Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe - Religion (8) - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe (19972 Views)
Poll: Do I Pay the Rent or Go Ahead and Pay my Tithe NowRent First: 63% (105 votes)Tithe Takes Precedent: 36% (60 votes) This poll has ended |
Ghana Millionaire Says He Does Not Pay Tithe / Pay Tithe From The Money You Got From Gambleing, Right Or Wrong? / Do I Need To Pay Tithe Form My Gamble Wins? (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) ... (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) ... (14) (Reply) (Go Down)
| Re: Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe by Traugott(m): 9:39pm On Feb 06, 2010 |
@viaro:  You flatter me. and thanks for the post above. Remain blessed! |
| Re: Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe by ceasyc(f): 3:03am On Feb 07, 2010 |
@topic pay HOUSE RENT! |
| Re: Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe by Enigma(m): 7:08am On Feb 07, 2010 |
Of course he should pay his rent. Oh, by the way "tithing" is indeed abolished. That remains an accurate statement.Here is something Traugott said earlier: It would be better next time to say it in full "Tithing compulsorily is abolished", and not "Tithing based on the law is abolished" or "Tithing is abolished" because the last two statements are wrong. And when you say what is preached in MOST churches, how are we to believe you? What is your statistical finding on this point? When you rally against the twisting of the scriptures, you should not also twist the scriptures to support your own points, saying tithing has been abolished. So three statements are in question: 1. "Tithing compulsorily is abolished" Well, there is now no debate on this one since even Truagott agrees with that. (EDIT: except that the overwhelming majority of "tithers" continue to "tithe" because they believe that it is compulsory!) 2. "Tithing based on the law is abolished" I believe this is referring to Mosaic law --- if not, correct me. If it is Mosaic law, then Hebrews 7 clearly makes clear that that is abolished; it says the commandment to take tithes is is annulled being weak and unprofitable and part of law which made nothing perfect. Kunle has already dealt with this point in Post No 183, however here is part of Hebrews 7: Hebrews 7:5 And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham Hebrews 7:18-19 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, [there is the] bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. 3. "Tithing is abolished" As I understand it Truagott's main concern with this one is that it does not take account of the fact that people can choose to "tithe" voluntarily. This is what he said: Yes I can sustain it with the fact that you insist that "tithing has been ABOLISHED", rather than saying that tithing is no longer compulsory, but done out of an act of love. First: I have stated and given examples that I have no problem if someone who knows that there is no Christian obligation to "tithe" chooses to do so. Second: I have also stated that a person can make their Christian giving in the amount of ten per cent; it is a question of how they purpose in their heart. Third: Let's go back to the "tithe" given by Abraham for a minute; this was a one off historical event; there was no covenant with it; it was voluntary; the Bible does not say that Abraham ever repeated it; most crucially, the Bible never made that form of tithing an obligation or requirement. So is it not redundant to argue whether that type of "tithing" done by Abraham is abolished --- since it was never established in the first place? You abolish something that was established --- not something that is voluntary. So it is semantic pedantry to seek to force the Abrahamic "tithe" into a statement "tithing is abolished" when the Abrahamic tithe was never established in the first place. This actually brings us to point four about how the author of Hebrews made his own statement. Four: the author of Hebrews does not make a big issue about the Abrahamic tithe; he does not suggest that the Abrahamic tithe was being followed or even was to be followed by either Jews or Christians; he uses that to even 'denigrate' tithing under the law; so again there was no issue in Hebrews that Abraham's tithe was established and unneccessary to say it was abolished since it was not established; that which he says was annulled was the Mosaic commandment to take tithes. Five: this is simply a summary of three and four above; the statement "tithing is abolished" has nothing to do with the Abrahamic tithe (a one off historical event, purely); it refers to the "tithing" that is enduring i.e. in accordance with the law; that latter "tithing" has been abolished; hence, the statement "tithing is abolished" remains accurate. I initially did not want to make this post because there has already been enough digression (there always is when the focus is on minor rather than substantive matters) but decided to do so just so readers can get an accurate and not a misrepresented picture. Similarly, I have not bothered to address the issue of circumcision any further; another day, another time. |
| Re: Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe by Enigma(m): 7:51am On Feb 07, 2010 |
Just realised here is one "I made earlier" 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. |
| Re: Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe by Traugott(m): 9:01am On Feb 07, 2010 |
@Enigma: There are three statements in question, you say. Now see this: 1. Tithing compulsorily is abolished. It's great that you agree with me on this statement, but you are yet to provide empirical statistics to show how majority of tithers do it compulsorily. We are waiting, please don't make it an Enigma for us. 2. Tithing based on the law is abolished Enigma, is your secondary school education abolished because you went to the University? Viaro has dealt with this on this thread, and I don't want to re-belabour the points. 3. Tithing is abolished Now to adjust and accommodate this lie, you are making an exception on Abrahamic tithes? Your goalpost just became mobile, sir. Congrats and regards. By the way, please reflect on what it means for something to be abolished, as opposed to being fulfilled and thus no longer compulsory for sustainability. Also, recall that tithes have nothing to do with perfecting any believer, in light of v19. So what are we on about? Is v19 then talking about tithes? That is a very, very narrow way of forcing the scriptures to indicate something that it isn't. |
