

That is why there always had to be a new covenant.

Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, . . . 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.

Please tell me, was the fault Gods? No! It was the demands of men.
That is always the problem. Men insisting on worshipping God in a way they deem fit.
It's outworking is so prevalent today, that few can actually discern the difference. God does not mandate (and true worshipers do not require) mediators

You should not be too hasty to suppose that Hebrews 8:6-11 is prooftext for your reason as to why there always had to be a new covenant (because of "the demands of men." The mediatory priesthood and monarchy in no way nullified or rendered the OC faulty - not at all! They were defintely God's intention for them right from the beginning (Isa. 1:25-26) - unless you're so driven to read your own ideas into the Bible when in fact what you see is not there!

The reason for the setting aside of the Old Covenant was as simply stated in vs.9 ~ "because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord." Now let me ask you - when was the old covenant established - before or after I Samuel 8? Don't you even read in Hebrews 9:19-20 that the Old Covenant was already set in place before the people asked for Saul to be their king? How then could you make the surprising convoluted inference that the monarchy or mediatory priesthood were the reasons for setting the OC aside for the New Covenant?

The Biblical basis as to why the OC was set aside is simply as found in Heb. 7:19 - "For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God." You cannot therefore claim that the Law was given to them in response to "the demands of men."

Some more. . .

TV01:

The religion of temples, mediatory priests, sacrifice and the like was given to men because they demanded it.

Tell me, who made any demands for the sanctuary that God commanded to be made in Exo. 25:8 (compare Heb. 8:5)? Who made any demands for the Mosaic Law in the first place (see Heb. 9:19-20)? Who among the children of Israel made any demands for the stipulations of the priesthood and sacrifices in Leviticus? You're surprising me by making inferences that are never in the Bible; and as far as I can see, your interpretations are baseless and cannot be used for the view that "it's outworking is so prevalent today" - especially because you're not discerning what you're reading in the Scriptures.

TV01:

God does not mandate (and true worshipers do not require) mediators.

That is simply because you don't seem to understand that God actually required and made stipulations for mediators - He said so in all the outlines I gave above (Isa. 1:25-26; Lev. 4:22-26; and Deut. 17:14-20). I'm sure you forgot that in the NT, even though there's only one, nevertheless there's certainly a Mediator - "Jesus, the Mediator of the New Covenant!" (Heb. 12:24 and I Tim. 2:5). If what you're making reference to in 'mediators' in the NT, then all are priests and none stands as mediator alongside Christ (I Pet. 2:9).

TV01:

Does anyone think religion is God's idea? God hates religion. In Christ Jesus, all those things are done away with.

There's definitely a sense in which religion is countenanced by God the Father: "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." (James 1:27). Often, believers just want to bastardise a word simply because they feel this way or that about it; and that's why many make your mistake that "God hates religion." No, He didn't say so, and w should not put words in His mouth.

TV01:

No more temples, no more mediators , no more rituals. But men won't have it. The Lord cries for and offers relationship. Many Christian tradions pay it lip service, but the hierarchies, cathedrals, traditions and the like always give the game away.

Biblical Christianity was never meant to be all that - and there's no reason why you should mix them up as if that's what Christianity has become in its entirety today. There may be systems built on such elaborations like the Catholic Church; but there are hundreds of churches I know of that don't have those elaborations and "game".

TV01:

In a very real sense, the NC is God doing things the way they always should have been the way they were always meant to be. His way. His will is perfect.

You cannot mix up the OC and NC in such a summary dismissal. Under the OC, people were declared righteous by the Law if they did what was written therein: "And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us."__and__"And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless." (Deut. 6:25 and Luke 1:6). The OC had only one purpose: to bring us to Christ (Gal. 3:24-25). While it was still standing, men could be declared righteous but not perfect; because the Law made nothing perfect (Heb. 7:19 & 10:1) - only Christ could effect this perfection in the heart of man (Heb. 10:14). No one could have expected that God's perfect will had been expressed in the OC, so there's no talk about "the NC is God doing things the way they always should have been the way they were always meant to be." It is like saying the NC would never have been necessary if men had continued "perfectly" under the OC.

