-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
So for the good of the poor and for the servant that didn't have any land.
That's between God and my pastor, and fearing the Lord is still needed, More needed today, and feeding the hungry is still needed today. So giving to that curse is still needed today. God doesn't care what we call it (Tithe or not), He sees the motive of the heart. And if God thought it was a good thing for His chosen people to do i believe it is a Good thing for us to do. Your idea of Tithing today is different to mine so we will not agree.
That's between God and my pastor, and fearing the Lord is still needed, More needed today, and feeding the hungry is still needed today. So giving to that curse is still needed today. God doesn't care what we call it (Tithe or not), He sees the motive of the heart. And if God thought it was a good thing for His chosen people to do i believe it is a Good thing for us to do. Your idea of Tithing today is different to mine so we will not agree.
Mat 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
Mat 19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
Mat 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
Mat 19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
Mat 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
If God doesn't care what we call our giving, then He would not have cared in the Old Testament either.
but, the fact is, God defined that His holy tithe is agricultural, not money. He also said that man was not to do what seemed right in his own eyes.
you may see no wrong in tithing money to the Church, but according to God's Word, It is wrong.
but, the fact is, God defined that His holy tithe is agricultural, not money. He also said that man was not to do what seemed right in his own eyes.
you may see no wrong in tithing money to the Church, but according to God's Word, It is wrong.
So far those that live and die by the tithe have not offered a single clear verse supporting the twisted form of tithing the pastors command today. Yet much scripture has been offered over and over ad nauseum that refutes the damaging tithing system of today.
Questions still unanswered by the tithers:
We, the people, are the priesthood. Do we tithe to ourselves? Well...do we?
The single paid pastor is not biblical. Acts 20 and 1Peter 5. Yet you go arrogantly against God's word and pay this guy that doesnt want to work, according to Acts 20, a salary in clear violation of God's crystal clear command. You equate the itenerent preacher's right to support to this diotrephees guy. Why??? Why??? See: 3John for the first unbilical cleric.
We the people are to minister in the open participatory assembly. 1Cor.12, Ephesians 4, and Romans 12. But we are not allowed. If we'd incorporate God's MO for the assembly, the beloved 'pastor' would be forced to get off his royal behind and get a job according to Acts 20. Naver going to happen!
Matt. 23 Religious, honorific titles are forbidden by Jesus Christ, the One you claim to obey. Yet i keep hearing from almost everyone ' my pastor this and my pastor that' in direct disobedience to Christ's clearer than the pimple on the end of your nose command. Why????
You exalt and drool over this one man with the religious title which is in concrete violation of 1Peter 5 and Acts 20 which God tells us that all elders are pastors, not one above the others. All working in harmony, not for filthy lucre and no that does not mean they put the cash through a car wash and then it is clean lucre they can keep. Grow up pu-lease!
So lets all start going by the word shall we? Never going to happen. The NT is clear to those that have eyes. The heresy and apostasy will only worsen and grow more rebellious and demonic.
I can already see the arrogant disdain in your faces.
Questions still unanswered by the tithers:
We, the people, are the priesthood. Do we tithe to ourselves? Well...do we?
The single paid pastor is not biblical. Acts 20 and 1Peter 5. Yet you go arrogantly against God's word and pay this guy that doesnt want to work, according to Acts 20, a salary in clear violation of God's crystal clear command. You equate the itenerent preacher's right to support to this diotrephees guy. Why??? Why??? See: 3John for the first unbilical cleric.
We the people are to minister in the open participatory assembly. 1Cor.12, Ephesians 4, and Romans 12. But we are not allowed. If we'd incorporate God's MO for the assembly, the beloved 'pastor' would be forced to get off his royal behind and get a job according to Acts 20. Naver going to happen!
Matt. 23 Religious, honorific titles are forbidden by Jesus Christ, the One you claim to obey. Yet i keep hearing from almost everyone ' my pastor this and my pastor that' in direct disobedience to Christ's clearer than the pimple on the end of your nose command. Why????