| Re: Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe by Traugott(m): 9:19am On Feb 07, 2010 |
Did it occur to anyone that Matt 23:23 says Mat 23:23 "You're hopeless, you religion scholars and Pharisees! Frauds! You keep meticulous account books, tithing on every nickel and dime you get, but on the meat of God's Law, things like fairness and compassion and commitment--the absolute basics!--you carelessly take it or leave it. Careful bookkeeping is commendable, but the basics are required. Which places tithes, judgment, mercy and faith as aspects of the law? If tithing, not weighty enough, has been abolished, how much more the weightier matters as Christ said: judgment, mercy and faith? Have you guys abolished them as well?  Because I believe the way things work, the weightiest of matters with respect to the "law" will be abolished first, and not the least significant? Mar 3:27 Do you think it's possible in broad daylight to enter the house of an awake, able-bodied man, and walk off with his possessions unless you tie him up first? Tie him up, though, and you can clean him out. |
| Re: Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe by Enigma(m): 9:30am On Feb 07, 2010 |
Traugott: Very interesting you claim I agree with you --- when this is the argument I and others have made from the beginning on this thread and for years before you came onto this forum.(Edited) Also, I treat your demand for empirical evidence as no more than a joke --- not to be taken seriously.Traugott: The fact remains Hebrews 7 makes clear that tithing based on the law is annulled; annulled with the law, annulled with the Levitical priesthood on which both it and the law is based. You may disagree; no qualms. Traugott: Now now, there is no need to be rude. Second, my goal post remains the same as it has always been. See one example here; there are several others going back years on this forum where same clarification has been provided. Traugott: Elementary; you reflect on what exactly was annulled in Hebrews 7. Traugott: Interesting, can we who argue against "tithing" be accused of suggesting that it perfects any believer? I have some "old" questions for you; I will put them in another post. |
| Re: Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe by Enigma(m): 9:34am On Feb 07, 2010 |
Traugott: You do not realise, unfortunately, that at the very heart of this your post is deception. I think it was Pastor AIO who dealt with this issue earlier on another thread. Jesus did not refer to dime, nickel or any form of money; rather he referred to tithing of agricultural produce --- especially minuscule things like mint, dill, cummin etc. Second, he was talking to people who were under the law before the law was abolished; he was not recommending "tithing" for Christians! These matters are really very simple; basic elementary stuff. |
| Re: Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe by Traugott(m): 9:44am On Feb 07, 2010 |
@Enigma: I have some "old" questions for you; I will put them in another post. Don't bother, I will probably not attend to the thread, since they are old questions. I don't believe in unnecessary arguments, and I won't be saying anything new. Remain blessed. |
| Re: Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe by Enigma(m): 9:47am On Feb 07, 2010 |
Traugott: No qualms; I'll put them up anyway. 1. Can a "tither" of today choose not to give the monetary "tithe" to his/her "church" or to any "church" at all? 2. Can a "tither" choose to give the "tithes" to charity e.g. to the poor, the orphan the widow? 3. Can a "tither" of today choose not to "pay" the "tithes" every month? 4. Can a "tither" of today choose to spend the "tithes" of one month on whatsoever his own heart desires? There are variations on the same questions --- which I may still put up if necessary. |
| Re: Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe by Traugott(m): 10:03am On Feb 07, 2010 |
@Enigma: ^^^ I have a strong impression in my spirit to reply you here, otherwise I wouldn't. Joh 3:8 You know well enough how the wind blows this way and that. You hear it rustling through the trees, but you have no idea where it comes from or where it's headed next. That's the way it is with everyone 'born from above' by the wind of God, the Spirit of God." If by "A tither of today", you mean a Christian who chooses to tithe, and not a conned person who is tithing perforce, or an anti-tither, or a Jew who tithes according to the old covenant, then the answers to your questions are in Jesus' statement above. A Christian who chooses to tithe, unlike all the categories above, does not pay tithe, or does not refrain from paying tithe; but GIVES a tithe to someone / somebody (organizations inclusive) representative of God. In that case, the person has the leading of the Holy spirit, and should follow His leading diligently. God may tell you to give your tithe to the family across the street, or to another church where you don't worship, or to a member of your church and not the pastor, or to an unknown location. Those that are led by the spirit are not stereotypically defined. The important thing is to be obedient to God. Psa 50:10 For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. If God instructs me to give 10% of some money I just made in business to someone/somebody, and I know my life is not my own, and I am only a steward of the money and not the owner, then what is the problem? As Christians, we need to always keep that at the back of our minds: all this money talk. . . you don't even own the money in the first case. |
| Re: Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe by Enigma(m): 10:15am On Feb 07, 2010 |
