What is your motivation for tithing?
- Thread starter ResidentAlien
- Start date
-
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.
To preface, Jesus pointed out that not all Law/Commandments are equally weighty (Mk 12:29–31, Matt 23:23).
Well as I said, tithing is pre-law and pre-crucifixion (Gen 14:17-24). Its description, meaning, expression, and blessing are found in the OT and were never eradicated by any covenant (old or new). Rather, it is independent of any covenant and is an expression of spiritual principles. It is also associated with the priesthood of Melchizedek (Ps 110:4), Who "remains a priest forever" (Heb 7:3).
You'll need to read the entire chapter of Hebrews 7 to understand Melchizedek's priesthood, its eternal nature, and how it's not dependent on the old or new covenant. Pay attention to the financial references. E.g., You'll notice how Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek was a gesture of honor and recognition of His supremacy as One who is greater and immortal (Heb 7:8). I will let you connect the dots between Melchizedek and Jesus.
You can also read Romans 14 (and Col 2:16) to see how certain people should follow their Biblically-informed personal convictions (which includes tithing, sabbath, fasting, etc).
Above all, tithing is not required, it is welcomed. It is not an issue of law; it is an issue of faith.
Hope that helps,
Well as I said, tithing is pre-law and pre-crucifixion (Gen 14:17-24). Its description, meaning, expression, and blessing are found in the OT and were never eradicated by any covenant (old or new). Rather, it is independent of any covenant and is an expression of spiritual principles. It is also associated with the priesthood of Melchizedek (Ps 110:4), Who "remains a priest forever" (Heb 7:3).
You'll need to read the entire chapter of Hebrews 7 to understand Melchizedek's priesthood, its eternal nature, and how it's not dependent on the old or new covenant. Pay attention to the financial references. E.g., You'll notice how Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek was a gesture of honor and recognition of His supremacy as One who is greater and immortal (Heb 7:8). I will let you connect the dots between Melchizedek and Jesus.
You can also read Romans 14 (and Col 2:16) to see how certain people should follow their Biblically-informed personal convictions (which includes tithing, sabbath, fasting, etc).
Above all, tithing is not required, it is welcomed. It is not an issue of law; it is an issue of faith.
Hope that helps,
Okay, but in your previous post you said: "It was configured into the Mosaic law for a people and for a time, but now it remains as it was before the law...welcomed, and full of blessing."
So where in the New Testament is your theory taught? How do we know it "remains" if none of what you're saying is taught in the New Testament?
So where in the New Testament is your theory taught? How do we know it "remains" if none of what you're saying is taught in the New Testament?
-
1
- Show all
Yes, Abraham gave Melchizedek a tenth. And yes Jesus is figuratively compared to Melchizedek. But where is it taught that this illustrates that Christians should give a tenth? Where is it taught that this is a principle that "remains" for Christians to adhere to? We have very clear teaching regarding freewill offerings. If what you're saying is right, wouldn't there be a much more clear teaching somewhere?
-
1
- Show all
So is circumcision, which undermines that argument completely.
Incorrect. It is part of the Law and as such is replaced by the New Covenant, per Hebrews 8 (and many other passages).
That's just silly... and refuted in my first point above.
Tithing of war spoils? I'll get right on that.
Which has nothing to do with requirements or indications for Christians to tithe. The mentions of finances are purely to establish the superiority of the priesthood of Melchizedek over that of Aaron.
Yes, you are certainly free to "tithe" (as you call it) if you choose, but that is not normative for all Christians.
No, it's simply evidence of confusion about the role of the Law in the life of the Christian and of the clear distinction in the OT between tithes and offerings, and ignorance of the NT teachings on finances.
Incorrect. It is part of the Law and as such is replaced by the New Covenant, per Hebrews 8 (and many other passages).
That's just silly... and refuted in my first point above.
Tithing of war spoils? I'll get right on that.