You exalt and drool over this one man with the religious title which is in concrete violation of 1Peter 5 and Acts 20 which God tells us that all elders are pastors, not one above the others. All working in harmony, not for filthy lucre and no that does not mean they put the cash through a car wash and then it is clean lucre they can keep. Grow up pu-lease!
So lets all start going by the word shall we? Never going to happen. The NT is clear to those that have eyes. The heresy and apostasy will only worsen and grow more rebellious and demonic.
I can already see the arrogant disdain in your faces.
R
The way the tithe is taught in a majority of churches is heresy! I even know a pastor who agrees that tithing isn't for today but preaches the mandatory tithe anyways because he says that too many people don't give! So to this preacher, it's ok to lie about the Word to dictate people how to give money!(but the Word says the tithe is food, NOT money!)
Based on the KJV, The word "pastor" is almost exclusively found in the book of Jeremiah and found not once in the book of Acts(the early church history book). I can really understand why multitudes of unbelievers hate the church in general, lumping them all as evil, because of such heresies as the tithe preaching! If you want to give 10% the Bible does not forbid you to do that if you are giving what God lays on your heart.
Based on the KJV, The word "pastor" is almost exclusively found in the book of Jeremiah and found not once in the book of Acts(the early church history book). I can really understand why multitudes of unbelievers hate the church in general, lumping them all as evil, because of such heresies as the tithe preaching! If you want to give 10% the Bible does not forbid you to do that if you are giving what God lays on your heart.
K
Have you not read the story of the woman in Luke 21:1-4 that Jesus respected her offering because she gave all she had in her poverty, but the rich men he did not respect because they gave out of obligation.
How about Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42 where Jesus was talking to the scribes and Pharisees about how they were not truly obeying the law as it was meant. Jesus did not tell them that tithes was done away with here, He said they should still be done as well as the other things they were neglecting to do !!!
A quick question for Yet...
Twice you have quoted my post, "It's not clear who you are addressing. It also appears that you conflate tithing and giving, which aren't the same thing." Are you wanting me to clarify or explain something?
Twice you have quoted my post, "It's not clear who you are addressing. It also appears that you conflate tithing and giving, which aren't the same thing." Are you wanting me to clarify or explain something?
No sir. Tithing and giving are not the same. Sorry for the confusion.
Hi Ken. Read the verses before the widows mite. He was denouncing the religious leaders for robbing the widows.
He is not endorsing the widow giving all that she had to the very same lying thieves.
Matt.23 Jesus was talking to the wolves while the old covenant was still activated. Context is essential.
He is not endorsing the widow giving all that she had to the very same lying thieves.
Matt.23 Jesus was talking to the wolves while the old covenant was still activated. Context is essential.
K
This still does not do away with tithing !!!
Yes there are those that misuse the tithes for their own selfish greed, and I am all for not giving to those who do such.
But this in no way does away with tithing or the purpose of tithing, as we are still commanded in the New Covenant to esteem and give to others.
The tithe is suppose to go to others that are in need !!!
We should not stop doing the whole process just because some misuse it, as there are ways around giving to those that are greedy.
For instance if you know the preacher is greedy and keeps it all or most for self, then give directly to the poor you come across or to another group that you know will distribute it properly to those in need !!!
It was shameful that God would have to give the Law to command people to help those in need and bless them who bless us. He commanded three tithes as well as offerings for sin. The third was collected entirely for the poor, the widows, etc. The second tithe was for provision for attendees of the annual feasts in Jerusalem, so folks could stay through the whole week, though too poor to pay their way. The first was for the priesthood, the Levites, who ministered to the other 11 tribes. That put all the people of Israel tithing 23% of their produce plus all the things they dedicated, called holy, to the Lord. That pattern is established in the new covenant, though not by such old commandment. A minority of Christians are ministers of the gospel toward the whole church. Not all can say they are ministers to the congregation, only some as appointed by the Holy Spirit. In no less manner should we support those in spiritual leadership over us. as ordained by Jesus.