A Christian who chooses to tithe, unlike all the categories above, does not pay tithe, or does not refrain from paying tithe; but GIVES a tithe to someone / somebody (organizations inclusive) representative of God. You see why substance is more important than semantics; granted that accurate semantics can help clarity! The substance is this: truthful and correct Christian doctrine is GIVING not "tithing"!. 2 Cor 9:7 (NIV) Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. Yes, you can give in the form of 10% and call it "tithing" --- no big deal. Critical things: 1. You do not have an obligation to "tithe" or give 10%. 2. You can choose to give your "giving" to the poor and not to a church; of course you can choose to give it to a church, if there is good genuine reason based on need for it. But Jesus' and apostolic teaching heavily favour giving to the poor and people in need. 3. People should not be made to practise "tithing" out of fear ---- which is very prevalent as exemplified by several posters on this very thread, elsewhere on this forum, and very well known as a wide phenomenon. 4. Teach people the correct Christian doctrine: [b]GIVING[/B] as you purpose in your heart --- which may indeed be 10%. |
| Re: Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe by Traugott(m): 10:19am On Feb 07, 2010 |
It appears like it is still an Enigma to you, Enigma. You don't choose where to give your money to, and you don't choose how much you give  |
| Re: Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe by Enigma(m): 10:26am On Feb 07, 2010 |
Traugott: Then you disagree with the following (?) 2 Cor 9:7 Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. Encroyable!  |
| Re: Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe by olowolekan(m): 10:50am On Feb 07, 2010 |
Mal 3:8 says Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Anyone who fails to pay tithe is robbing God and such a fellow is a thief and a thief will not get to Heaven.May be this topic finds its way into Nairaland so that those who are in this condition can restitute their ways.After death,there is no another chance.Pay your tithe and God will bless you.In new testament Mat 23:23 ,Jesus says Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith:these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Hebrews 7:2 and To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace ,and 4;Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils |
| Re: Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe by Traugott(m): 10:53am On Feb 07, 2010 |
@Enigma: 2 Cor 9:7 Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. ^^^ That's not my point, Enigma. When Paul said "every man . . . what he has decided to give", it is on the premise that they have a CHEERFUL attitude to the giving. AND THAT is my point when I say you don't choose what to give. If I choose what to give, I may as well give $1 when I have $ millions stashed up somewhere. THAT is my point! Your walk with God is brought to bear upon your giving, from the cheerful heart that HE has created in you, to give out of. So, which brings me to the point I am making: since you don't choose what to give, if anyone gives to God cheerfully, whether (s)he calls it a tithe or no tithe, when he has DECIDED in his heart to give as much and to what purpose, it is well with him/her. You have started misunderstanding me. Do you now see why I do not like extended arguments, Enigma? It's because very soon meanings will get blurred and confusion will set in. |
| Re: Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe by Enigma(m): 12:57pm On Feb 07, 2010 |
Nah, you DO choose; only, you choose according to a renewed mind; taking account your own particular circumstances, the need that exists, etc etc. You then give that which YOU have CHOSEN cheerfully. That my friend is the Christian obligation ---- not "tithing". See, your point has already been addressed several times over including on this very thread. olowolekan:(EDIT: I added bold and underlining for emphasis) Above is an example of the result of the prevalent (false) teaching of "tithing" --- and indeed of undue emphasis on "tithing" even as a voluntary act. The biblical truth that New Testament teaching and doctrine is voluntary cheerful giving is jettisoned and replaced by fear, paranoia, even bondage! |
| Re: Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe by viaro: 1:49pm On Feb 07, 2010 |
I have a few moments to spare, so let me come in here and set (or reset) the basis of sustaining this discourse. This is going to be in series, so perhaps it might've been more enabling to open a thread to share more on this concerns particularly about tithes and not suffer the topic of the present one to slide. Anyways, Enigma has his rights to express his disagreements on Hebrews 7:18 (as well KunleOshob et al do). At least, so far we agree on a few points: that a number of tithers do so on the idea of tithes being compulsory; but let us not forget that a good other number of tithers also do so voluntarily without seeing it as compulsory. Thus far, in this thread there is an agreement among us that tithes are NOT compulsory in so far as the Christian testimony and life are concerned, and we should not be on the same spot arguing non-essentials there. It seems a rather odd excuse to repeat that 'compulsory' stuff here over and over again when it is plain that is not the crux of the matter. Yet, let me first deal with this point in Enigma's that is just a distraction than anything else: Enigma: True, Abraham's tithes were voluntary and not coerced - that is the whole point about any type of giving that the Bible sets before us as the expression of a worshipping heart. So powerful was that one act of Abraham that the Bible recognizes it as 'TITHES' in both the OT (Gen. 14:20) and the NT (Heb. 7:4 & 6). The argument of obligation does not even come in and is a distraction because you failed to notice that Levi also gave tithes in Abraham without any obligations or 'requirements' (verse 9). So is it not redundant to argue whether that type of "tithing" done by Abraham is abolished --- since it was never established in the first place? You abolish something that was established --- not something that is voluntary. Doesn't this completely deflate all your objections and make your point meaningless already? If you do not abolish something that is