Which has nothing to do with requirements or indications for Christians to tithe. The mentions of finances are purely to establish the superiority of the priesthood of Melchizedek over that of Aaron.
Yes, you are certainly free to "tithe" (as you call it) if you choose, but that is not normative for all Christians.
No, it's simply evidence of confusion about the role of the Law in the life of the Christian and of the clear distinction in the OT between tithes and offerings, and ignorance of the NT teachings on finances.
Did you read through and ponder Hebrews 7 already? You have to retain that for this to make sense.
Tithing is associated with Melchizedek's priesthood (which remains current). But for a time, tithing was also configured into the Mosaic covenant under the Aaronic priesthood. But that covenantal configuration is no longer in place. I didn't say that tithing is no longer in place...I'm saying that the configuration is no longer in place.
Heb 8- "He has made the first (covenant) is made obsolete".
1. I encourage you to consider whether Melchizedek was a Theophany (a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus) because Melchizedek is said to be "immortal", "without end of life", and he "remains a priest perpetually", etc. You don't have to agree with that, but if not, you will have a difficult time apprehending what I am sharing because this is a complex subject. I recommend taking a break from the discussion and spending some time in Hebrews 7 if you want to better understand Melchizedek.
2. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I did not say that Christians "should give a tenth" or "should adhere to". That's legalism. There is no requirement for Christians to tithe. Are we clear?
No. And here's why:
It is clear, but it is not simple.
1. At the end of Chapter 5, the Hebrew author says that Melchizedek is difficult to explain:
“Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain.” (Hebrews 5:11)
2. He then explains how in order to grow from being able to digest milk to digest meat, one must mature spiritually
(vs 12-14). The following Chapter 6 is milk, and Chapter 7 is meat. Melchizedek is the subject of Chapter 7.
It's not that it cannot be explained clearly; it's that the subject of Melchizedek is solid food, that the mature can understand.
Tithing is associated with Melchizedek's priesthood (which remains current). But for a time, tithing was also configured into the Mosaic covenant under the Aaronic priesthood. But that covenantal configuration is no longer in place. I didn't say that tithing is no longer in place...I'm saying that the configuration is no longer in place.
Heb 8- "He has made the first (covenant) is made obsolete".
1. I encourage you to consider whether Melchizedek was a Theophany (a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus) because Melchizedek is said to be "immortal", "without end of life", and he "remains a priest perpetually", etc. You don't have to agree with that, but if not, you will have a difficult time apprehending what I am sharing because this is a complex subject. I recommend taking a break from the discussion and spending some time in Hebrews 7 if you want to better understand Melchizedek.
2. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I did not say that Christians "should give a tenth" or "should adhere to". That's legalism. There is no requirement for Christians to tithe. Are we clear?
No. And here's why:
It is clear, but it is not simple.
1. At the end of Chapter 5, the Hebrew author says that Melchizedek is difficult to explain:
“Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain.” (Hebrews 5:11)
2. He then explains how in order to grow from being able to digest milk to digest meat, one must mature spiritually
(vs 12-14). The following Chapter 6 is milk, and Chapter 7 is meat. Melchizedek is the subject of Chapter 7.
It's not that it cannot be explained clearly; it's that the subject of Melchizedek is solid food, that the mature can understand.
A lot of words. I'm still waiting for the New Testament teaching that says the principle of giving a tenth remains for Christians. If it's there it should be a very simple matter of posting it, without writing an essay.
I'm not putting any words in your mouth: "It was configured into the Mosaic law for a people and for a time, but now it remains as it was before the law...welcomed, and full of blessing." Do you recall writing that?
I'm not putting any words in your mouth: "It was configured into the Mosaic law for a people and for a time, but now it remains as it was before the law...welcomed, and full of blessing." Do you recall writing that?
These are the words of the Hebrew writer, not mine. He says the subject is difficult (not simple)...and he tells us how to mature to comprehend this difficult subject.