Another principle is blessings are according to the fruitfulness of the ground sown in, and that applies to preaching of the gospel too. If the tithe is abused in a church, then it should follow that their gospel preaching is like their salt and light is absent, not attracting anyone to the gospel of Christ. In that case, leave that place, find one that is salty and full of light. There are many like that, but probably most not "salty and bright lights". Mt 5:14-16. Wayward churches offer dull meals, like if my wife only served boiled barley with no salt or flavoring, just a bowl of unflavored grain.
Satan delights to send skeptics to water down the influence of God's children who love the word and his principles of life.
Another principle is blessings are according to the fruitfulness of the ground sown in, and that applies to preaching of the gospel too. If the tithe is abused in a church, then it should follow that their gospel preaching is like their salt and light is absent, not attracting anyone to the gospel of Christ. In that case, leave that place, find one that is salty and full of light. There are many like that, but probably most not "salty and bright lights". Mt 5:14-16. Wayward churches offer dull meals, like if my wife only served boiled barley with no salt or flavoring, just a bowl of unflavored grain.
Satan delights to send skeptics to water down the influence of God's children who love the word and his principles of life.
Long post warning!
Rather than simply blast this assertion as hogwash, I've been trying to make sense of it, so I did some searching...
Hebrews 7 talks about Melchizedek, who is only mentioned in three passages: Genesis 14, Psalm 110, and Hebrews 5-7. He is called, "king of Salem, and priest of God Most High” both in Genesis and Hebrews 7. This sounds like Jesus... but don't stop there.
Let's look at the second part of Heb. 7:3, talking about Melchizedek:
NIV “like the Son of God he remains a priest of God forever.”
KJV “but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.”
NASB “ but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.”
The key word here seems to be 'like'. It denotes a simile, a comparative device, rather than a definite designation, 'this is that'. So, Melchizedek is like Jesus. The trouble with dropping the 'like' and concluding that Melchizedek is Jesus is found in the first part of the verse which says, “without father or mother or genealogy,” as Jesus has all three clearly identified in scripture.
Moving on... verses 13-14 “He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah...” (NIV)
This also might seem to say that Jesus is Melchizedek, but that is not clear; and being unclear on this matter makes it poor support for the assertion in question. What is clear is that Jesus's priesthood is not like that of Levi.
But then, who is Melchizedek? There are several options: Melchizedek is...
I prefer either the second or last options, but I'm not settled on this, and there may be other options which haven't occurred to me. The pre-incarnate Christ had no genealogy, beginning or ending (at the time of Abraham), so it's possible, but it leaves an awkward circular reasoning which doesn't sit well with Jesus' being "the same yesterday, today and forever' (Hebrews 13:8). In any case, it is certainly not crystal-clear that Melchizedek is Jesus.
On to the second part of the statement, “... in heaven.” Whoever Melchizedek is, he was on earth when he collected from Abraham, and the passage doesn't say that he continues to collect from Abraham.
Let's keep going to the last part, “receives tithes,” looking carefully at the subject, context, and tenses in the passage.
(NIV) Hebrews 7:4 “Just think how great he was (past tense): Even the patriarch Abraham gave (past) him a tenth of the plunder!”
5 “Now the law requires (present) the descendants of Levi who become (present) priests to collect (present) a tenth from the people...”
6 “This man, however, did not (past) trace his descent from Levi, yet he collected (past) a tenth from Abraham and blessed (past) him who had the promises.
7 “And without doubt the lesser person is blessed (present) by the greater.”
8 “In the one case, the tenth is collected (present) by men who die; but in the other, (no verb) by him who is declared (present) to be living (present).”
9 “One might even say that Levi, who collects (present) the tenth, paid (past) the tenth through Abraham,”
10 “because when Melchizedek met (past) Abraham, Levi was (past) still in body of his ancestor.”