voluntary, does that not show that what Levi gave in Abraham was also VOLUNTARY in verse 9? The Levitical covenant and priesthood were not established upon tithes - I have repeated that point several times before; and this is where you should understand that the Law does not abolish what it does not originate in the first place! This is why the argument that 'tithing is indeed abolished' is both false and factually presumptive - and there's no need to be excusing here and there that you put it in quotation marks. So it is semantic pedantry to seek to force the Abrahamic "tithe" into a statement "tithing is abolished" when the Abrahamic tithe was never established in the first place. This actually brings us to point four about how the author of Hebrews made his own statement As long as nobody is "forcing" anything about Abraham's tithes into this discussion, that again is an insincere statement - a dishonest distraction that renders the rest of your objections unnecessary. Those who know what they are talking about will show you that they do not intend to "force" or thrust their own persuasions upon anyone, and I shall show a few examples (Coffman and Pastor Tunde Bakare). Besides, the way Hebrews 7 presents the tithes of Abraham is far more significant than what anti-tithers try to make of it. To say that "the author of Hebrews does not make a big issue about the Abrahamic tithe" is patently false - rather, you should have said that anti-tithers are the ones who downplay the Abrahamic tithes. The author of the epistle to the Hebrews speaks most significantly about the tithes of Abraham in SEVERAL VERSES of that same chapter 7 alone! Here are some - (a) Abraham's tithes were in recognition of the greatness of Melchizedek (v. 4) (b) Melchizedek was not from the Levitical lineage but was still qualified to receive tithes of Abraham (v. 6), and consequently from Levi (v. 9) (c) three times that chapter mentions Abraham's being blessed in connection with the tithes (vv. 1, 6, & 7), to show that it was not the tithes that were "weak and unprofitable" in verse 18! (d) far more than that, the Abrahamic tithes was pointing to the superiority of the Melchizedek priesthood (vv. 4, 6 & 7), so that verse 8 points to the continuity of the principle of tithing rather than its abolishment! If the author did not intend to point out these significances, we would never have read of them at all! Enigma: That is no reason for you to make categorically false statements in your attempt to educate both yourself and others. It is true that tithing (or any other type of giving for that matter) is NOT compulsory - that much we can point out with a lot of references from the Bible - but to go as far as arguing that 'tithing is abolished' is to add falsehood to truth and poison the well! It does not matter that you are excusing your arguments under so many quotation marks - what is false is false and should not be mixed with truth to poison anybody. You can't be saying something is abolished and yet encouraging anyone to still engage in that same thing. |
| Re: Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe by viaro: 1:55pm On Feb 07, 2010 |
Now, with particular reference to the idea that tithes are "abolished", we may have more to say: Enigma: Clearly, that is not an accurate statement but your personal reiteration that lacks exegetical substance. Biblical exegesis does not depend or rest on personal re-emphasis of a statement that ignores the warning against giving any verse a "private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20 - "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation"  . What we have seen repeated here and again is the private interpretation that anti-tithers give to Hebrews 7:18 without even attempting to compare that verse with other verses of the Bible. Thus, your statement is most inaccurate as long as you want to continue ignoring the foundation of Biblical exegesis, and I shall show how.Enigma: To reiterate that something is 'abolished' is to declare that we put an end to it completely. There is no other meaning to the idea of something being 'abolished' in Scripture, and to wave the excuse of "Tithing compulsorily is abolished" is plain insincere. Even so, to now argue that "Tithing based on the law is abolished" does not even come close to a proper understanding of that verse, Heb. 7:18. In the first place, the whole of Hebrews 7 does not try to argue between voluntary and compulsory tithing, whether based on the Law or not. It does not even try to delineate between either ideas to show which one has been "abolished", because that is NOT what verse 18 argues at all. Secondly, perhaps it might be helpful to understand what verse 18 specifically argues. If it was arguing that tithes were 'weak and unprofitable', then we should ask why the same tithes was spoken of in a positive manner in verse 6 - "he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises". . would the highlighted words be pointing to the weakness and unprofitableness of tithes? No, certainly not. Third, let us understand WHY anti-tithing theologians argue an abolishment of tithes from Hebrews 7:18, and then see why such an argument is baseless in light of Biblical exegesis. A few of our common English translations render that verse in the following ways ~ 'For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof' (KJV). 'The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless' (NIV) 'So a previous physical regulation and command is cancelled because of its weakness and ineffectiveness and uselessness' (Amplified) It is clear there that this verse does not mention 'tithes' as having been 'abolished' (or 'disannulled', 'cancelled' or set aside). If it was not 'tithes' that was meant in that verse, then what possibly could be meant by any of the following as highlighted there, viz: * 'a disannulling of the commandment going before'? * 'former regulation is set aside'? * 'a previous physical regulation and command is cancelled'? Could we compare notes from various sources on what some seasoned theologians have said on this very Hebrews 7:18? Did they unanimously argue that it was 'tithes' that were "abolished" in that verse, or rather something else? Let us see (I've had to borrow some notes and sources already posted on this forum): |