If it takes 4 chapters of Scripture to explain it, do you think I can do it justice with fewer words? That's why I directed you to read the Scriptures. This takes patience and contemplation.
Do you want the super-quick version? Fine, but if you don't contemplate the related Scriptures given, you may find it confusing.
1. Melchizedek was a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus.
2. He was a king and priest of God.
3. Melchizedek received tithes under His priesthood (non-mandatory).
4. His priesthood never ended; it remains still.
5. For a limited time, for the Jews the principle of tithing was oriented into the Mosaic law to be required.
7. Christians are free from the law, meaning they are free from the requirement to tithe.
8. Melchizedek's priesthood was never abolished or changed because it's not Jewish or Christian.
9. The Jewish covenants did not alter it... it remains.
10. The Christian covenant did not alter it...it remains.
11. Now Jesus is the permanent, bodily manifestation of God's original priest, Melchizedek (same person...different form).
12. Jesus continues to hold this permanent priesthood because it is a priesthood of faith; it operates on faith.
“[Melchizedek] remains a priest perpetually.” (Hebrews 7:3)
You may not understand this, but this is what the Bible says.
I have to go for now. I have finals to work on for school.
I hope this is helpful.
Please read the Scripture I offered.
If it takes 4 chapters of Scripture to explain it, do you think I can do it justice with fewer words? That's why I directed you to read the Scriptures. This takes patience and contemplation.
Do you want the super-quick version? Fine, but if you don't contemplate the related Scriptures given, you may find it confusing.
1. Melchizedek was a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus.
2. He was a king and priest of God.
3. Melchizedek received tithes under His priesthood (non-mandatory).
4. His priesthood never ended; it remains still.
5. For a limited time, for the Jews the principle of tithing was oriented into the Mosaic law to be required.
7. Christians are free from the law, meaning they are free from the requirement to tithe.
8. Melchizedek's priesthood was never abolished or changed because it's not Jewish or Christian.
9. The Jewish covenants did not alter it... it remains.
10. The Christian covenant did not alter it...it remains.
11. Now Jesus is the permanent, bodily manifestation of God's original priest, Melchizedek (same person...different form).
12. Jesus continues to hold this permanent priesthood because it is a priesthood of faith; it operates on faith.
“[Melchizedek] remains a priest perpetually.” (Hebrews 7:3)
You may not understand this, but this is what the Bible says.
I have to go for now. I have finals to work on for school.
I hope this is helpful.
Please read the Scripture I offered.
If you read further, I also said that tithing is associated with the priesthood of Melchizedek. So the combination of independence of the law and its association with the current priesthood sets it apart from circumcision. The fact that tithing and circumcision have that particular thing in common does not justify your generalization of my description as relevant to my point.
Tithing was before the law. Then it was used in the law (for the Jews). Then it was not used in the law (for the Jews).
The law is obsolete, meaning what the required is no longer required. And I do maintain that tithing is not required. We are in agreement there.
It's first fruits, regardless of where it comes from. Come on, man. You already know that and you know what I meant. Don't twist my words.
I guess you could say that about the whole book because the theme of Hebrews is the supremacy of Jesus (as high priest).
But if we're talking about the parts of chapters mean, the Aaronic concept doesn't begin until verse 9 of ch 7. But I was quoting from the discourse concerning Abraham and Melchizedek.
“But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater.” (Heb 7:7) Abraham is the "lesser" here, contextually.
So again, I will say, "Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek was a gesture of honor and recognition of His supremacy as One who is greater and immortal (Heb 7:8)"
Yep, that's why I connected it with Romans 14 and Col 2. These passages teach us how to deal with matters of choice rather than requirements.
I'm curious what you think ... I'm not asking whether the Sabbath is required. My question to you is:
Does honoring the Sabbath (today) glorify God?
Tithing was before the law. Then it was used in the law (for the Jews). Then it was not used in the law (for the Jews).