Finally. . .

TV01:

You still haven't given me much idea as to what informs your position, both on the "----cracy" question, and regards tithe as a whole.

I hope my rejoinders will help you reconsider your position on the monarchy-theocracy issue. The consequences are evident in themselves - if one reads things into the Bible that are not there, you could imagine the stuff that will follow. As for the tithe-tax issue, I believe that neither tithes nor free-will giving are obligatory for the Christian; and whatever people decide on is between themselves and God.

There are clearly different kinds of giving in the NT, and I believe that as far as tithes are not expressly condemned in the NT, it is not an issue to be so aggressively opposed to or campaigned against. II Cor. 9:7 simply says: "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver." If I purpose in my heart that I'd cheerfully give 10% of my income to God, give alms to others (Matt. 6:3-4), support the ministry of God's servants (Gal. 6:6), and yet give freely on Sundays in worship (I Cor. 16:2), why should anyone complain about that if I'm not dipping my hands into their pocket for what I purpose to give? Why should anyone make it their business to militate against the types of Christian giving (tithes or whatever else) and lecture others on what and what not to give? "Do this, don't do that" about tithing simply tells me that anyone militating against this issue hasn't seen what God can do - when they have experienced it, they'll stop complaining and whining. You cannot use the OT to clobber others into not tithing - wiser to leave people to purpose in their hearts to give as they want to; and that includes tithes and all other kinds of giving.

I don't see the sense in someone's calculating all personal expenses before deciding what to give in worship to God. That is simply humanistic philosophy that has no foundation on faith in the Bible - and I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ was addressing that kind of attitude in Luke 21:3-4. Ever since I started tithing, God hasn't frowned on me, neither was it easy to do at the beginning.

I've taken time out to address the issues you raised and hope they'll be of some help, even where we look at things quite differently.

Many blessings.

@ syrup

u really doing a great job putting tv01 through!

Hi Syrup,

A huge effort. Well done, much appreciated.
I have copied to take away, study and come back with my comments and questions.

You may not make a tither of me, but you might just make make me a bit of an academic .

God bless

Good to know, TV01. Enjoy.

And thanks, otolorin.

I'm going to need to back track and read a lot of this . . . however, i've got so much work coming up, by the time i get to do that, there would be even more that I'll have to catch up on.

For all those who are working through school and posting nice arguments here, keep up the good work on both fronts.

please pay your tithes (plural not singular)

syrup:

I don't see the sense in someone's calculating all personal expenses before deciding what to give in worship to God. That is simply humanistic philosophy that has no foundation on faith in the Bible - and I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ was addressing that kind of attitude in Luke 21:3-4. Ever since I started tithing, God hasn't frowned on me, neither was it easy to do at the beginning.

. . . and neither will He frown on you. Faith ventures the impossible - and God honours such kinds of trust in Him.

@ otokx, I couldn't agree more.

Going through most of the earlier posts, I am amazed by the number of Christians who practice tithing, but have no clue why they do.  No doubt, there is the express command to tithe, but many do not know God's reasons and His mindset with regards to this sacred practice.  Permit me to share with you my thoughts as I believe it is revealed in the scriptures.  I must acknowledge that most of my submissions are taken from Chris Okotie's book "The Last Outcast".

Let us begin by tracing the origin of tithing.  Tithing did not begin with the law of Moses, it was only introduced into the law because tithing has to do with priesthood.  Whenever you have a priesthood, tithing will be involved.  There are two sacred orders of the priesthood as revealed in the scriptures.  The first is that of Melchizedek and the other is the levitical priesthood.  The Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek sandwiches the levitical priesthood.  While the levitical priesthood is found only in the dispensation of the law, the order of Melchizedek is introduced in the dispensations of Promise and of Grace.  Therefore tithing is consistent even in the evolution of the priesthood.