The subject of the passage is stated in v. 4: the greatness of Melchizedek, to whose priesthood that of Jesus is compared. The context is the priesthood of Jesus in the rest of the chapter after v. 12. It's not primarily about tithing.
The writer uses present tense for the Law in v. 5 and 9a, and for the general statement in v. 7. He uses past tense when discussing Melchizedek's interaction with Abraham. The sticky part is verse 8, where the case of Levi is contrasted with that of Melchizedek. Given that the rest of the passage clearly identifies Levi's collection in past tense, it is illogical to conclude that Melchizedek's collection is present-continual where Levi's is not.
By the way, verse 8 is not a doctrinal statement about tithing generally; to conclude that it is such is to rend the verse from its context. The chapter certainly does not support tithing by Christians, saying absolutely nothing of the sort. Verses 12 and 19 make clear that the Law has no further hold.
In summary:
Rather than simply blast this assertion as hogwash, I've been trying to make sense of it, so I did some searching...
Hebrews 7 talks about Melchizedek, who is only mentioned in three passages: Genesis 14, Psalm 110, and Hebrews 5-7. He is called, "king of Salem, and priest of God Most High” both in Genesis and Hebrews 7. This sounds like Jesus... but don't stop there.
Let's look at the second part of Heb. 7:3, talking about Melchizedek:
NIV “like the Son of God he remains a priest of God forever.”
KJV “but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.”
NASB “ but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.”
The key word here seems to be 'like'. It denotes a simile, a comparative device, rather than a definite designation, 'this is that'. So, Melchizedek is like Jesus. The trouble with dropping the 'like' and concluding that Melchizedek is Jesus is found in the first part of the verse which says, “without father or mother or genealogy,” as Jesus has all three clearly identified in scripture.
Moving on... verses 13-14 “He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah...” (NIV)
This also might seem to say that Jesus is Melchizedek, but that is not clear; and being unclear on this matter makes it poor support for the assertion in question. What is clear is that Jesus's priesthood is not like that of Levi.
But then, who is Melchizedek? There are several options: Melchizedek is...
- God the Father, Who stated (in Ps. 110) that Jesus is a priest forever in the order of ... God (Who truly has no genealogy). However, no-one has seen God (1 Tim. 6:16), and there is no scripture saying the Father is a priest.
- A pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus, and Jesus is a priest forever in the order of... himself.
- An angel or other heavenly being. There is no scriptural support for this.
- A mysterious man who didn't descend from Adam, who was never born nor died; a special creation apart from Adam. There is no scriptural support for this either.
- A regular man in a special position about whom the Bible says little (by design).
I prefer either the second or last options, but I'm not settled on this, and there may be other options which haven't occurred to me. The pre-incarnate Christ had no genealogy, beginning or ending (at the time of Abraham), so it's possible, but it leaves an awkward circular reasoning which doesn't sit well with Jesus' being "the same yesterday, today and forever' (Hebrews 13:8). In any case, it is certainly not crystal-clear that Melchizedek is Jesus.
On to the second part of the statement, “... in heaven.” Whoever Melchizedek is, he was on earth when he collected from Abraham, and the passage doesn't say that he continues to collect from Abraham.
Let's keep going to the last part, “receives tithes,” looking carefully at the subject, context, and tenses in the passage.
(NIV) Hebrews 7:4 “Just think how great he was (past tense): Even the patriarch Abraham gave (past) him a tenth of the plunder!”
5 “Now the law requires (present) the descendants of Levi who become (present) priests to collect (present) a tenth from the people...”
6 “This man, however, did not (past) trace his descent from Levi, yet he collected (past) a tenth from Abraham and blessed (past) him who had the promises.
7 “And without doubt the lesser person is blessed (present) by the greater.”
8 “In the one case, the tenth is collected (present) by men who die; but in the other, (no verb) by him who is declared (present) to be living (present).”
9 “One might even say that Levi, who collects (present) the tenth, paid (past) the tenth through Abraham,”
10 “because when Melchizedek met (past) Abraham, Levi was (past) still in body of his ancestor.”