The law is obsolete, meaning what the required is no longer required. And I do maintain that tithing is not required. We are in agreement there.
It's first fruits, regardless of where it comes from. Come on, man. You already know that and you know what I meant. Don't twist my words.
I guess you could say that about the whole book because the theme of Hebrews is the supremacy of Jesus (as high priest).
But if we're talking about the parts of chapters mean, the Aaronic concept doesn't begin until verse 9 of ch 7. But I was quoting from the discourse concerning Abraham and Melchizedek.
“But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater.” (Heb 7:7) Abraham is the "lesser" here, contextually.
So again, I will say, "Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek was a gesture of honor and recognition of His supremacy as One who is greater and immortal (Heb 7:8)"
Yep, that's why I connected it with Romans 14 and Col 2. These passages teach us how to deal with matters of choice rather than requirements.
“The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God.
Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.” (Rom 14:22)
Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.” (Rom 14:22)
I'm curious what you think ... I'm not asking whether the Sabbath is required. My question to you is:
Does honoring the Sabbath (today) glorify God?
-
1
- Show all
In Hebrews 7, tithing is mentioned to demonstrate the superiority of Melchizedek's priesthood over that of Aaron... that's it. There is nothing in the text even hinting that Christians are to tithe.
The Sabbath is a closely related issue. Some Christians think that we are still required to take a day off the rest of life to honour the Lord, and they argue that all Christians should do so, despite the clear explanation (in Hebrews, of all places) that our true Sabbath is in Christ, not in cessation of activity. Less-knowledgeable Christians get confused and drawn into sick legalism, some eventually getting so deceived that they argue for a return to the Law themselves. The entire Seventh Day Adventist group is the result of such error.
Aside from Abraham's tithing of war spoils (not even his own goods, by the way), tithing in Scripture is never voluntary, and it is not the same thing as firstfruits, or offerings, or any other submission of goods to the Lord. People use "tithing" to mean "giving" and confuse others into legalism. I encourage people to just call what they give "giving" and leave it at that, no matter what percentage they give.
The Sabbath is a closely related issue. Some Christians think that we are still required to take a day off the rest of life to honour the Lord, and they argue that all Christians should do so, despite the clear explanation (in Hebrews, of all places) that our true Sabbath is in Christ, not in cessation of activity. Less-knowledgeable Christians get confused and drawn into sick legalism, some eventually getting so deceived that they argue for a return to the Law themselves. The entire Seventh Day Adventist group is the result of such error.
Aside from Abraham's tithing of war spoils (not even his own goods, by the way), tithing in Scripture is never voluntary, and it is not the same thing as firstfruits, or offerings, or any other submission of goods to the Lord. People use "tithing" to mean "giving" and confuse others into legalism. I encourage people to just call what they give "giving" and leave it at that, no matter what percentage they give.
A lot of trouble comes when we think our faith begins at the cross. Our faith includes the gospel of Christ but the entire gospel is the gospel of God. The two are inseparable but distinct. Even though both are eternal gospels, both require an appearing in the earth.
In truth, we began in the mind of God and His dealing with man began before creation. The first priestly order was the order of Melchizedek. The second priestly order was the Order of Levi, Moses, or Aaron under the Law. Today, reconciliation (the act of putting things back in their original order) includes being brought back, again, into the order of Melchizedek, with Christ as the High Priest.
Years ago I wondered why God did not call it "The order of Christ" or "Christ Jesus". Part of the answer is that men knew the lineage of Jesus and that His lineage was Jewish. What would have arisen in the hearts of men was an order biased against non-Jews. With Melchizedek we have no lineage to trace. He was only known as the King of Salem (Peace) and the priest of the Most High God.
"For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God..."
These are aspects of his character and His position with God. This is the same position to which we are called:
"But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation..."
One last and perhaps most important difference between the priesthood of Levi and the Priesthood of Melchizedek:
Priests of Levi represent the people before God.