Now, a closer study of the Book of Hebrews reveals that a Priest performs two main functions: 1. Offer of Gifts  and, 2. Offer of sacrifices.  (see Hebrews 5:1, 8:3 and 9:9).  The question now is, what gifts should a Priest offer?  And what sacrifices should a Priest offer?   I do not believe there is any controversy over the sacrifices offered under both priesthood.  In the levitical priesthood, the sacrifices was the daily offering of the blood of animals while in the Melchizedek priesthood, the sacrifice of blood was offered once and for all through the death of the High Priest Himself - Christ Jesus.  The gifts to be offered is what I will now deal with subsequently.

As Abram was returning from the slaughter of the five kings, a priest of God called Melchizedek came out to meet him.  He approached Abram holding the emblems of the covenant which God had made with Abram - the bread and the wine.  Up until that time, Abram had not labored to acquire wealth by his own strength.  Since he had concquered the kings, he could keep the spoils for himself but God had to teach his servant some lessons in humility and spiritual truth.

Melchizedek, upon meeting Abram blessed him and decalred that God was the possessor of heaven and earth and was responsible for Abram's victory.  Thereafter, it is written that Abram gave a tenth of the spoils to the priest.  The name Abram refers to one who is the father of heights.  It is a picture of a vertical position of pride, so Melchizedek had to remind him that there is one who is the Most High.

Melchizedek called God the possessor.  That word in the original language, speaks of God as the creator.  Since He created all things, He is the primary owner of all things.  Abraham must have thought of the creation story on hearing this.  In the first chapter of Genesis, God spoke ten commands.  These are usually refered to as the Ten Commandments of Creation or the Divine Decalogue.  Now, of the ten commands, only one (a tenth) was addressed to man directly.  Therefore, if Abram was to identify directly with God's creation, he would have to demonstrate that by identifying with the particular command that affects him as a creature of God.  When he gave one-tenth of his spoils to Melchizedek, he declared that God is the creator and therefore, the primary owner of all things and he acknowledged that he is a part of God's creation.  This in essence explains the mystery of the tithe.  The fact that this tenth was carried over into the levitical priesthood suggests that Abram gave the exact percentage that God required of him and each one of his creation.

It may interest you to know that when Paul talks about this event in the Book of Hebrews, he throws more light on the transaction between Abraham and Melchizedek.  In the 7th chapter, Paul telss us that Abram gave the tenth of the spoils to the priest.  The Greek word AKROTHINION, translated spoils in the 4th verse, refers to the topmost part of a heap.  In the days of Abra, the booty was usually arranged in heaps with the hard things placed at the bottom while the most delicate and expensive things were placed on the top.  Abram did not just give God a tenth, he gave a tenth from the topmost part, where the best things were.  He was therefore saying to God that he not only belongs to Him as a creature, but that he was the best part of His creation.  In other words, our tithes tell God what we think of oursleves as his handiwork.

I hope this helps someone out there.

Hi TayoD,

Saw your post. I thought it made interesting reading, but I can't say I agree with your conclusions.

Are you saying that tithes are the "gift" part of the priestly ministry? and/or, that tithing is for the priesthood? and/or, that tithing is a reflection of what we think of ourselves as His work and our place in His creation?

You also seem to be saying that there is a mystery to the tithe, which goes something like this;
~ God spoke ten creation commands
~ one of which pertains to mankind
~ to "identify" with the creation (God as Creator?) we must "identify" with this particular command
~ We do this by giving a "tenth" (the best tenth)
~ The fact that a "tenth" was stipulated in the Levitical law "suggests" this is correct
~ It is expected of "each one of His creation"

I haven't read the book you referenced, but this explanation is totally new to me.
In fact, maybe I don't disagree, maybe I just don't get it?

I'd appreciate if you could elucidate some more.

God bless.

TayoD,

Thanks for that entry - so much to benefit from, especially with regards
to the functions of a priest. I've always thought along such lines as well,
but of course, your piece was based largely on The Last Outcast (haven't
read it though).

Hi TayoD,

Saw your post. I thought it made interesting reading, but I can't say I agree with your conclusions.

Are you saying that tithes are the "gift" part of the priestly ministry? and/or, that tithing is for the priesthood? and/or, that tithing is a reflection of what we think of ourselves as His work and our place in His creation?