| Re: Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe by viaro: 2:01pm On Feb 07, 2010 |
. . . my connection was slow, so I had to divide my posts. Here is the continuation - viaro: Let's see -  (1) The Abbotts believe that it refers to the Mosaic Law ~ [list]Verse 18 "The commandment going before; the former commandment,--that is, the Mosaic law." (John S. C. Abbott and Jacob Abbott)[/list] (2) John Wesley largely agrees with the Abbotts that it refers to the Mosaic Law ~ [list]"Verse 18. For there is implied in this new and everlasting priesthood, and in the new dispensation connected therewith, a disannulling of the preceding commandment - An abrogation of the Mosaic law. For the weakness and unprofitableness thereof -For its insufficiency either to justify or to sanctify" (Wesley, John. "Commentary on Hebrews 7". "John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible")[/list] (3) John Gill says it refers to the 'ceremonial law' [list]For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment. . . Not the moral law; though what is here said of the commandment may be applied to that; that is sometimes called the commandment, (Romans 7:12,13) . . . [>snip<] . . but the ceremonial law is meant, which is the commandment that respected the Levitical priesthood, and is called a carnal one, and is inclusive of many others, and, which distinguishes that dispensation from the Gospel one: . . .[/list] (4) The Geneva Study Bible agrees with John Gills that it refers to the ceremonial law ~ [list]7:18 9For there is verily a disannulling of the hcommandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. [list](9) Again, that no man object that the last priesthood was added to make a perfect one by joining them both together, he proves that the first was made void by the later as unprofitable, by the nature of them both. For how could those material and transitory things sanctify us, either by themselves, or by being joined with another?[/list] [list](h) The ceremonial law. [/list][/list] (5) Ray Stedman believed it referred to the priesthood and the law ~ [list]The glorious result of this is stated in verse 18: the former regulation (the priesthood and the law) is set aside as weak and useless since it cannot cleanse from sin or provide power to obey. A better hope is brought in to replace it which will do what the law and the priesthood could not do---enable us to draw near to God. In 10:22 the writer will exhort his readers to do this very thing, since it is now fully possible because of the Melchizedek priesthood of Jesus. (IVP New Testament Commentary Series by Ray C. Stedman) [/list] (6) Barton W. Johnson interprets it as 'the old law and the Aaronic priesthood' ~ [list]7:18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment. The old law and the Aaronic priesthood are abrogated because of their imperfection. They could not make men perfect. (Johnson, Barton W. "Commentary on Hebrews 7". People's New Testament)[/list] (7) A. W. Pink believes it refers to 'the entire system of the Mosaic institutions' ~ [list]"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. (A. W. Pink, Commentary on Hebrews 7:17-19)[/list] (8) James Burton Coffman in his Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament argues that it refers to 'the whole system of Moses ~ [list]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, . . . ."[/list] (9) John MacArthur (himself an anti-tither), teaches that it refers to 'the whole ceremonial system' ~ [list]"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. (John MacArthur, Jesus: The Superior Priest)[/list] |
| Re: Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe by viaro: 2:04pm On Feb 07, 2010 |
^^Why did we look at these excerpts on Hebrews 7:18 in the above post? Simple: to show that no sincere theologian worth his degree or mark would use that verse to argue that 'tithes are abolished'. They know that if they have to follow the rules of Biblical exegesis (2 Peter 1:20), they cannot use that verse to make any accurate statement that it was referring to 'tithes', nor can they use it to argue that 'tithes' were weak and unprofitable, nor yet that therefore that verse declares that tithes are 'abolished'. Indeed, there are a few anti-tithing schools of thought that try to argue that that verse says 'tithes are abolished', but when asked what is meant by "the weakness and unprofitableness thereof", they lose the very ground of their own argument! Why so? First, because the Bible does not teach anywhere that tithes are mentioned as "weak and unprofitable" - NO VERSE IN THE ENTIRE BIBLE teaches such drivel. Second, because tithes were never given for the purpose of making anyone "perfect", it cannot be argued that verse 18 was addressing tithes - it is not a salvific issue (because it was not an element of salvation). Third, following the rules of Biblical exegesis where we compare verses with other parts of the Bible, we find that it was the Law that was "weak and unprofitable", and NOT TITHES. A quick check with major Bible references will show the cross-references to include Romans 8:3 ("what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh" and Acts 13:39 ("justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses".Fourth, that same Hebrews 7 does not once hint that 'tithes' were abolished nor were they weak and unprofitable - which was why Levi's tithes were subsumed within Abraham's tithes (verse 9); also why verse 8 declares a continuing act of tithes on the basis of the one who lives perpetually. Anti-tithers either have to acknowledge the veracity of verse 8, or categorically deny what it says without substance! Fifth, even though verse 8 shows a continuity and NOT an abolishment ("there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth" , it does not argue that it is compulsory! It rather draws out the heart of the believer in the very same way as Abraham's heart was drawn - voluntarily and NOT COERCIVELY! This is why the very next verse 9 declares that Levi gave tithes to Melchizedek without any Mosaic law to do so.In all this, there could surely be more to expound