Priests of Melchizedek represent God before the people.
"Jesus said, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent Me, so also I am sending you.'"
This is why there is so much confusion about tithing in the church: A church where the pastor hears from God for the people is patterned after the order of Levi. Under that pattern, the tithe is required. In the order of Melchizedek, the tithe is given to the ones who bless. And the greater always blesses the lesser.
In truth, we began in the mind of God and His dealing with man began before creation. The first priestly order was the order of Melchizedek. The second priestly order was the Order of Levi, Moses, or Aaron under the Law. Today, reconciliation (the act of putting things back in their original order) includes being brought back, again, into the order of Melchizedek, with Christ as the High Priest.
Years ago I wondered why God did not call it "The order of Christ" or "Christ Jesus". Part of the answer is that men knew the lineage of Jesus and that His lineage was Jewish. What would have arisen in the hearts of men was an order biased against non-Jews. With Melchizedek we have no lineage to trace. He was only known as the King of Salem (Peace) and the priest of the Most High God.
"For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God..."
These are aspects of his character and His position with God. This is the same position to which we are called:
"But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation..."
One last and perhaps most important difference between the priesthood of Levi and the Priesthood of Melchizedek:
Priests of Levi represent the people before God.
Priests of Melchizedek represent God before the people.
"Jesus said, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent Me, so also I am sending you.'"
This is why there is so much confusion about tithing in the church: A church where the pastor hears from God for the people is patterned after the order of Levi. Under that pattern, the tithe is required. In the order of Melchizedek, the tithe is given to the ones who bless. And the greater always blesses the lesser.
Right. I actually am answering everything he asks (unless it holds a false constraint built into the question). But when I give him a simple answer, he doesn't understand how my answer fits his paradigm, so he follows up like, "But then how could...", etc. So he's basically trying to deconstruct what I believe, but every layer he opens up makes it worse for him.
You didn't answer my question.
I'm not asking whether the Sabbath is required. My question to you is:
Does honoring the Sabbath (today) glorify God?
I never said, "Christians are to tithe". That's obligatory. You're fighting a strawman. Please stop misrepresenting me when I have already gone out of my way several times to say tithing is not an obligation. Tithing falls under the umbrella of Romans 14 (matters of faith-matters not required of anyone).
I only identified specific points about Heb 7 (not the theme of the chapter/book). You are generalizing what I said and criticizing that generalization.
This is what I said ...
... I didn't say the passage wasn't about Melchizedek's superiority. In fact, I affirmed it.
I pointed out that He was immortal and that His priesthood never ended because He never ended.
Yes, so true. I totally agree. And this has nothing to do with the motivation, intention, or meaning of anything I've written here.
Aside from the Law, tithing in Scripture is always voluntary (Gen 14:20, Rom 14:6, 22-23, Col 2:16, Heb 7:8)
Does honoring the Sabbath (today) glorify God?
I'm not asking whether the Sabbath is required. My question to you is:
Does honoring the Sabbath (today) glorify God?
I never said, "Christians are to tithe". That's obligatory. You're fighting a strawman. Please stop misrepresenting me when I have already gone out of my way several times to say tithing is not an obligation. Tithing falls under the umbrella of Romans 14 (matters of faith-matters not required of anyone).
I only identified specific points about Heb 7 (not the theme of the chapter/book). You are generalizing what I said and criticizing that generalization.
This is what I said ...
... I didn't say the passage wasn't about Melchizedek's superiority. In fact, I affirmed it.
I pointed out that He was immortal and that His priesthood never ended because He never ended.
Yes, so true. I totally agree. And this has nothing to do with the motivation, intention, or meaning of anything I've written here.
Aside from the Law, tithing in Scripture is always voluntary (Gen 14:20, Rom 14:6, 22-23, Col 2:16, Heb 7:8)
Does honoring the Sabbath (today) glorify God?