You also seem to be saying that there is a mystery to the tithe, which goes something like this;
~ God spoke ten creation commands
~ one of which pertains to mankind
~ to "identify" with the creation (God as Creator?) we must "identify" with this particular command
~ We do this by giving a "tenth" (the best tenth)
~ The fact that a "tenth" was stipulated in the Levitical law "suggests" this is correct
~ It is expected of "each one of His creation"

I haven't read the book you referenced, but this explanation is totally new to me.
In fact, maybe I don't disagree, maybe I just don't get it?

I'd appreciate if you could elucidate some more.

God bless.

TV01,

I do appreciate  your open-mindedness.  I'll try to explain further what I have stated previosly.  However, I'd also like to point out that no where in the New Testament is it stated that tithing was now anachronistic.  It is unwise to come to that conlcusion when the Bible does not state that exclusively, especially considering that tithing predates the law.

Indeed, I am of the opinion that the gifts offered by the Priesthood is actually the tithes.  However, we are also encouraged from other scriptures to go beyond that, and give offerings.  

If we do accept that a Priest's job is to offer gifts and sacrifices, then a study of the Priesthood of Meklchizedek suggests that the gifts that he offered was the tithes that Abram brought to him.  No other gift exchanged hands between Melchizedek and Abram in the story as presented in the Book of Genesis.   Jesus being our High Priest must also offer gifts and sacrifices because His Priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 7:27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. [/color][color=#990000],  This scripture makes us understand that Jesus has offered a once and for all sacrifice, but it never says the same for the gifts.  Consequently, I believe the offer of gifts is on-going as long as the priesthood is on-going.

Abram's decision to give a tenth can be linked to the Divine Decalogue, because Melchizedek actually called God the creator at the time he met Abram.  Why did He use that name of God when He could have just used another?  I don't think that name was used without a purpose or without consequence.  Abram's understanding of what Melchizedek said is why he gave the tenth.

I believe Abraham rightly understood his role and what portion of his increase that he was to give.  That is why I believe the same percentage was required in the levitical Priesthood.   if he had wrongly interpreted what Melchizedek said, then i believe God would have corrected him either instantly or through the law.  but the law corroborates Abram's righteous action.

All His creation should pay tithes.  The book of hebrews even suggests that Levi who wasn't born at the time Abram met melchizedek actually paid through Abram.  The principle of tithes runs through the entire Bible if you are careful to see it.  In the Garden of Eden, we had the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  The whole earth God gave to man, but he kept the garden of eden to Himself.  We are now owned by God as Christians and our bodies are not even ours.  All these show that we are only secondary possessors while God who is the primary possessor is acknowledged through the gift of tithes.

One other thing I thought I should say is that Abram never inquired what Melchizedek did with all that gift.  He had done his part by offering the gift to God through His Priest.  While it may seem logical to want to question the use of the tithe by the set-man within the local assembly, I still find no basis for it in the scriptures.

I hope I have been coherent enough to clarify some of these isues.  I've been rather busy and wrote all these in a hurry.

Preach it brother!

Abraham paid tithes not in obedience to the law, for he came before the law came. He paid tithes as a heir of the promises of God and so do we.

Hi TayoD,

Thanks for the post and the kind words. I'll try and state my position a little more fully. Responding first to paragraphs 1-3 of your last post.

Hebrews 7:12 – For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law

Tithing was introduced 1. for the Hebrews/Jews.  2. As part of the Mosaic law and 3. specifically for the Levitical priesthood (in absence of a physical inheritance along with the other 11 tribes).  Said law and priesthood have now being changed. I fail to see how one can  conclude that tithing must as a rule always accompany priesthood? We are agreed that tithing predates the law. Historical records show that it even predates Abra(ha)m’s time. Does this and the fact that it was incorporated into the Mosaic law mean that it has to be retained under the covenant of grace? NT reference to tithing is always on the basis of 1-3 above.

The Lords Priesthood is “after the order of Melchizedek”  => Eternal.
The Lord is a High Priest (typified by Aaron in the OT), but priesthood is universal to all believers in this age. And please note Levites where not priests, they did not minister to God. Only the house of Aaron (taken from the tribe of Levi ministered to God as priests).