upon, but I have tried to focus on Hebrews 7:18 to show that it does not argue that 'tithes are abolished' - no theologian of repute will use that verse to argue an abolishment of tithes, because it points to the weakness of the law such that it could not make anyone perfect in their relationship with God. Tithes were never given in the Bible to perfect or justify anyone - and the anti-tither who argues to the contrary would just have to show us which one verse in the Bible shows tithes as a salvific issue. NOT ONE VERSE! Before I round off on that verse, let me share something on verse 8 from James Burton Coffman in his Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament - [list]Verse 8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there one, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. The dying men who received tithes at the time this author wrote were, of course, the Levites, in whose enjoyment of the office there was a continual progression throughout history, as the generations of men rose, faded, and passed away, being succeeded by others. The "one" of whom it is witnessed that he liveth is thought by Westcott and others to be Melchizedek; but the peculiar structure of the words "that he liveth" seems to this expositor sufficient reason for understanding the words as a reference to Christ; for the exact words, "he ever liveth," are spoken of Christ in this very chapter (Hebrews 7:25). However, even allowing the opinions of learned men to be correct, and referring the words to Melchizedek, they would still apply to Christ, of whom Melchizedek was typical; and, therefore, we do not hesitate to make this passage a basis for advocating the practice of tithing among Christians.[/list] [list]"There (in heaven) he (Christ) receiveth tithes!" (Hebrews 7:8); and this cannot be unless his disciples give them. Application of these words to Melchizedek, the type and not the antitype is a distinction without a difference; it would not have been mentioned here except for its bearing on the duty of Christians; and the words stand. The only disclaimer that this writer wishes to record here is that he does not wish to thrust this view dogmatically upon any other Christian. It is freely acknowledged that many differ with this view; but it is prayerfully hoped that others will allow this sincere expression of a viewpoint which the writer for many years has accepted as binding upon himself, and also that others will come to accept it for themselves, and come to know the joy of complying with it. More is said in the New Testament on the subject of giving than is said of faith or baptism, or the Lord's Supper; and the need of Christians to heed the word of God regarding giving is urgent and extensive.[/list] Yes, viaro agrees with such an exegesis both in content and spirit. While we may have our disagreements and convictions, it is not quite a spiritual thing to maintain an 'inaccurate' statement on private interpretations that ignores the basics of Biblical exegesis (2 Peter 1:20). Even so, for those of us who are inclined to tithe happily, we ought to like remember the examples of Coffman and Pastor Tunde Bakare in not forcing our tithing convictions on any other Christian. I would rather share on the subject, and show in substance why anti-tithers are not helping others understand the subject - but whatever are my persuasions on Hebrews 7:8 and 18 are not to be thrust upon other Christians of whatever persuasions. |
| Re: Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe by viaro: 2:13pm On Feb 07, 2010 |
Traugott: Haha! patience bro. . I'd try and do that reply email later tonight - I'll try. Be very blessed.  |
| Re: Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe by olowolekan(m): 2:23pm On Feb 07, 2010 |
Mat 15 :8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Mat13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: 15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them It's sad that people put themselves in darkness despite very close to the ligth.You read it yourself from the Holy Bible and yet you cannot understand.You better repent and ask for mercy.Tithe is not optional .Anyone who does not pay tithe is a thief and is robbing God.This is the word of God. |
| Re: Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe by Enigma(m): 2:36pm On Feb 07, 2010 |
olowolekan: olowolekan I can only pray that the Almighty Himself will open your eyes to see that you are suffering the effect of false teaching on "tithing" --- as I said, whether it is taught as compulsory or whether it is taught as a voluntary act. |
| Re: Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe by KunleOshob(m): 2:57pm On Feb 07, 2010 |
olowolekan: I am glad you posted this scripture as it is very evident that tithing as it is preached and practised today is a depature from the true biblical tithes and as such can be accurately described as a doctrine of man being presented as the word of God. Please note that biblical tithing is tithes of farm produce done once a year and the tither, his family, poor and needy and levites partake of the tithes [deut 14:22-29] contrary to the false man made version of today which is money from every income done on a weekly/monthly basis given exclusively to the church or pastor. Clearly tithing as it is practised today is a doctrine of Man  |
| Re: Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe by KunleOshob(m): 3:05pm On Feb 07, 2010 |
@Viaro/ trauggot Okay i am willing to accept that tithes was never "abolished" for christians as long a you also admit that tithing was never part of christianity ab initio so the issue of abolishing it does not even arise. Tithing was never taught by Jesus nor the apostles that were mandated to establish the faith and spread the gospel, tithing was only smuggled into christianity between the 6th and 8th century by the RCC as a manipulative strategy of rasing additional funs for the use of there church. So you guys are right as far as christianity is concerned it was not abolished as it was never a christian doctrine in the first instance but an obsolete teaching borrowed and and twisted from judaism. |
| Re: Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe by Enigma(m): 3:15pm On Feb 07, 2010 |