The subject of the passage is stated in v. 4: the greatness of Melchizedek, to whose priesthood that of Jesus is compared. The context is the priesthood of Jesus in the rest of the chapter after v. 12. It's not primarily about tithing.
The writer uses present tense for the Law in v. 5 and 9a, and for the general statement in v. 7. He uses past tense when discussing Melchizedek's interaction with Abraham. The sticky part is verse 8, where the case of Levi is contrasted with that of Melchizedek. Given that the rest of the passage clearly identifies Levi's collection in past tense, it is illogical to conclude that Melchizedek's collection is present-continual where Levi's is not.
By the way, verse 8 is not a doctrinal statement about tithing generally; to conclude that it is such is to rend the verse from its context. The chapter certainly does not support tithing by Christians, saying absolutely nothing of the sort. Verses 12 and 19 make clear that the Law has no further hold.
In summary:
- “Jesus (in the guise of Melchizedek)” - shown to be uncertain at best;
- “in Heaven” - refuted on the basis of Melchizedek's location at the time;
- “receives tithes” - refuted on the basis of verb tense and context.
Last edited:
Ken, what's your answers on these T/F questions?
For both the pro-tithers and the pro-givers:
1. T/F - All tithes in O.T. times were brought to the storehouse.
2. T/F - Tithes were always delivered to the storehouse by the tither.
3. T/F - Tithes and firstfruits and offerings are all the same thing; the words are synonymous.
4. T/F - In O.T. times, Israelites were allowed to eat part of their tithe.
5. T/F - In O.T. times, a single tithe was paid that included agricultural products.
6. T/F - In O.T. times, the first of every 10 animals was part of a tithe. It was to be the finest and best of the flock.
7. T/F - In O.T. times, tithing was done on agriculture every year.
Last edited:
That's a very foolish statement. If any government possessed all it's currency, it would cease to be a government, instead be a group of wealthy bureaucrats, the formerly governed people starving. Even communist governments permit workers to have money. They just can't own the means of production.
Never in recorded history did Rome demand all the money from anyone. They seized the right by conquest to tax their subjects. That always left some money for the people to survive, else they become totally nonproductive, having no more substance to tax.
So to say Jesus meant to give all the money to Caesar since his face was on the coin is ludicrous! This is 'yet' another example of a mind that is heavily deceived.
The point is that the money supply is originated by a government that of course retain the right to tax income, claiming what they say is their part of your increase.
In those days of Jesus, and really throughout the history of coinage, coin were typically molded pieces of precious metals like gold and silver. We still honor such coins today. Yes, Gid owns the silver and gold in the earth. But he ordained governments to establish economies with currency that was and still is used to represent the possessor's labors and products. Israel, by the way, had it's own currency, silver coins called shekels, used to pay the temple tax. The lower denomination of "penny" and "mite" allowed the poor to take part in the economy.
No, Jesus doesn't need out money. His clergy does. They are priests under him our High Priest of the royal eternal priesthood.
Never in recorded history did Rome demand all the money from anyone. They seized the right by conquest to tax their subjects. That always left some money for the people to survive, else they become totally nonproductive, having no more substance to tax.
So to say Jesus meant to give all the money to Caesar since his face was on the coin is ludicrous! This is 'yet' another example of a mind that is heavily deceived.
The point is that the money supply is originated by a government that of course retain the right to tax income, claiming what they say is their part of your increase.
In those days of Jesus, and really throughout the history of coinage, coin were typically molded pieces of precious metals like gold and silver. We still honor such coins today. Yes, Gid owns the silver and gold in the earth. But he ordained governments to establish economies with currency that was and still is used to represent the possessor's labors and products. Israel, by the way, had it's own currency, silver coins called shekels, used to pay the temple tax. The lower denomination of "penny" and "mite" allowed the poor to take part in the economy.
No, Jesus doesn't need out money. His clergy does. They are priests under him our High Priest of the royal eternal priesthood.