The tithe was primarily for the Levites (for the sake of simplicity lets ignore the orphan, widow, stranger and feasting aspects for now), of which a further tithe was given to the High Priest. How do you conclude that the tithe was a gift to God? The High  Priest only ever received 10% of the 10%?

Kindly explain how the tithe is offered to God as a gift by The Lord in the current dispensation?

In His role as High Priest, The Lord is at the right hand of God making intercession for the saints. Your stance seems to suggest He is also offering physical gifts in the form of tithes?

Your argument (at least in part) is based on your opinion that “tithes equate to gifts”? The tithe was a legal requirement. Gift would more aptly describe, offerings termed “heave”, “freewill”, “thanksgiving” and the like. Gifts are always freely given.

Please offer additions/corrections/alternatives if you will, but as a NT Christian I see only two gifts I can offer to God (apart from my self).

1. Hebrews 13:15 - Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name. ~Thanks & praise!

2.The only other way to give to God is to give to the poor and needy. The orphans, the widows and the strangers mentioned earlier.

NT Christians give, nothing more and nothing less. It is always according to one’s hearts desire and expected as a normal part of the Christian life, particularly as one grows in grace. Giving is actually a spiritual grace in direct contradistinction to tithing, which is a work, based on the law of a fleshly commandment. 2 Corinthians 8-9 expounds this beautifully.

As for paragraphs 5-7 of your post, it sounds plausible, but is mostly conjecture and supposition. Scripture always bears itself out. If you care to support this with scripture, we can talk more.

Paragraph 8. No, Abram did not inquire, you then link that to a “set-man” and the local assembly concept of ask no question? There is no scriptural mandate for this “set-man” idea. An assembly of believers is never accountable to or led by one person. It is always a plurality of elders, except in Gods basic unit, which is the family, led by the husband.

Like I said in response to your first post, interesting reading. But I am yet to be persuaded.

God bless

TV01,

I'm glad we are able to have a conversation here. I am also happy by the challenges you give, especially since they seem to be Biblically based. Contrary views like yours makes one go back to the scriptures to either get better informed or to get a beter understanding of one's belief. Good understanding, the Bible says, gives favor and a better understanding of the sacred practice of tithing will only bring more favor and reward of the practice my way. This I believe is the missing link to many christians prosperity. We are in the practice of doing what the Bible say, but we lack understanding of what the practice is all about. And it is only a good understanding of our practices that provide benediction at the end of the day.

I will now get to your rejoinders.

Hebrews 7:12 – For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law

Tithing was introduced 1. for the Hebrews/Jews. 2. As part of the Mosaic law and 3. specifically for the Levitical priesthood (in absence of a physical inheritance along with the other 11 tribes). Said law and priesthood have now being changed. I fail to see how one can conclude that tithing must as a rule always accompany priesthood? We are agreed that tithing predates the law. Historical records show that it even predates Abra(ha)m’s time. Does this and the fact that it was incorporated into the Mosaic law mean that it has to be retained under the covenant of grace? NT reference to tithing is always on the basis of 1-3 above.

There is no change of the Priesthood in this case. The Priesthood we have today is fashioned after the order of Melchizedek. So everything we see in the Priesthood of Melchizedek must necessarily be present today. You will notice Melchizedek didn't offer any sacrifice in the Genesis account. I believe this could be the Spirit of God's intention to make us see that the sacrifice in the New Testament will be something done at one time and not a daily sacrament has practised in the Levitical Priesthood.

Tithing wasn't just introduced for the Hebrews/Jews. First, Melchizedek was a Gentile, and the bread and wine with him were tokens of the covenant which we find in the New Testament in the form of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. This indicates that tithing is actually meant for anyone in covenant relationship with the Lord. While I agree that the tithe was meant for the upkeep of the tribe of Levi, it wan't introduced for that purpose. Abraham paid tithes even before Levi was born. The reason why tithing is carried over into the New Testament is that we saw Melchizedek receive tithes and the Priesthood of the new Testmanet is of the Melchizedek order.