KunleOshob: It is a rather very simple point really. The Abrahamic tithe was never established; it was never recommended by Jesus or any of the apostles; there is not one example given in the Bible where a Jew or a Christian followed the Abrahamic tithe (and I distinguish the Jacobite promise just to make clear). Thus when one says "tithing is abolished", it simply has nothing to do with the Abrahamic tithe. Also, the author of Hebrews did not say Abrahamic tithe was abolished because saying so was redundant (or otiose) as Abrahamic tithe was never established. The other point regarding Hebrews 7 is also rather simple: the Levitical priesthood is abolished, with the abolition of the Levitical priesthood the law is abolished, with the abolition of the law, tithing (part of the law) is abolished. Simple[b]S[/b] |
| Re: Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe by viaro: 3:16pm On Feb 07, 2010 |
olowolekan: Okay, let me try and share on this same issue about robbing God through tithes and offerings. This is one of the concerns of both tithers and anti-tithers (as well non-tithers and observers - just so I don't run the risk of putting everyone in a box). Does Malachi 3 say that those who do not give tithes are robbing God? I, viaro, cannot deny that is what verse 8 declares: "Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings". Now hang on a minute, so we don't start rushing off to verse 9 and dash ourselves some unwarranted curses in freelance style. I just want to say here that there are many, many ways to rob God than we think about tithes and offerings and . . yes, "money". Let me share a few, please: (a) while many people use Malachi 3 in various ways (whether for or against tithing and offerings), it seems that we often FORGET something vital - the people actually were bringing tithes and offerings to God, and the prophet Malachi actually acknowledges this fact! (b) so, if they were bringing tithes and offerings, why did God accuse them of robbing Him in verse 8 and then cursing them in verse 9? The answer is simple: it was rather a matter of QUALITY and not 'quantity'. Yes, brethren, we 'rob' God many times when the quality of our worship is tainted by all sorts things - I shall get back to this point, because I believe that was what Malachi was stressing in chapter 3. (c) so what examples in Malachi showed that the people were bringing tithes and offerings? Let's read a few: [list][li]Malachi 1:8 - they offered polluted bread on God's altar[/li][/list] [list][li]Malachi 1:11 - God was looking for a 'pure offering' from them[/li][/list] [list][li]Malachi 1:13 - God clearly said that they brought Him an offering, but the quality of their offering was "that which was torn, and the lame, and the sick" - yes, they brought an offering, but it was such kind of polluted and sickly stuff that they offered[/li][/list] [list][li]Malachi 2:13 - they also sullied the quality of their offering in other ways, and thereupon God rejected the kind of offerings they brought - 'this have ye done again, covering the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand'.[/li][/list] Please understand - Malachi 2:13 shows that the people indeed brought offerings to God; but verse 1 was particularly addressing the leaders ('O ye priests, this commandment is for you'). They are the very ones that stand to direct the quality of the worship brought to God by His people; therefore, if things are in such a dismal state, then God directs His controversy at the leaders. Now, we come to Malachi 3 and see that it addresses both the people and the priests ("for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation" - v.9). But what exactly was the charge? Notice verse 8 does not accuse them of not bringing tithes and offerings - it simply said 'in tithes and offerings' - and we have see above in several verses that the whole complaint was about the quality of offerings that they brought in worship. Such quality affecting the worship that we bring to Him is why on many occasions He refuses them - ". . insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand" (Mal. 2:13). So, okay, the people were bringing offerings - but it was the quality: it was sickly stuff, which we would not dare bring before our Governors. But more to the fact was that their very lifestyle stank before God - and that was why He rejected their offerings and would not receive it with good will from their hands. Let's see how this plays out in our Christian worship - (a) Malachi 2:13 shows us why God discountenances worship that robs Him: when we do not bring Him the glory due unto His name! Just imagine an altar covered with tears, with weeping, and with crying out - HOW does such a worship bring God the glory due unto His name?? What this means is simple - [list][li]Churches where 'tithes and offerings' or any other 'offering' do not positively impact the worshippers in purity of life is absolutely robbing God! If the type of ministry that is before us is one that brings tears, weeping and crying out among Christians, the leaders should check themselves seriously! They are the ones robbing God of His glory when these leaders lay heavy burdens upon worshippers so that tithing and offerings are no longer joyful! I'm not accusing any church or anybody - but check to see what the quality of your worship entails: does it rob God of His glory? Is 'giving' (whether tithes or offerings) a matter of tears for worshippers and smiles for your leadership?[/li][/list] [list][li]There are many ways to 'rob God' - the other passages in Malachi tell us so much about this. For instance, Mal. 2:11 tells us that another way we 'rob' God is when we profane His holiness and bring or endorse strange worship into our lives and worship! Yes, many Nigerians are concerned about this (which places me at a disavantage since I'm outside the country); but we don't need to look so far to see the 'profanity' and 'strange' stuff that many people notice have been openly endorsed into our Christian churches![/li][/list] I could go on and outline so many other points about 'robbing' God, but the point is that it is not only by tithes and offerings that we do so. When we shamelessly deny God His due glory, and cause people to be in tears and weeping in their worship - we actually are endorsing a 'civilized' form of robbing God. That is where true repentance should be - and not in the concern of whether we bring money to any treasury! |