The Lords Priesthood is “after the order of Melchizedek” => Eternal. The Lord is a High Priest (typified by Aaron in the OT), but priesthood is universal to all believers in this age. And please note Levites where not priests, they did not minister to God. Only the house of Aaron (taken from the tribe of Levi ministered to God as priests)./quote] These are statements of fact. Likewise, our High Priest today is taken from amongs us - Jesus christ the Lord.

The tithe was primarily for the Levites (for the sake of simplicity lets ignore the orphan, widow, stranger and feasting aspects for now), of which a further tithe was given to the High Priest. How do you conclude that the tithe was a gift to God? The High Priest only ever received 10% of the 10%? Kindly explain how the tithe is offered to God as a gift by The Lord in the current dispensation?
In His role as High Priest, The Lord is at the right hand of God making intercession for the saints. Your stance seems to suggest He is also offering physical gifts in the form of tithes?

Within the Mosaic law, the tithe was meant primarily for the levites. The tithe is offered to God now through the local assembly which represents God's house (remember where the tithe should be brought according to Malachi). Do you realise we have no direct access to God even in this dispensation? Our access is Jesus Christ and that is why we pray in His name. Likewise, our gifts are offered to God through Him. Though the gifts are given to the local assembly, we have a messenger of God within that Assembly who receives it and disburses it as required by the New Testament for the administration of the church and to meet the needs of the poor.

Your argument (at least in part) is based on your opinion that “tithes equate to gifts”? The tithe was a legal requirement. Gift would more aptly describe, offerings termed “heave”, “freewill”, “thanksgiving” and the like. Gifts are always freely given.

The fact that the tithe is a 'legal' requirement does not make it less a gift. It is morally required of me to take care of my household, but at the same time, the recipients of my God-given duties consider my gesture as a gift. Even though we are to pay our tithes, we are supposed to do it with a willing and gracious heart. God will not force anyone to pay it.

Please offer additions/corrections/alternatives if you will, but as a NT Christian I see only two gifts I can offer to God (apart from my self).
1. Hebrews 13:15 - Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name. ~Thanks & praise!
2.The only other way to give to God is to give to the poor and needy. The orphans, the widows and the strangers mentioned earlier.
NT Christians give, nothing more and nothing less. It is always according to one’s hearts desire and expected as a normal part of the Christian life, particularly as one grows in grace. Giving is actually a spiritual grace in direct contradistinction to tithing, which is a work, based on the law of a fleshly commandment. 2 Corinthians 8-9 expounds this beautifully.

Tithing is still a work of grace. Abraham was not under the law, but he paid his tithe. There is work through grace. Paul said he worked harder than others because of the grace of God. Grace prompts you to do good works, though you are not justified by the works. I agree with you that we are meant to give to the poor and needy. However, I see in the New Testament that this giving is done through the church. That is why the Seven were appointed in the Book of Acts to administer the church finances to serve the poor. We are meant to give to the church with the church administering these gifts as required.

As for paragraphs 5-7 of your post, it sounds plausible, but is mostly conjecture and supposition. Scripture always bears itself out. If you care to support this with scripture, we can talk more. Paragraph 8. No, Abram did not inquire, you then link that to a “set-man” and the local assembly concept of ask no question? There is no scriptural mandate for this “set-man” idea. An assembly of believers is never accountable to or led by one person. It is always a plurality of elders, except in Gods basic unit, which is the family, led by the husband

The scriptural basis for the set-man is there in the New Testament. In the Book of Revelation, Jesus made a dinstinct separation between the Chruches and the Pastors/Messengers. This sghows that He has appointed one person (the Pastor) as the overseer of the local assembly. In the Book of Acts, we saw a deliberatiion of the church in chapter 15, that the final say was by the pastor of the church in Jerusalem - James. The elders may have had something to say, but the final decision was with James. By the way, all the five-fold ministries are subject to the Pastor. Every action of any christian must be done via a local assembly. That's the revelation of the New Testament.

Hi TayoD,

Thanks for the response. Mine follows.

Quote.
"There is no change of the Priesthood in this case.  The Priesthood we have today is fashioned after the order of Melchizedek.  So everything we see in the Priesthood of Melchizedek must necessarily be present today.  You will notice Melchizedek didn't offer any sacrifice in the Genesis account.  I believe this could be the Spirit of God's intention to make us see that the sacrifice in the New Testament will be something done at one time and not a daily sacrament has practised in the Levitical Priesthood".

Response
The main thrust of the symbolism of Melchizedek’s priesthood is it’s eternal nature. In almost all the references to Melchizedek’s priesthood, the qualifier is “Forever” speaking of the eternal (unchanging) nature, and/or “after the order of”, denoting it as a type, in the same way that the Aaronic priesthood was also a type. The typology inherent in the Levitical priesthood is at least equally relevant. The Pentateauch takes great care to detail the rituals and sacrements of the Levitical priesthood. At the very least, the space devoted to it in scripture would beg this consideration.

Please note Melchizedek was “made like the son of God” not vice versa. Melchizedek was a man and not divine. Melchizedek was/is not seated at the right hand of the Majesty on high. What covenant did Melchizedek ratify? With what blood? The type denoted by Melchizedek fails to speak of access to God or purification of the conscience.

Even in Hebrews, more space is devoted to the shadow pattern of the Aaronic priesthood.  Both Aaron & Melchizedek’s priesthoods are symbolic. So we differ from your opening sentence, the High Priesthood of The Lord is not fashioned after Melchizedek’s. Rather both Aarons & Melchizedek’s are types of priesthood whose fullness is in Christ. To my mind, an insistence that tithing has to continue in order to fulfil the “gift” aspect is tantamount to saying that the Lords sacrifice was in some way incomplete. Even the gift offerings you mention where always livestock or produce, covered in the Lords once for all sacrifice. The gifts where never monetary.

And of course there was no sacrifice, the sacrifice is for atonement (for sin), of which there is not mention in Melchizedek’s priesthood as it was but a type. This aspect is prefigured in the Aaronic priesthood.

Abraham gave Melchizedek “a tenth of the spoils” on one occassion. There is nothing to suggest this was a recurring devotional practice. No mention of it in the life of the heirs with him (Isaac & Jacob) of the promise.

Quote
"Within the Mosaic law, the tithe was meant primarily for the levites.  The tithe is offered to God now through the local assembly which represents God's house (remember where the tithe should be brought according to Malachi).   Do you realise we have no direct access to God even in this dispensation?  Our access is Jesus Christ and that is why we pray in His name.  Likewise, our gifts are offered to God through Him.  Though the gifts are given to the local assembly, we have a messenger of God within that Assembly who receives it and disburses it as required by the New Testament for the administration of the church and to meet the needs of the poor".

Response
The command to bring the tithe into the storehouse was given to Jews, under the OC, and related to a physical temple. We are Christians, under a new dispensation and there are no physical buildings. God does not need or require physical sacrifices or gifts.

Acts 17:24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things.

I maintain my position that there are no “Messengers” of God within (running) the local assembly. The NT nowhere requires funds for the running of a church organisation. In scripture, money only ever moved  in response to physical need of the brethren. Nothing else.

Quote
"The fact that the tithe is a 'legal' requirement does not make it less a gift.  It is morally required of me to take care of my household, but at the same time, the recipients of my God-given duties consider my gesture as a gift.  Even though we are to pay our tithes, we are supposed to do it with a willing and gracious heart.  God will not force anyone to pay it".

Response
Do you consider your taxes a gift? Or your duty to your household as moral only? 1Timothy 5:8 says otherwise. It is at once a divine obligation, cultural imperative and a legal requirement. And I don’t think that anyone thinks that parents providing for their offspring (or Husband for his wife) is a gift gesture.

Quote
Tithing is still a work of grace.  Abraham was not under the law, but he paid his tithe.  There is work through grace.  Paul said he worked harder than others because of the grace of God.  Grace prompts you to do good works, though you are not justified by the works.  I agree with you that we are meant to give to the poor and needy.  However, I see in the New Testament that this giving is done through the church.  That is why the Seven were appointed in the Book of Acts to administer the church finances to serve the poor.  We are meant to give to the church with the church administering these gifts as required.