| Re: Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe by viaro: 3:29pm On Feb 07, 2010 |
KunleOshob: Hello KunleOshob, I am at odds with your statement that Jesus never taught tithing - that is a denial of Matthew 23:23. I don't want to go about that long route again, maybe another day when we have an appropriate thread, viaro will stand ready to share why anti-tithers have no leg to stand in denying Matthew 23:23. The best you guys can say is that you do not like that verse, but not to posion the minds of simple readers by saying that Jesus never taught tithes. Please. tithing was only smuggled into christianity between the 6th and 8th century by the RCC as a manipulative strategy of rasing additional funs for the use of there church. That's wrong and borrowed from untaught theologians - it so happens that one of the loud mouths that has been recycling that drivel is Russell Kelly, Ph. D. . and I have sat him up on that false statement. The point was that if we care to look carefully, Christians were actually giving in the very same manner as they read in the OT scriptures - that is what Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 9, and nobody back then in early Christianity had issues with it. The problem is that some secular encyclopedias mislead people into thinking that tithing was a late 6th century doctrine in Christianity, but such encyclopedia would not tell you that they are discussing the political establishment of something that predated such a period. So you guys are right as far as christianity is concerned it was not abolished as it was never a christian doctrine in the first instance but an obsolete teaching borrowed and and twisted from judaism. No, it was not an obselete doctrine borrowed from Judaism - that is why I took some time to show that no sound theologian of repute uses hebrews 7:18 to cancel out or 'abolish' tithes. Why? Tithes were not borrowed "from Judaism", but rather it is the other way round - Judaism adopted it from an earlier source, which was not pagan in origin. It was for this reason that the author of Hebrews 7 wanted to make clear in verse 8 that his readers understood its continuity by showing that Levi also gave tithes in Abraham long before even Levi was born! I know we all have our convictions about these things, but while i may respect yours, I cannot agree with you that tithes were "borrowed from" Judaism - that would be twisting the Word of God to make it say what it does not. But I also recognise the concern of many Nigerians about this subject. Even though I'm at a disadvantage for not being in the country, I think we can help others understand the subject better by discussing clear pointers from Scripture rather than making unwarranted statements. The Malachi 3 passage has caused so many people a lot of trouble; but just above I have just shared another way of looking at the subject of robbing God which many people miss. |
| Re: Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe by KunleOshob(m): 3:31pm On Feb 07, 2010 |
It is clear to me that it is actually pastors and preachers who mis-appropriate church collections to finance their vulgar life styles that are robbing God. Also preaching compulsary tithing of congregation's income which is clearly different from biblical tithing is akin to robbing the children of God and can be likened to robbing God as well. |
| Re: Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe by KunleOshob(m): 3:41pm On Feb 07, 2010 |
viaro: My dear, we have been through this issue several times andyou nkow my position on it and that is that Jesus was not teaching tithing to christians rather he was commenting on it and saying the pharisees who were under the law should not ignore the weightier matters of the law whilst tithing their mint and cummin [not money or income]. That can never be interpreted to mean new testament christians who are not under the jewish laws should tithe. The apostles made it clear in acts 15 that the jewish laws were not applicable to gentile christian converts. So trying to imply that Jesus taught tithing to believers in that over recycled matthew verse is not only mischievious but outrightly dis-honest. |
| Re: Pay House Rent Or Pay Tithe by viaro: 3:47pm On Feb 07, 2010 |
KunleOshob: That much I could agree with you, but not in totality. The passages we're studying shows that God addresses the 'whole nation' - both priests (leaders) and people (congregants). In many ways, there are leaders who abuse the Word of God to live off God's people - there are many, many examples of this. However, what about the people themselves. . don't they 'rob' God in like manner when they deny Him the glory that is due unto His Name?? Indeed, when we treat God's children with impunity, we are directly impugning the glory of God. This is clear in many passages of Scripture: * Matthew 25:40 & 45 * Acts 9:4-5 * Hebrews 6:10 * Proverbs 14:31 However, as Malachi shows us, when the people (the congregants) have warped ideas about worshipping God, they are doing the same thing that some of the leaders stand guilty of - "Ye said also, Behold, what a weariness is it! and ye have snuffed at it, saith the LORD of hosts; and ye brought that which was torn, and the lame, and the sick; thus ye brought an offering: should I accept this of your hand? saith the LORD" (Malachi 1:13) It is not only leaders that are our problem - we ourselves constitute a more serious problem when we bring Him worship that has ulterior motives (whether that ulterior motive is to castigate all 'pastors' simple because a few other pastors are mishandling the word of God). |
(1) (2) (3) ... (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) ... (14) (Reply)
What Does The Bible Say About Homosexuality? / COVID-19: Winner’s Chapel, Daystar To Have Physical Church Service Today / Kissing and Romancing: Part of Fornication?
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 213 |