Response
Tithing is not grace it’s law or at best custom. Abraham paid a tithe once. I’m not quibbling about how offerings are administered within the local assembly, but even here, individuals have leeway to give as they see fit outside the body. And according to 1 timothy 5:8, and my reading of scripture, the family needs are prioritised over church and public giving.  The NT church is to have all things in common. (I suppose the notion of a tithe allows people to neglect this by claiming to have fulfilled their obligation of 10%).

Quote
"The scriptural basis for the set-man is there in the New Testament.  In the Book of Revelation, Jesus made a dinstinct separation between the Chruches and the Pastors/Messengers.  This sghows that He has appointed one person (the Pastor) as the overseer of the local assembly.   In the Book of Acts, we saw a deliberatiion of the church in chapter 15, that the final say was by the pastor of the church in Jerusalem - James.  The elders may have had something to say, but the final decision was with James.  By the way, all the five-fold ministries are subject to the Pastor.  Every action of any christian must be done via a local assembly.  That's the revelation of the New Testament".

Response
TayoD, how can you skip the clear reading of the epistles to Timothy and Titus, the whole narrative of Pauls work in establishing assemblies and declare that because the Lord sent an angel or messenger (not a Pastor in any possible interpretation) to the churches, that that messenger was the leader of the congregation. You also claim this as evidence for a clergy/laity (leader/follower) split, which is  nowhere to be found in scripture. James was an elder. He may well have been wiser, more mature or experienced, but had no more authority and no higher position than any of the other elders.  And no, the Apostles where not subject to him or to any other pastor. “Apostle” was a foundational role (now defunct along with Prophet) used to establish the church (after which they would have been elders in their local assemblies as Peter described himself. After all could James possibly have been senior to Peter?). The letter you referenced was from the Apostles, Elders and brethren. No “singular pastor” authority was mentioned. The church today has Elders (in plurality) and deacons.  The church's job is to witness (evangelise) and teach. And by the way, pastor/shepherd/elder/bishop/overseer are all different renderings of the same role. No hierarchies. Whilst I agree that there is to be order and authority in the local assembly, this does not have pre-eminence over or the right to usurp the order God has established in the home.

Thanks for the discourse, I really appreciate it. It's really challenged me.

But my position remains ~ No tithe, no set-man.

God bless.

TV01, i like the way u treat issues

Hi Otokx, Thanks, I am encouraged. Hope all is well. God bless.

Who are we following? Jesus! while he was on earth preaching did he collect tithe? Apostle Paul that was a missionary, who preach from Jerusalem to rome, corithians, Galathians,, Did he collect tithe? The bible said he was a tenth maker. That is what he does to survive.
Remember the jewish and thier leader reject Jesus and Jesus told them' your house is abandon to you" in 70CE the jewish nation was destroyed by the roman army.
The bible encourage giving willingly not nessarily tenth it can be above it if you wish but the money should be for the upkeep of the church not for the pastors. Let them find work like the apostle paul.

ugbosu:

The bible encourage giving willingly not nessarily tenth it can be above it if you wish but the money should be for the upkeep of the church not for the pastors. Let them find work like the apostle paul.

chief
not all ministers can be part time ministers.

pastors are human beings too and they cannot be jack of all trade.
som are full time pastors and that how they survive, amidst other blesssings from God

ugbosu:

The bible encourage giving willingly not nessarily tenth it can be above it if you wish but the money should be for the upkeep of the church not for the pastors. Let them find work like the apostle paul.

chief
not all ministers can be part time ministers.

pastors are human beings too and they cannot be jack of all trade.
som are full time pastors and that how they survive, amidst other blesssings from God


i hope TayoD and tv01 are gonna talk more about this.

otolorin:

chief
not all ministers can be part time ministers.

pastors are human beings too and they cannot be jack of all trade.
som are full time pastors and that how they survive, amidst other blesssings from God


i hope TayoD and tv01 are going to talk more about this.

That is true, which is why some churches pay their pastor a salary. That is not the same thing as a tithe. tv01 has done the hard work of responding to some of the . . . incorrect interpretations about tithing both from the old and new testament. . . when i started reading the new posts since i was last here. . .i was getting worried i'd have to spend a lot of time. . .hehe